Skip to main content

PS3 Pics & Specs

Submitted by TheBigJ on
Forum

Not sure how accurate any of this is but very interesting.

[url]http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000050043558[/url] (I'm pretty sure the console pics here are old concepts)
[url]http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000620043567[/url] (That is surely not the real controller)
[url]http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000203043552[/url] (These seem more believable)

2.18 teraflops @ 3.2GHz? Damn.

Submitted by Jacana on Fri, 12/05/06 - 6:52 PM Permalink

quote:
Nintendo are a wildcard, but I don't see them taking the largest market share ? they seem to me to be a secondary novel console to the average gamer's main console

I think with the prices and "party games" you will find that Nintendo is marketing itself as the "verage" gamers console, where as Xbox and PS3 will be the "non-average gamers" console.

Nintendo is very much marketing itself to the average gamer, and from my understanding, is trying to find ways to cut the cost of the Wii even further, to make it the cheapest entry on the market.

Of those figures you posted, I wonder how many of those were open day sales, and how many of those were purchased two or three years down the road when prices dropped. Because only your "non-average" gamers will buy 90% of the consoles in the first year of sales. It won't be until they drop 50% in price that you'll find your "average" gamers will buy them.

Submitted by CynicalFan on Sat, 13/05/06 - 5:50 AM Permalink

If you are commenting in relation to the comments I have made and the figures I used then sure, a lot of gamers didn't buy consoles as soon as they came out but rather waited until they were a lot more "reasonable." But that makes no difference in relation to the figures. I have been tracking them since early 2003, and the ratio is always the same, PS2 way ahead with the XBOX leading slightly more over the GCube - I have found no evidence that it was any different before I started to keep a track of them.

The "average" gamer is the PS3 / X360 market, not the Nintendo offering that is the Wii. As far as I can tell, and I must stress that I am not a Nintendo Fan boy or girl but, Nintendo seem to be marketing their console to the non-average gamer, the "casual" gamer - mobile phone gamers for instance, which I think is largely female from what I recall.

Their goal appears to be to tap into those that are not hardcore gamers, and tap into a market that so far has not been reached, in a similar fashion that the iPod did - I see that as being rather slim, and even if they do have some success, they will be out-done by Sony for one.

But all this said, every time a new generation of platforms arrive, there is all this talk and most of it comes straight out of people's arses. People can make predictions, sometimes really good predictions, sometimes really spot-on scary predictions, but most of the time they are either a little off or way off. So only time will tell what the outcome will be, as there are always unforeseen events, fads, etc, that can lead to unexpected outcomes.

So maybe the Nintendo Piss will win out in the end after all ;).

Submitted by Jacana on Mon, 15/05/06 - 7:42 PM Permalink

Not saying I disagree with your comments. I think it's more a matter of what is defined as the "average" gamer. To me, the average gamer is someone who will ever only own 1 console and will buy that about 2 years after it has come out.

I am sure your stats are correct, I just wondered what the buy point was from that. To see when they finally do get picked-up by the more mainstream market rather than the early adopters.

Having said all that, I still wonder about Nintendo for an "average" market. I guess it depends on how well they market themselves and how much they will distribute their product. I think in other areas of the world they very much are for the average gamter, but in Australia we get the dregs, if anything, from them.

Submitted by Morphine on Mon, 15/05/06 - 8:25 PM Permalink

Now, it either company were really smart (or stupid, depending on cost/time/effort), why doesn't a development group within either/both Microsoft/Sony look at creating middleware for games to run on the opposing console?

I know I know, lotsa lotsa programming involved, but would the cost offset prove a wise investment in the future console wars and market share? Who knows.

Posted by TheBigJ on
Forum

Not sure how accurate any of this is but very interesting.

[url]http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000050043558[/url] (I'm pretty sure the console pics here are old concepts)
[url]http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000620043567[/url] (That is surely not the real controller)
[url]http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000203043552[/url] (These seem more believable)

2.18 teraflops @ 3.2GHz? Damn.


Submitted by Jacana on Fri, 12/05/06 - 6:52 PM Permalink

quote:
Nintendo are a wildcard, but I don't see them taking the largest market share ? they seem to me to be a secondary novel console to the average gamer's main console

I think with the prices and "party games" you will find that Nintendo is marketing itself as the "verage" gamers console, where as Xbox and PS3 will be the "non-average gamers" console.

Nintendo is very much marketing itself to the average gamer, and from my understanding, is trying to find ways to cut the cost of the Wii even further, to make it the cheapest entry on the market.

Of those figures you posted, I wonder how many of those were open day sales, and how many of those were purchased two or three years down the road when prices dropped. Because only your "non-average" gamers will buy 90% of the consoles in the first year of sales. It won't be until they drop 50% in price that you'll find your "average" gamers will buy them.

Submitted by CynicalFan on Sat, 13/05/06 - 5:50 AM Permalink

If you are commenting in relation to the comments I have made and the figures I used then sure, a lot of gamers didn't buy consoles as soon as they came out but rather waited until they were a lot more "reasonable." But that makes no difference in relation to the figures. I have been tracking them since early 2003, and the ratio is always the same, PS2 way ahead with the XBOX leading slightly more over the GCube - I have found no evidence that it was any different before I started to keep a track of them.

The "average" gamer is the PS3 / X360 market, not the Nintendo offering that is the Wii. As far as I can tell, and I must stress that I am not a Nintendo Fan boy or girl but, Nintendo seem to be marketing their console to the non-average gamer, the "casual" gamer - mobile phone gamers for instance, which I think is largely female from what I recall.

Their goal appears to be to tap into those that are not hardcore gamers, and tap into a market that so far has not been reached, in a similar fashion that the iPod did - I see that as being rather slim, and even if they do have some success, they will be out-done by Sony for one.

But all this said, every time a new generation of platforms arrive, there is all this talk and most of it comes straight out of people's arses. People can make predictions, sometimes really good predictions, sometimes really spot-on scary predictions, but most of the time they are either a little off or way off. So only time will tell what the outcome will be, as there are always unforeseen events, fads, etc, that can lead to unexpected outcomes.

So maybe the Nintendo Piss will win out in the end after all ;).

Submitted by Jacana on Mon, 15/05/06 - 7:42 PM Permalink

Not saying I disagree with your comments. I think it's more a matter of what is defined as the "average" gamer. To me, the average gamer is someone who will ever only own 1 console and will buy that about 2 years after it has come out.

I am sure your stats are correct, I just wondered what the buy point was from that. To see when they finally do get picked-up by the more mainstream market rather than the early adopters.

Having said all that, I still wonder about Nintendo for an "average" market. I guess it depends on how well they market themselves and how much they will distribute their product. I think in other areas of the world they very much are for the average gamter, but in Australia we get the dregs, if anything, from them.

Submitted by Morphine on Mon, 15/05/06 - 8:25 PM Permalink

Now, it either company were really smart (or stupid, depending on cost/time/effort), why doesn't a development group within either/both Microsoft/Sony look at creating middleware for games to run on the opposing console?

I know I know, lotsa lotsa programming involved, but would the cost offset prove a wise investment in the future console wars and market share? Who knows.