But just going from the testimonies of people here and how their family and friends have gone crazy over playing (and wanting) a Wii, leads me to believe that the only way that the Wii will fail is if future software fails to deliver. I seriously doubt that that will happen.

Most people in their late 20's and 30's grew up with the retro games that the Wii offers and have a nostalgic feeling about them, so they are attracted to those games on the Wii.

Chris

Because it costs twice as much as those consoles did? I believe $300 was the starting price for both the PS1 and PS2.

But I still think 75 million is a very realistic number and for Sony, should be easily attainable by 2010.

Here's why: $600.

Did either of those sell 75 million in three years?

It's 4 years until 2010 is over.

Technically, installed base and units sold aren't the same thing. I have six friends, who between them, have purchased 15 PS2s. All of them have had at least one crap out, or purchased the slim version to replace the original or wanted a 2nd one to have just in case.

It was also much more affordable to replace the PS2. The install base is probably less than half of the units sold. The price during the PS2 life cycle is $100-300, while the PS3 will probably be $300-$600.


...loved taffer's example

Well, i guess i will be the fool you're talking about then

As soon as i get my Sony Credit Card, i will use it to buy the PS3 from CC using the $40 off coupon. By doing so, i'm saving $190 ($150 credit from the Sony card). So, i'm really paying $410 (not including taxes).

See, the PS3 is a media meachine... you can use it to play various media files and i got a 56" DLP and a DSLR camera. So, creating instant picture slides on the PS3 with favorite musics is one of the cool things i'm gonna do.

The local BBV got a good selection of BR movies, hey, i got the HDTV, why not? Sure, only a few awful PS3 games now, but who cares, it's not like they are not making them anymore.

Able to use your PSP with the PS3, pretty cool idea to me, hey, i got a PSP...

Errr, anybody know you can use your DS with the Wii? Don't think so... (i got a DS too).

Wait, MS got no portables

Yeah, the PS3 is $600 ($500 model is a joke), but hardware-wise, it cost that much (more than that actually).

Lastly, you gotta agree with the BR potential.... Maybe BR movie licenses might not make it, but that won't stop BR games! Oh, the possibility of Sony PS classic games and extras on one BR disc!

So true.... The fact that PS3s are almost everywhere is good news for me

As someone, who has bought every single system since the NES, I can say with certainy, I will never own a new PS3. I refuse to pay the outrageous price that Sony thinks I should pay and I also refuse to give into their arrogance. I guess you could say that their PR before the Sony launch ruined it for me, statements like "it'll make people want to work overtime" and other things just totally put me off the machine.

Will I own a PS3 eventutally? Yes, but it'll be a used one I bought off Ebay. I will never give my money directly to Sony, not until they straighten their act up. It has nothing with being "cool", it has to do with them, insulting me, the buyer with shitty PR statements and an outrageous price tag that is not warranted in a game machine.

Yeah, that's one serious thing to consider... However, in my gaming experience, i rarely have anything break down before "affordable" or "mandatory" upgrade or simply bore of the item. My original Nintendo might still works (dirty, dusty and systematically abused), Saga Genesis and CD system got stolen (it works), Dreamcast (works, but not playing it anymore), GameCube (of course it works and still play it)....

See, if a console's lifespan is longer enough for the next "wave" it's good enough for me (including mild abuse of course, i.e. play lots of game for long hours like 3-4 hours a day).

I guess I'm already one.

The $500 PS3 model isn't as big a joke as the $300 360 model. With the $500 PS3 you're only getting 40gb less HD space and no built in Wi-Fi connection.

I think the future of the console wars will be won by the company that makes their system the most media centric. At $400 for the XBOX360 and $600 for the PS3, both consoles have become major purchases for families and they must both do more than just play games. I'm looking at my XBOX360 as a media center and I'm waiting for them to allow me to surf the web on it. For me, the XBOX beats the PS3 in the following features:

1. XBOX Live - I can play games, download demos, download arcade games, watch trailers and it's easy and in a family friendly format. Not only that, but it is a standard place to go...not game specific.

2. XBOX Media Connect - I can link to my computer and look at pictures, listen to music and watch home videos. Once again...in the same place as XBOX Live.

3. Regular DVD player - I don't care what anyone says...the bulk of America will not buy a particular format until a standard is chosen. This will hurt the PS3 since Sony has a terrible record when trying to force a standard (Betamax, Mini-Disc, Memory Stick, etc).

What are the current sales numbers at, because supposedly Nintendo was going to ship 2 million Wiis and Sony 250,000 PS3s domestically, and it's difficult to find 1 of either.

Nice. Good way to lighten up the thread. It also works as a great analogy.

The 360 has been capable of this for over a year.

I can't somebody brought up the 'throw in $200 for the HD-DVD drive' spin on pricing.

Since we're in a thread discussing tens upon tens of millions of consoles being sold, that means it's long after the mainstream gamers have started buying. So what do they want?

"Madden" and "GTA" are as good as any answer you can come up with today.

So what's the cheapest current (and future, as far as anybody can foresee) route somebody could take to get a system that plays these two games, an extra controller to play against a buddy at their house, and a way to save progress in solo play?

If somebody can think the prices are equal, that's proof of some massive Kool-aid drinking going on.

It's a vicious cycle though, isn't it? Microsoft and Sony seem to think people want a game console that doubles as a media center, thus adding features and driving up the cost. And then look at how the Wii is doing.

Me, I'm going to continue my PC gaming habit and get a Wii when I can. I have zero interest in either the XBox 360 or the PS3.

A brand new Atari 2600 in 1977 ran for $199, adjusted for inflation it would cost $645.75 in 2005 (2006 isn't available at http://www.westegg.com/inflation/). Based on Wikipedia, there were 9 games avalable for the 2600. That would imply that cost isn't as much of a factor, if the PS3 were compelling people would buy it. It still may become compelling but it will be much harder to make draw the masses later without Sony doing something to make that happen. They'll need a killer app, free BluRay movies, or something to beat what is soon going to be bad press that the general public sees.

The PS3 just doesn't have anything that compelling unless you want BluRay which will be worthless in 5 years anyway. There are too many technologies out there that will surpass it soon enough. I'd rather store movies on my hard drive (ala mp3 files) than have discs that my kids can scratch. My ~1000 CD collection is now underneath my daughters bed, it's not that far off that my ~200 DVD collection will join them.

Might that be Blu Kool-Aid?

It's not just where I live. That's being reported all over the country. Check out some of the threads here on the forum.

But it is three years until "by 2010". It is four years until "through 2010" or "by the end of 2010", but that isn't what the article says.

The PS3's $499 pricetag is only slightly higher than the pricetag of the inflation-adjusted PS1 and considerably higher than the PS2. Regardless of what detractors say, the $499 (with HDMI) is a perfectly playable console. For a barebones PlayStation fan, it does everything they need. The $299 Xbox 360 is not, as it requires purchase of at least a memory card or hard drive. That doesn't eliminate the 360's advantage, it just dulls it slightly.

My point: The PS3's $499 option is not as limiting as the 360's $299 option.

The PS2 did. The PS took five years.

(Going by VGCharts North America numbers and assuming that NA sales continue to be 40% of the total).

Like I said, 75 million might be a tad optimistic. Maybe 60 million.

<hr>

The only year where I see the PS3 being in trouble is 2007. I see it selling more along the lines of the PS1 as opposed to the PS2. The PS2 sold two to three times quicker than the PS1. And, it had an absolute gangbuster-bananas first true holiday season: Final Fantasy X, Grand Theft Auto 3, Metal Gear Solid 2, Gran Turismo 3.

This is akin to the Xbox 360 releasing Halo 3, only there's four titles that big. This is like the Wii coming out with the new Mario, Mario Kart, Metroid, and Super Smash Brothers all in 2007.

Can the PS3 repeat that?

Final Fantasy XIII is not coming to the US in 2007. Kotaku seems to mention 2008 or 2009 for a release date. It would need to be released in spring for it to make a North American release in that year (given the usual 5-8 month delay). It's not coming out in Japan anytime soon.

Grand Theft Auto is not an exclusive.

Grand Turismo 4 is not coming out this year, and if any title got delayed to 2009, I'd put my money on this one.

That leaves Metal Gear Solid 4 to carry the torch. Even if it's not an exclusive, it's still only one title. One exclusive title never propels a console into first place. The PS3 simply will not do 2001-era PS2 numbers this year.

<hr>

Part of the PS2's strength was that with its large initial userbase, you started getting a lot of the crappier games that sell tens or hundreds of thousands of copies to idiot parents. Stuff like Spongebob titles, anything based on Pixar, Tetris 2007, Yu-Gi-Oh, Scooby Doo. Tripe like that. I mean Simpsons Road Rage sold 600,000 copies more than God of War.

This is the Sysco butter that goes on the Wonderbread of the consoles.

The PS2 had no competition in this arena: A large installed base with a lead that continued unchallenged forever. The PS3 has three very real competitors in this arena.

The 360 has a plainly higher installed base although not enough to make anyone think they should go on the 360 by itself. From the failure of Viva Pinata, I'm willing to bet that family-type 360 games aren't a big feature and the 360 hasn't really expanded past the Xbox's hyper-hardcore gamer demographic. But, some of the crap EA churns out (Godfather, etc.) will come to the 360 as well as the PS3. Lots of previous-gen game-mill software from big name publishers came out on the PS2 only.

At least through next year, a lot of these games are going to be on the PS2, which may be "good enough" for a lot of people, considering the PS3 would be $300-500 more than what they may have spent on the PS2.

And then there's the Wii. From their release schedule so far, it's obvious crappy licensed stuff is going to make it on there: it already has a Sponge Bob game, bad movie games, and a DBZ title. If we're extrapolating from 6 week's worth of data and anecdotal information, the Wii will be #1 by 2007 or 2008.

The PS3 has some advantages but media use isn't one of them. Can you play music during a game? Can the game itself control the music (new song when you enter a new track in a racing game). Can you download TV shows or movies? Can you stream video from your PC?

No, no, no and no. Granted, the 360 didn't do this all so cleanly upon its release and the PS3 will be updating its features, but the reality is right now one does this, the other doesn't.

By 2010? It already is. Hell, it has been for years now.

Look into xboxmediacenter open source freeware for xbox 1s. Does more media wise than ps3, does it better and you can buy an x1 on ebay for < $100.

Welcome to sony's marketing BS. PS3 is actually inferior to xbox 360 hardware wise. [Essentially] PS3 is one big chip (with a clever name so they can market it) that has to do the duty of multiple hardware chips in the 360. For example theres a chip on the 360 just for scaling. PS3 has to do all that with the processor on the fly, is it any wonder that 360 has better scaling? 360s memory pool is the same size as the PS3 but its one unified pool of memory, PS3s memory is split which means it is more limited. The comparisons go on and on...sure the PS3 does in fact have a superior processor to the 360 but when you compare all that it has to do the 360 hardware is actually quite a bit better.

If software for the Wii drys up, which it's doing by the way, it's entirely possible for the Wii to hit a wall.

Everyone loves Zelda on the Wii, but outside of that you have a lot of games that are different but far from great. Nintendo has their franchises lined up to come out every few months, which is eerily similar to the Gamecube. If the only games worth playing are the 1st party releases and they only come out every 3 months or so, Nintendo's not winning anything.

Virtual Console is cool but it can only string people along for so long. They are just old NES/SNES/N64 games that we've played hundreds of times before anyway. And isn't Nintendo the company criticizing the competition for going to the well too many times?

As far as Sony deserving to lose because they're arrogant, have people read some of the interviews with Nintendo mouthpieces over the years? Mr. Yamauchi, Howard Lincoln, Mr. Iwata, Reggie... they've all been full of a lot of hot air. Although to give Reggie credit he did do an interview a while back saying that there doesn't have to be a loser in the console wars.

I think in the end Sony sells the most, with Microsoft in 2nd & Nintendo in 3rd. Sony will lose market share and MS & Nintendo gain. That's just my opinion.

I just think it's ridiculous that any gaming news story that is favorable in any way to Sony & PS3 is laughed off as being complete BS.