Kenji Matsubara, CEO of newly-formed publisher Tecmo Koei, has wasted no time in making a repeat request for a PS3 price cut, and is cautiously optimistic about Xbox 360 in Japan.
"Whenever I discuss this with Sony reps, I always ask them: 'Please cut the price,' but I don't have a clear view on Sony's situation," he said when interviewed by CVG. "It's definitely a way of boosting the PS3 market, but it's Sony's strategy and I don't know their cost structure. Sony introduced cutting-edge technology in the PS3, that's why people in the industry accept that the PS3 cost is so high, but we'd welcome a price cut."
Speaking with website Kikizo, meanwhile, he recognised the momentum of Xbox 360 in Japan, at least compared to its predecessor. "Xbox 360 as a business is doing better than the old Xbox. They have a good opportunity for growth, but of course Sony is a Japanese company and Microsoft is known as a business software company, so brand image is one point. But Microsoft is doing well, especially considering how difficult it is these days.”
In Europe, Sony has welcomed the merger of two of Japan’s leading publishers. “They have been great partners for PlayStation over many years,” says SCEE vice president Jim Ryan. “And the fact that we can make properties such as Dynasty Warriors, Dead or Alive and Ninja Gaiden more accessible to the UK market is fantastic news.”
Tecmo Koei’s first game is set to be Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2, a PS3 exclusive due later this year. Titles to follow include Quantum for PS3, Undead Knights for PSP, and Warriors: Legends Of Troy for 360 and PS3. If there’s a Western flavour to the line-up, it’s deliberate.
“The European video game market is expanding very rapidly, while Japan has stood still,” Matsubara told MCV. “Our European business is not so big at the moment, but we see many opportunities for us to expand the business, and this is why we’ve created Tecmo Koei Europe. With this office we want to establish a major brand image and also major publisher status throughout Europe. To do this we need titles.”
Let me get this straight.. is anyone here arguing that the PS3 shouldn't be cheaper..? Because.. it would be nice if it was cheaper.. I mean.. right?
I think it would be. There are some great games on PS3 and more to come and I think the community as a whole will benefit with more PS3 owners. My personal opinion is I've never put as much weight on the cost of the hardware since it's a one-time expense. I'd much rather see the average price of new games return to $49.99 USD. That, I believe, has decreased game sales. Just my $.02.
***Edit***
He just really wants a Japanese manufacturer to win.
cutting edge tech? Seriously, beyond Blu-Ray, to two systems are virtually identical.
X360: x3 Core + Multi-Threading processor @ 3.2GHz = 6 Threads at once
PS3: x7 Cell processor @ 3.2GHz (1 proc' tells 6 others what to do) = 6 Threads at once.
X360: 512MB unified RAM = 512MB (400MB RAM accessible maximum)
PS3: 256MB RAM + 256 Video RAM = 512MB (256MB RAM accessible constant)
X360 GPU = 500 MHz
PS3 GPU = 550 MHz
I don't see a difference. The only real separation is the 360's DVD-Drive vs. PS3's BD-Drive. The Xbox has only 9GB of data to work with, but can access this data twice as fast as the PS3 can access it's data. If you can work within the size parameters, the Xbox would always outperform the PS3.
Having exponentially more size to make your game doesn't mean it will look or sound superior. Just ask Sega when they "pitted" the Sega CD against the Super NES.
You do know that access times are roughly the same on average for both DVD and Blu Ray? Blu Ray's access times are constant and DVD's are variable depending on what part of the disk is being read and at it's peak it's true to say that DVD's access times are faster.
Also comparing a poorly supported add-on to a fully supported full console is a bit of a dodgy argument to make. SEGA's policy of focusing on FMV games that were similar to laser disk games, for which the 512 colour palette and processor weren't suited for was the main reason why the peripheral didn't produce many decent looking (for the time) games.
"Win"????
I'm starting to believe that the consumer as a really twisted view about how things work. In a way this companies created the notion that you are now in some sort of "team" where you marry your product of choice.
Please, nobody has to pick up a flag for a company that is not yours. This products offer different things to different types of consumers. The fact that you don't want something one product has over the other doesn't invalidate people who do want it.
This silly fight is always annoying...Please go do something productive.
BUILT-IN WI-FI, FFS.
I'm not saying it's cutting edge; I'm saying it's a major difference.
You forgot to mention PS3's built-in Wi-Fi support, free online gaming, built-in browser support, upgradable hard-drive option, region free gaming and excellent stability!
The 360 has none of the above!
The 360 is inferior compared to the PS3 in terms of hardware. Don't kid yourself!
Indrema just got owned. lol.
I did forget Wi-Fi, & that's a huge oversight on my part. It would add something to the price - not much - but I don't think it counts as superior tech; anymore than one could argue that 4 controller ports vs. 2 superior tech. Although this difference is definitely more visible given the ridiculous prices Microsoft charges for Wireless Accessories.
Forgetting "upgradeable hard-drive" - They both have that & it doesn't really count, all of the other PS3-specific aspects are features. "Browser support" & "Region-Free" are more in the comparison of a "Robust Online Community" & such. It would be like saying the Wii's "Virtual Console" proves it has superior technology inside.
Free Online shouldn't be counted either as it's been discovered that publishers are forced to fund their online presence themselves, not some internal "magic" device that makes online free. Also, since this has seriously decreased publisher's commitment to Sony's online space, this is more of a handicap than a feature.
I used to work retail, & while the RRoD might be more prominent. We saw a lot of PS3's come back defective. Both consoles were obviously rushed, and hopefully Sony can work these kinks out sooner than Microsoft.
Even so, superior tech is hardware-related. Versatility of the CPU, strength of the GPU, size of the RAM, etc., etc. Superior tech would involve one device's power over another to produce a greater visual/audible/computational experience at the greatest level of speed. That is the part that always confuses me, & it seems to be the part that confuses Kenji Matsubara; as he stated he doesn't understand their pricing structure. Sony can charge whatever they want, but the hardware differential appears to be Blu-Ray. That would account for the price difference in anyone's book, but the opinion many developers seem to share is that it's simply not a selling point.
Lastly, yes, Japanese developers do, in fact, prefer other Japanese companies succeed over Western companies. It's no secret. They're not even very quiet about it. Go to any trade show & start talking. I say about a one-beer-minimum gets you as much Western-Bashing as you can stomach. I myself have heard many Japanese Reps complain about how video games are Japanese affairs. They cited Atari, in 1983, as an example......Atari! In 1-9-8-3! as the reason Americans have no business making video game hardware.
{
Both consoles were obviously rushed
}
Are you high? The PS3's stability is excellent. You're just making bollocks up now.
Sigh...
Both consoles were obviously rushed.
No they weren't, only the 360 was! You're talking shit here buddy!
RRoD might be more prominent. We saw a lot of PS3's come back defective.
Mate, your credibility just vanished on here with that statement. It's the classic 360 fanboy reply when anyone mentions how good the PS3's stability is.
I own both PS3 (since launch) and the 360, in that time i've had 4 360's die on me and zero PS3 replacements.
Your comment above is just a dick move in reply to the chap below.
Ok, this RRoD issue is clearly like some sort of rallying call to the PS3 fanboys, so just to make it clear, as if this hasn't been said a million times before, the RRoD was a big problem withe the Xenon 360 but has since mostly been cleared up by motherboard revisions. I say mostly because you are still going to get a certain level of hardware falure on any product so yes, it still happens, but so do PS3 hardware failures. To underline the point i was talking to a friend who works in a game shop (gamestation) about the hardware failure rate and he said that, other than with the original Xenon model (which obviously dies all the time, though is covered by the warranty) the PS3 and 360 have about an even failure rate with perhaps the PS3 being a little worse due to a growing number of Blu Ray drive failures. This is obviously a very small poll as it relates to one shop so i would be interested to hear if this is reflected elsewhere. If you work in a games shop what's your experience?
Also not sure what the point is about the Japanese and Atari as wern't they an American company?
I actually didn't know they weren't American then, & neither did the Japanese dev's I spoke with. Many of them have said, almost word for word, "Just look at Atari in 1983. They caused the entire industry to crash. Americans have no business making hardware. You don't know how to do it. It will always be a Japanese affair. We know how to do it "right." It's like they learned it in school.
You're missing the point though, the 360 out of the box doesn't have :
- built-in Wi-Fi support (an expensive peripheral for the 360)
- free online gaming
- built-in browser support
- upgradable hard-drive option (upgrade to a 320GB HDD and more on the 360, i think not),
- region free gaming
- excellent stability!
Your rant is meaningless!
I did, in fact, state that I had forgotten wifi. I also stated that the wifi peripheral from Microsoft was ridiculously overpriced.
And still, everything mentioned are features.
- free online gaming has hindered content availability. It's potential sounds better "on paper", but with 1/10th the content you could unbelievably make the argument "You get what you pay for."
- Having a larger Hard Drive option does not make the other one not upgradeable. Tomorrow, the Xbox could release a 500GB Hard Drive; so that feature is meaningless.
- Browser & Region Free are features. It's nice, but the same can be argued about any feature specific to each platform - be it the Virtual Console, NXE, Motion-Orbs, Natel. I don't know why this is so hard to understand? The Cell-processor does not in any way create a new a way to play discs overseas, and it's greatness is not required to harness the might of the World Wide Web.
Besides, how would either of the above features benefit Tecmo? The company addressing the post. The browser isn't increasing the install base, and region-free would only eat into their profit margin.
Although I do like how everyone calls me a liar because I said I saw defective PS3's. Maybe they were both rushed, maybe neither were rushed. They could even be all fixed now. I don't know. I don't work there anymore. It doesn't matter. I saw a good number of defective PS3's months after launch. Believing that an electronic device can be so advanced, & at the same time, never break is quite a bold statement....to say the least.
.....What confused me was the statement about superior technology. For as meaningless as my "rant" must sound, no one has been able to tell me how it is actually superior. How does it Go Faster, Shade better, Crunch more Polygons, hold more textures in its RAM, Produce more Lifelike A.I, generate higher resolution, or in any way create an experience I can't find somewhere else.....That would be considered superior tech.
You can't just gloss over the parts you don't like just because you don't have an answer. What do expect? Calling me a liar/fanboy, while ignoring my question, & I'll just look at it, enraged, & forget that nothing was addressed? At best, restated.
They really are exactly the same system.
Jesus, you're just not getting me. For the last time, the 360 out of the box doesn't have :
- built-in Wi-Fi support (an expensive peripheral for the 360)
- free online gaming
- built-in browser support
- upgradable hard-drive option (upgrade to a 320GB HDD and more on the 360, i think not),
- region free gaming
- excellent stability!
FACT!
For the last time, I admitted that I forgot Wi-Fi, & that it does count. I'll even rescind to vastly greater stability, but how does that effect Tecmo?
But you will have to explain what aspect of the technology allows for a greater theoretical limit of the upgradable hard-drive. If they are both "after-market" options that must be purchased, how is that an Out-of-the-Box benefit.
And sorry if I'm being obtuse, but -
What piece of the hardware generates Free Wi-Fi? When you find out, can you tell Tecmo; as I'm certain they're tired of paying Sony for it.
What piece of the hardware is required for browser support that can't be achieved on other devices? How is this different from the Virtual Console in terms of a console-specific feature? - Besides the fact that you don't care about the Virtual Console as much as the browser
What piece of the hardware is required for region-free gaming? How does the omission of a lock-out chip qualify as superior technology. The Atari 7800 did not have a lock-out chip, but the NES & Master System did. Are you saying that the Atari 7800 had superior technology to the NES & the Sega Master System?
How would any of these..."hardware?"..technologies produce, in any way, a superior gaming experience? In other words, when I turn on Grand Theft Auto 4, what aspect of the Playstation 3's architecture would make it look better, sound better, play better, move faster, draw farther, anti alias higher, shade deeper, or make the NPC's more realistic?
- Blu-Ray is the single piece of advanced tech the PS3 has that would account for the premium price. At half the read speed of the Xbox DVD-drive, even this is difficult to demonstrate. If it were simply, Wi-Fi, they would have eaten that cost a year ago. They're stuck with it. That's the sole price differential, & it's hurting them because it hasn't caused the mass-hysteria that DVD's did - there were no other options of similar quality at the time. So they just have to eat-it & get on with it.
500GB HDD - VOID ON 360!
upgrade to a 320GB HDD and more on the 360, i think not!
The 360 is only limited to 120GB at present, do you see where i'm coming from!
Can you upgrade to 500GB on the 360...no you can't.
You're like the mental patient that doesn't know he's mental.
This whole hard drive debate seems a little redundant, how big a drive do you really need for game saves and add-ons, my 360 has a 120 gig drive and it's half empty (even with several games installed). If you're filling up the drive with other media (music, video, photos etc) then you can plug an off the shelf usb drive into one of the ports on the 360 and use that instead, or just keep all that stuff on your PC and stream it across your network.
I don't see how this is an Out of the Box feature? What am I missing? Your comment seems to imply that you must purchase this after-market; which would have to negate it as an Out of the Box benefit simply due to the fact that it would not actually be in the box at the time of purchase.
Is there some included coupon that allows you to obtain this 500GB hard-drive for free?
Also, are you saying there is some physical limitation to the Xbox chipset that doesn't allow for a hard-drive over 120GB, or just that one isn't available for purchase?
I would understand if there was some hardware limitation, but otherwise, what's to prevent Microsoft from releasing one? Just like HDMI, 1080p, Natel, Orb-Wands, or a "Rumble-Sixaxis".
I think Riders point is that the consumer can upgrade the HDD on the PS3 to suit ones needs, the minute they buy the console. The consumer can buy a 500GB if they wish.
The 360 on the other hand, uses an expensive proprietary HDD, hence the consumer can only use what MS feeds them i.e. 20/60/120GB HDD.
That's funny.
I was just reading that about 45 seconds ago. That makes a lot more sense in comparing the value of the "swappable", non-proprietary hard-drive. that's the key word there. One that nobody's using. It wouldn't improve the quality of gaming, but it would go a long way in selling the value of the system. Although, clearly not an included feature.
Sony should be more upfront about that feature. It's like you have to buy it & try it to learn about it. This is a big part of Sony's problems right now. I'm sure this is on some Playstation forum, but it's not advertised on TV or in stores - at least not in America. You can't sell to new customers by never leaving your website forums. Unless someone's already vested in the company, they'll never get that far.
This is especially important as the PS3 is, obviously, not graphically or computationally more powerful than the Xbox in any way. No one can discover any information to the contrary. It seems it's non-gaming abilities are it's sole differences. Since this, in no way, impacts gaming; it would be impossible to sell consumers on the price with a store demo alone.
EDIT: I guess the unfortunate end of all this is that Sony decided the best course of action was to release all the features they could think of. Customers would see it and say - "That's the everything box!!" - but that never seems to work for anybody.
People played movies, browsed the web, set up Wi-Fi, & said "That's cool.", but at the end of the day, two friends booted up their perspective systems.....& the games looked absolutely identical. Word got around that $100/$200 premium priced machine produced the same graphics as the older, cheaper system. In defense of the price, free online was argued, but there was nothing to play. Developers have proven they are less willing to pay for online than consumers, and to this Sony has yet to recover.
Word got around that $100/$200 premium priced machine produced the same graphics as the older, cheaper system.
That's all and well saying that, but in reality, if someone bought a 360 and wanted to have Wi-Fi, play online based on a 12 month sub and upgrade their HDD to 120GB, you're talking $310 worth of accessories. Even more here in Scotland.
That's a huge amount to pay.
MS are fly, they hide the cost of the essentials through add-ons, thus making the bare bones system look cheap.
In reality, the 360 "can" and "is" more expensive than the PS3, all things considered.
The PS3 on the other hand offers all these essentials out of the box (as pointed out by Rider).
I personally wouldn't touch the 360 or PS3 with a barge pole due to their current price at the moment.
Plus the fact, i'm sick of the fanboys on both sides fucking bitching all the time. It's all you ever see on the net, no matter the site. They should all grow up, get laid and get a fucking life!
I don't think it's fair at all, but I do think that's the mentality.
I kept hearing all this superior technology talk, from companies and consumers; so I had to know exactly what that means. From what I can surmise, technology is being confused with features. That's all fine & good, but it creates a false perception among potential customers.
Using every previous generation as a precedent - when a new console is released a year after a competitor, the expectation is that it will appear visually & audibly superior. It might not be the best qualifier for quality, but it is the one people have been using for two decades. PS3 ads made statements like "Images, Sounds, & Game Play never before seen.". Sony they propagated the stereotype that everything would look & sound better on the PS3. They knew the 360's spec's as much as their own, as well the access-time issues of the BD-Drive. They shouldn't have made those claims.
Every generation has the higher-end latecomer, - Master System, SNES, N64, XBox - but the PS3 is the very first console in history to be released a full year after its competitor to not provide visual or gameplay improvements over its competition. The Wii stressed often that all improvements would interface related, & delivered on that promise. All a consumer would see when playing a PS3, in stores, was a fat Xbox hooked up to a PS2 controller.
It might be a better value, but every time anyone uses the term "Superior Technology", it implies something that isn't there. Consumers won't look for added value; they'll look for enhanced graphics. Most people won't consider anything else; as there was an expectation going in.
Mate, it's all Sony PR bullshit, all firms do it! Don't take it so literally.
Also, cool it on the bold...we hear you.
A lot of times I like to bold entire paragraphs when I feel it's getting long - breaks it up better. I'm not yelling.
I know it's PR, but when you're going against a 20 year precedent, you'd better highlight what differences you're trying to achieve this time around. A good PR department should know better. Accomplished PR teams oversell benefits, & downplay anything that could be perceived as weakness. This is why you never hear a Nintendo interview without "It's not about the graphics" come up at least once.
Because, at the end of the day, people buy PR Bullshit.
I clearly see your point. An argument can be made that the PS3 offers more incentive when it comes to features (BRD, Wi-Fi, free online gaming...although, you can argue the PS3 doesn't even come with component cables or a headset that's not the same value, but it's essential...and missing) but your point wasn't which system had the most feature value, but which one was superior in the graphics/audio department. BluRay only adds storage space and does nothing for graphic capability. Wi-Fi, nothing enhances game play/graphic capability, free internet also adds nothing to graphic or audio fidelity. The average gamer wants to see which one looks better and when they see to systems sitting side-by-side at a retailer they're not looking at, "Oh look at that free Wi-Fi right there that looks sick, and the lighting on that bluray drive is crazy, and did I mention how amazing that free internet looked when you was swimming through that water?" They say, damn, those games look the same and the 360 is up to 300 cheaper (100-200 cheaper to be fair) I'm going with that one.
Of course there are gamers like us who know all that going in, but we make up just a fraction of the user base. Most of my friends don't know half the crap we talk about, they just think Halo looks sick, or they really liked Gran Turismo on their PS2 so they're getting a PS3 for it.
And the other argument about the PS3 having a better value, well who said they WANT to pay extra for non-gaming features they may not even care about? I've used this analogy before, but if you want an Altima V6 power, you can buy the base V6 Altima and get 270 horses or you can buy the V6 Altima that has navigation, 6 disc in-dash, and leather for 8k more, but you still get the same 270 horses. The Altima looks and functions the same, but you have amenities that don't add to the driving capabilities of the car. You may not care about leather, navigation, or a 6 disc cd player you just want the power, handling, and acceleration so you'll pay 8k less for the same driving experience. Same with the PS3, I have no need for Wi-Fi or bluray, and on the contrary I have much need for HD cables and a headset (though I upgraded to HDMI with the elite). So for me, the 360 was a better value because it offered the extras I actually wanted/needed. The PS3 would have cost more, offering me extras I don't want/need and didn't have the extras I did need. So it's all relative anyway. But in the end, the performances of the 360 and PS3 are pretty much the same. You get your 270 horses out of them both, and to most gamers, that's the bottom line.
The average gamer wants to see which one looks better
Correction: the average moron wants to see which one "looks better." Do you think the bazillions of people who bought a Wii—arguably the best repesentation of an average gamer—give a crap about whether or not it "looks better?" People who buy games based on whether or not they "look sick" make up a fraction of the user base, and that fraction is shrinking rapidly.
to most gamers, that's the bottom line
I think that in 2009 it's safe to say that most gamers want wi-fi and would rather not pay $100 for the privilege. As long as wi-fi is still an add-on and still costs $100 your argument holds no water. There is simply no defending that price.
(Also, car analogies fail. Just ask Microsoft how well car analogies worked for them vis-a-vis Windows!)
We're more than halfway through 2009, bearing in mind that everybody wants Wi-Fi, and the PS3 is still in third place.
I wanted to figure all this out, I really did, I liked the PS2, and I want to like the PS3, but I'm having a hard time with the buy-in. A lot of people called me a moron for questioning it.
- So tell me Dubs, since only morons care about side-by-side comparisons, why do you think nobody's buying it? That's something that can't be argued. Gaming has only increased since the PS2, and people sure aren't buying this thing like the PS2. I had a theory - based on the posts given - and you say it's wrong. If price is holding them back, then they do not see the value. If people do see the value of the PS3, what are they not seeing?
For as much as we argue, it continues in last place.
Oh, and I'm not defending that price, it's absurd and so is their HDD prices. But that proves my point even more, a lot of gamers don't even connect their system to the internet and a lot of people have non-wireless routers. I will have to disagree with you that in '09 more people want WI-Fi than not. It can be argued that broadband is still in its infancy and you can argue that people who moved to high-speed internet did so with wires. If there were so inclined to connect their system to the internet they most likely would have to buy a wireless router anyway so they're already looking at investing some money into wireless whether or not the system itself has Wi-Fi built in. I chose to get a long cord and hide it under carpet. 14.99 ethernet cable vs Wi-FI adapter (xbox 1) AND a wirelss router (over $50 bucks at the time).
The problem here is Sony is forcing features on you you might not need and thus forcing the extra cost on you. If the PS3 was $299 and $399 at launch WITH those features built in then that would be something to brag about. It's not like you're NOT paying for the BluRay player and Wi-Fi you're just being forced to pay for it. You're still paying for those items you're just not choosing to.
This is the ideal situation, Sony doesn't charge you $500-$600 dollars because they're forcing you to fit the bill for the extra features, they take the hit and you get those built in at essentially no extra cost. I think the most ideal situation is they allow you to choose whether or not you want HD physical medium movie playback or Wi-Fi but charge a reasonable price (eh-hem MS). I think MS did right by not forcing you to buy into extra features that don't add to the gameplay experience but they screwed up by significantly overcharging (which you can argue Sony is overcharging for the Wi-FI and BluRay considering the system IS 100-200 dollars more than the 360). Take those non-gaming features away and what should the PS3 cost? $199? $299? You could say they're charging you $200 bucks for the Bluray player and Wi-Fi.
Ok, I get what you're saying but I wouldn't call them morons, just maybe more casual gamers. They care more about the games themselves and how they look not which one has bluray, wifi, HDD size, free internet. They care little about that (either due to lack of knowledge or just not giving a shit about those things). I've met people who had Xbox 1s that didn't know you could rip the CDs to the HDD. Or people that didn't know you could upgrade the PS3's HDD with any HDD you'd like. You can’t overestimate (or underestimate the casuals) and like you said, the Wii has sold quite a bit of consoles and obviously people don't care that the graphics are sub-par relative to the HD twins but I can assure you most of the Wii owners don't know it has Wi-Fi built in, could care less about Wi-Fi, or even know what Wi-Fi is. They care about enjoying the games they like. I think that goes for all casuals (and there are all kinds of gamers that are 360/PS3 gamers that aren't hardcore, or as hardcore as others, they could care less about what we bicker about on here, they're aren't the ones who are renting or buying movies/videos of the marketplace, they don't buy DLC, they don't care how big the HDD is, they just care that it saves their games, they just plug the game in and play. To those "morons" the only thing that matters is the games themselves and if they enjoy it. They're not going to enjoy their game more because somewhere in the back of their mind they're thinking, "This game is fun because I know I can watch bluray movies on this system, or I don't have the internet connect to my PS3 with a wire which makes this game so much more fun."
In the overall scheme of things, we core gamers are the minority not the casuals, and the ones who make up most of the purchases are people who care more about price and good games, and less about the extra bullshit these systems offer. Which is why I think Sony finds themselves in the precarious position of having the "most value" system but the smallest installed base.
ps. and why the hell is my posts showing up in italics?
Fuck them all i.e. Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo.
I can't believe people on here are prepared to glorify a lump of plastic they own, it's fucking pathetic!