PDA

View Full Version : Xbox.com says Sony lied



Junox50
05-30-2005, 11:56 PM
This was originally posted on the official Xbox Site

https://www.xbox.com/en-US/signin.htm?forums=1



In the past week, Sony's strategy for the upcoming console war has become clear....actually, it was pretty clear to some people as soon as MS let the existence of the 360 leak at GDC this past January. It became very clear that Sony was going to be late to market, and they knew it. MS had quietly shipped dev kits out early in 2004, and Sony got caught a little flatfooted. They scrambled to get their dev kits ready for developers (Epic, for example, only just got theirs in March). Some Sony developers apparently still don't have kits yet.

Sony is faced with a well-funded, software-intensive opponent who has proven they can have a "triple-A killer app system-seller" at a system launch. This opponent has 160 games in development and has the intention to stick around for the long term (and the money to do so). So what can Sony do to stop them?

The same way bad politicians get themselves reelected: Manipulate the media to do your marketing work for you.

OK, MS does it too, but they are far more obvious about it. The MTV special was a prime example. But if you tuned into that show not expecting to see hype and marketing at work....well, if you did that, you probably lack the literacy or attention span to read this whole post (sincere apolgies for the length...I was bored and I'm practicing my essay skills. Sue me.).

But buying a block on VH1 or G4 won't work for Sony. It's just way too obvious. They need to attack strong and swift, yet not show themselves as TOO aggressive lest people think it's all pea****-style bluster. So what they really need to do is to get the media to do their promotional work for them, and win the public mindset without even having a working product on the show floor.

I bet they looked back to E3 2001 and took a look at how Microsoft handles a system launch (they are smart, after all, and it's what smart people would do). If they watched, they would have seen that Microsoft, as a software company, was ill-equipped for show business. Demos ran at poor framerates and generally looked bad....it hardly looked like there would be any decent games at launch. MS got a "D" from EGM based on their E3 showing on 2001. Then came the launch, bristling with system-seller Halo and solid titles like DOA3 and Oddworld. MS likes to go low-profile then wow you once you see things in action (which is how they got my business), but before the final product actually shows up, they don't look so hot.

So the opponent, if not actually weak, will at least APPEAR weak at E3, and since that's where the media is, that is where Sony chose to strike. They know that the people smart enough to ask the right questions about whether a demo is "real" or not are generally nowhere near the cameras and microphones, and they used this to their advantage.

So it was at the press conference they advanced the Big Lie, which is composed of two parts.

Big Lie Part 1: We are waaaaaaay more powerful than our competition.

This one was a no-brainer. Sony won the last round in spite of a horsepower disadvantage to MS, but they were well entrenched in the marketplace by the time MS hit the market. Their original competitor, Sega, withered in the face of a blitz of fancy imagery and "more power" claims laid out on impressive-looking spec sheets. The truth was that Sony launch titles looked barely better - or in some cases worse - than Dreamcast titles, in spite of what was supposed to be a significant power edge, but Sony had successfully sold "more power", and gamers bought into it. Sega, practically broke and with no third-party support, couldn't afford any significant advertising to counter the Sony hype machine. Much later, it was found that the 75 million polygons per second that Sony had claimed for the PS2 on their original spec sheet was actually closer to 7 million in actual applications, but by then, everyone already had a PS2 and no one cared they had stretched the truth.

What Sony learned was that if you can make people think your console is going to be significantly more powerful, they will wait for you to get to market. They also learned that people like to hear impressive numbers, and it doesn't matter if you can actually deliver on them or not. So it is you get wild performance claims about the Cell that may or may not bear any resemblance to how it will perform in the final product. No one can really dispute them because no one really knows any better.

But it isn't enough to simply TELL people you are more powerful. They will demand "proof". Since your opponent will be showing actual works in progress, which as anyone who has followed the industry knows makes games look worse than the final product, counter with a little showbiz magic that "SHOWS" people how much more powerful you really are. After all, "seeing is believing", and most of the people in the media don't know to ask if it's real or not. I do not believe for a second that most members of the non-gaming media are "industry savvy" enough to realize how unfair it is to compare a real game in progress to someone's CGI fantasy. But that is what Sony wanted, and that is what they got. Killzone was being compared to Need for Speed, apple to apple.

The more perceptive in the gaming media will think to ask about it, and look into it, and get specific information, read between the lines of the "representation of the look and feel" or "to system specs" marketing doublespeak, and report the truth....but by then, the mainstream media will consider E3 old news, and the general idea "twice as powerful" will be ingrained into the public mindset.

So phase one has already been accomplished. Now you have to promote Big Lie, Part 2, which is to promote the idea that you are much farther along in production than you actually are.

First, the history: After Sega folded the tent, Sony had the whole marketplace to themselves for nearly a year. In that time, the software lineup got up to speed, and by the time MS and Nintendo showed up, they had 100 games out, among them Gran Turismo 3, Metal Gear Solid 4, Devil May Cry, and Final Fantasy 10. They won the last round because they had a strong foothold in the marketplace and a large library of quality titles when their main competition launched. It was over before it even began.

Looking at MS, Sony realized that the tables could very well be turned this time around. Sony would be the ones arriving late, and MS had shown they could produce "system seller" software right off the bat. The promise of more power might wilt under a constant barrage of quality software. Topping it off, MS developers have had the kits for upwards of a year longer than their PS3 counterparts.

This is a key point, and where, if you apply critical thinking skills, you must reach the conclusion that the claim of a Spring 2006 launch is so much Sony marketing fertilizer. It is generally recognized that the 360 is somewhat easier to program, which means games may be able to be produced a little more quickly. Now, if MS developers have had 12-15 months to work with their development kits as of today, and PS3 developers have only had them for 2-3 months....AND the 360 is easier to program.....then how does Sony figure to have an exclusive launch lineup that's worth anything 4 months after the 360 launches, when developers have barely had their kits a year? This is especially true when you consider the lack of quality of the PS2 launch lineup (proof of this found here), and the slow flow of software at first. It was 10 months from launch before Gran Turismo, 14 months before Metal Gear Solid, and 16 months until Final Fantasy hit the shelves. Sony got away with it because they had the market to themselves almost the whole time. There was nowhere else for consumers to go.

So, once again, how can Sony deliver a worthy software lineup in March 2006? The answer is simple: They can't. It is not possible, unless their developers have magically figured out how to cut production times in half on an all-new system. But if they are honest about it and tell people that the really good games won't hit the shelves until mid-2007, a million gamers or so might figure it's not worth the wait and get a 360 to "hold them over". These consumers just might be so impressed with MS they make it their preferred system...and they tell their friends....and suddenly Sony is facing an opponent who is firmly entrenched in the marketplace and the public mindset.

Sony can't allow this to happen, so the perception must be created that they will be on the store shelves a lot sooner than they actually will. Microsoft must be stopped and stopped early; any momentum in the marketplace is very bad news for Sony. Even if they wind up selling more systems, a strong start by Microsoft may mean the difference between charging $399 for the "superior" system or having to sell it at $299 in order to compete. When you are talking about eventual sales in the tens of millions of consoles, you are looking at a potential loss of over a billion dollars in possible revenue.

Now do you understand why Sony is lying to consumers?

The CGI fantasy sequences do double-duty in this case. They provide the impression of power and near-completion in one neat stroke. Hey, if they've got "realtime" stuff that looks that good, they must be damn near ready to launch, right? Heck, Killzone 2 practically looked ready to go tomorrow....bring it on! This is what the Sony fanboys and the unsavvy civilian press will think and report back to their sheep...and as for the gaming press, most of what I've seen after E3 suggests to me that a large portion of them clearly don't understand the industry very well.

So the Big Lie takes the form of "Spring 2006", which many people would interpret to mean that in March or April they'll be playing MGS4 and watching Blu-Ray movies on a PS3. I have seen media reports suggesting it will be out in the US as early as March, so the "coming very soon" message got through. But if the games aren't there (and I just gave some pretty strong evidence that they won't), Sony gets eviscerated in the marketplace, period. So Spring is an utter fantasy...maybe in Japan, given Sony likes to "beta" its hardware in Japan (who are more likely to be forgiving of flaws in the hometown product) and the potential for bugs in something that packs in this much shiny new high-tech stuff has to be pretty high. Add to this that summer is a horrible time to launch a video game system, and I can practically guarantee you won't see a non-grey market PS3 for sale in the US until September 2006 at the earliest. They did the same thing back in 1999-2000, delaying the US launch several times until it finally arrived in the Fall. I can foresee the same thing happening again this time.

I predict Sony will announce this delay in mid-to-late January. Any earlier and they provide 360 with a sales boost in the holidays. Any later and it becomes obvious that they are stalling for time.

The reason they can get away with this is because of a psychological phenomenon called "buy-in". All buy-in means is that once you've invested a little time or money into something, it's a lot easier to justify spending a little more to get what you want. Once people have already waited two months, it makes it easier to wait a little longer until E3...at which time Sony is free to try their luck with another smoke-and-mirror show. If they can convince people who have already waited seven months that they'll deliver the software at launch, those people will wait the additional four months with no problems. Given the way people reacted to last week's show, that's going to be a piece of cake.

Is Sony going to get away with the Big Lie? In one sense they already have, because the "twice as powerful" and "will be here in early 2006" ideas have already permeated the mainstream media. Microsoft got the worst grades coming out of E3, and Sony got the best. Mission accomplished....partially.

The problem, though, is that this time they actually have to deliver on the promises they've made in a timely manner, or people will call them on their BS. Unlike 2000, they don't have the luxury of having the marketplace to themselves for 14 months. In the very least, Microsoft will have four months alone on the shelves to make an impression, which in all likelihood will be much closer to ten months to a year. A poor launch lineup, significant delays in major software titles (likely if the PS3 turns out to be difficult to get a handle on, as was the PS2), production difficulties, a major format war with DVD/HD, bugs in the Cell or Blu-Ray....the number of potential pitfalls is enormous. Then they have MS, who just might come up with enough great games this time to carve deeply into their market share....maybe not enough to win, but enough to make it hurt their bottom line in a major way.

So, did Sony lie and get away with it? Yes. Is the console war over before the first one is even manufactured? Not by a long shot.

Thaks for reading.

--------------------
"The PlayStation is not a game machine," says Ken Kutaragi. "We have not once referred to the PlayStation as a game machine."

Discuss.

Brandon
05-31-2005, 12:00 AM
This is from the Xbox site. Why would I take this information as valid? Microsoft themselves have lied and misconstrued information to their liking. They're both guilty.

xbdestroya
05-31-2005, 12:06 AM
That author sounds like the most bitter and paranoid person ever to walk the Earth. :wink:

My own take - Sony will launch next year in the spring-summer time. This guy is crazy if he thinks it will launch in 2007; but if he really does, then he should at least toss in some much more impressive hardware; a GPU based on G80 or G90, two Cells, etc etc... because that's seriously what they could do for the same cost as the current plans in 2007.

Anyway Sony will launch with some exclusives, maybe not a lot, and some ports from 360 games. The devs with the Sony dev kits at least have Cells in them - I mean the 360 devs are still working with Macs!

But the Playstation 2 launch line-up didn't blow me away either; I certainly see things as better this time around.

Anyway by summer 2006 is my claim. Anyone who thinks otherwise is welcome to wager with me, including that author. He can write a convincing propaganda piece, but is he willign to put his money where his mouth is? :wink:

Xeno
05-31-2005, 12:39 AM
In the past week, Sony's strategy for the upcoming console war has become clear....actually, it was pretty clear to some people as soon as MS let the existence of the 360 leak at GDC this past January. It became very clear that Sony was going to be late to market, and they knew it. MS had quietly shipped dev kits out early in 2004, and Sony got caught a little flatfooted. They scrambled to get their dev kits ready for developers (Epic, for example, only just got theirs in March). Some Sony developers apparently still don't have kits yet.


I stopped reading there because the person who wrote it is full of shit :idea:

05-31-2005, 03:16 AM
In the past week, Sony's strategy for the upcoming console war has become clear....actually, it was pretty clear to some people as soon as MS let the existence of the 360 leak at GDC this past January. It became very clear that Sony was going to be late to market, and they knew it. MS had quietly shipped dev kits out early in 2004, and Sony got caught a little flatfooted. They scrambled to get their dev kits ready for developers (Epic, for example, only just got theirs in March). Some Sony developers apparently still don't have kits yet.


I stopped reading there because the person who wrote it is full of shit :idea:

Full of shit???? You mean in desperate need of a life. Or sex even, he should stop playing video games and take up smoking crack.

makeitlookreal
05-31-2005, 03:51 AM
This is XBoxer propaganda at it's worst. They are screaming, "Sony Lied! Sony Lied!" just to put some doubt into the minds of those that saw the amazing REAL TIME demos at Sony's press conference.

Microsoft's nextgen console is much more powerful than their current one, but still lacks the punch to outclass the PS3. This is a fact and they just can't wrap their minds around the idea that their console is going to (no pun intended) flop very quickly once released. They are going to loose yet again, but this time they might not survive long enough to build an XBox 3.

Sony's playstation 3 has everything they have and actually much more in several areas. They are simply not going to be able to compete.

I would not doubt it one bit if Sony had operatives roaming around the internet trying to "spin" doubt in the minds of those that recognize the supremacy of the PS3.

imported_The_One
05-31-2005, 03:52 AM
1) I don't see how the title is actually relavent (where is the "big" lie?)
2) Who cares about big "lies". It's all "good" (bad in the "real" sense) business, they BS, they hype, they do whatever they can to get the consumer's attention. Looks like Sony's BS worked better than MS's; that's all there is to it. Both are spilling BS, if you believe one side and not the other, you're a biased idiot, if you believe both sides, you're a gullible idiot.

Best thing to do, like I've said many times: Don't listen to PR. Judge the console for yourself when its released and you or your friend has one in his/her/your hands. Or read some benchmark analysis by some knowledgeable third party (And no, Gamespot, Gamespy, and IGN doesn't count as "knowledgeable" third party).

makeitlookreal
05-31-2005, 04:08 AM
If Sony and Microsoft want to strut their stuff why don't they have a competition?

They could have a joint press conference and each side would have a turn lasting five minutes to showcase something about their system and then it would be the other persons turn.

In such a competition one side could show real-time renderings, pre-rendered CGI, technical demos, specs, photos of the physical hardware, and all sorts of things.

However, the one rule would be that the TRUTH would be told as to whether a game demo, tech demo, or so fourth was REAL TIME, PARTIALLY REAL TIME, or PRE-RENDERED.

For that matter, they could have a five minute real time, partially real time, and prerendered segment.

I think that this would be a much fairer method than simply hyping each system up.

I wonder if such a competition would be possible? It would really help the winning side!

Junox50
05-31-2005, 04:21 AM
1) I don't see how the title is actually relavent (where is the "big" lie?)
2) Who cares about big "lies". It's all "good" (bad in the "real" sense) business, they BS, they hype, they do whatever they can to get the consumer's attention. Looks like Sony's BS worked better than MS's; that's all there is to it. Both are spilling BS, if you believe one side and not the other, you're a biased idiot, if you believe both sides, you're a gullible idiot.

Best thing to do, like I've said many times: Don't listen to PR. Judge the console for yourself when its released and you or your friend has one in his/her/your hands. Or read some benchmark analysis by some knowledgeable third party (And no, Gamespot, Gamespy, and IGN doesn't count as "knowledgeable" third party).

That was just a name to give the title. I couldnt think of anything else. :oops:

gnznroses
05-31-2005, 04:41 AM
this is funny:


This one was a no-brainer. Sony won the last round in spite of a horsepower disadvantage to MS, but they were well entrenched in the marketplace by the time MS hit the market. Their original competitor, Sega, withered in the face of a blitz of fancy imagery and "more power" claims laid out on impressive-looking spec sheets. The truth was that Sony launch titles looked barely better - or in some cases worse - than Dreamcast titles, in spite of what was supposed to be a significant power edge, but Sony had successfully sold "more power", and gamers bought into it. Sega, practically broke and with no third-party support, couldn't afford any significant advertising to counter the Sony hype machine. Much later, it was found that the 75 million polygons per second that Sony had claimed for the PS2 on their original spec sheet was actually closer to 7 million in actual applications, but by then, everyone already had a PS2 and no one cared they had stretched the truth.


it IS a signifigant power edge. plus, that's not the only reason Dreamcast failed...

imported_The_One
05-31-2005, 04:57 AM
Much later, it was found that the 75 million polygons per second that Sony had claimed for the PS2 on their original spec sheet was actually closer to 7 million in actual applications, but by then, everyone already had a PS2 and no one cared they had stretched the truth. 7 million? That's complete BS. Triple A titles can achieve up to 16-17 million polygons per second, 7 million was probably for those low grade release titles :roll: (Even MGS2 and ZOE surpassed that, and they were release titles!)

Brandon
05-31-2005, 05:08 AM
This article just seems to keep getting worse.

LiquidEagle
05-31-2005, 06:12 AM
And he obviously didn't mention that PS2's launch titles didn't look that much better than DC titles because of the obstacles in development. Compare second-gen. games on PS2 like ZOE or MGS2 to second-gen DC games, and so on, and you'll see the PS2's power coming through.

Also, polygon performance seems to be kinda irrelevent at times. Solid Snake's model in MGS2 was 2,000 polygons, which is quite a bit less than most any other game, probably even football games & such. However, just look at how detailed his model was. Silicon Knights said themselves that Konami gave them great tips on how to build good-looking, low-poly characters. The characters in The Twin Snakes use less polys than Eternal Darkness characters but look better, thanks to KCEJ West's tips. Either way, the XBox's 125 Million is a huge exaggeration too, and the PS2 can definitely pump out more than 7 million polys. That's an absurd number. Just look at how many polys Naughty Dog is able to run on Jak & Daxter (I'm referring to the first game because I remember hearing Jason Rubin give a rough number for J&D). This guy's clearly nuts.

When it comes to PR, I don't think Sony does that much BSing, honestly. They kinda say some wild things when it comes to their plans and potential plans for systems (like PS2's network/HDD plans), but that's more like targets they couldn't hit. Microsoft is seriously all over the place, just look at the EGM where the XBox debuted (it's big, ugly, and green), that has all sorts of crazy statements made by Ed Fries, J Allard, and the rest of that awesome crew :lol:

Domination
05-31-2005, 09:44 AM
This was originally posted on the official Xbox Site

https://www.xbox.com/en-US/signin.htm?forums=1



In the past week, Sony's strategy for the upcoming console war has become clear....actually, it was pretty clear to some people as soon as MS let the existence of the 360 leak at GDC this past January. It became very clear that Sony was going to be late to market, and they knew it. MS had quietly shipped dev kits out early in 2004, and Sony got caught a little flatfooted. They scrambled to get their dev kits ready for developers (Epic, for example, only just got theirs in March). Some Sony developers apparently still don't have kits yet.

Sony is faced with a well-funded, software-intensive opponent who has proven they can have a "triple-A killer app system-seller" at a system launch. This opponent has 160 games in development and has the intention to stick around for the long term (and the money to do so). So what can Sony do to stop them?

The same way bad politicians get themselves reelected: Manipulate the media to do your marketing work for you.

OK, MS does it too, but they are far more obvious about it. The MTV special was a prime example. But if you tuned into that show not expecting to see hype and marketing at work....well, if you did that, you probably lack the literacy or attention span to read this whole post (sincere apolgies for the length...I was bored and I'm practicing my essay skills. Sue me.).

But buying a block on VH1 or G4 won't work for Sony. It's just way too obvious. They need to attack strong and swift, yet not show themselves as TOO aggressive lest people think it's all pea****-style bluster. So what they really need to do is to get the media to do their promotional work for them, and win the public mindset without even having a working product on the show floor.

I bet they looked back to E3 2001 and took a look at how Microsoft handles a system launch (they are smart, after all, and it's what smart people would do). If they watched, they would have seen that Microsoft, as a software company, was ill-equipped for show business. Demos ran at poor framerates and generally looked bad....it hardly looked like there would be any decent games at launch. MS got a "D" from EGM based on their E3 showing on 2001. Then came the launch, bristling with system-seller Halo and solid titles like DOA3 and Oddworld. MS likes to go low-profile then wow you once you see things in action (which is how they got my business), but before the final product actually shows up, they don't look so hot.

So the opponent, if not actually weak, will at least APPEAR weak at E3, and since that's where the media is, that is where Sony chose to strike. They know that the people smart enough to ask the right questions about whether a demo is "real" or not are generally nowhere near the cameras and microphones, and they used this to their advantage.

So it was at the press conference they advanced the Big Lie, which is composed of two parts.

Big Lie Part 1: We are waaaaaaay more powerful than our competition.

This one was a no-brainer. Sony won the last round in spite of a horsepower disadvantage to MS, but they were well entrenched in the marketplace by the time MS hit the market. Their original competitor, Sega, withered in the face of a blitz of fancy imagery and "more power" claims laid out on impressive-looking spec sheets. The truth was that Sony launch titles looked barely better - or in some cases worse - than Dreamcast titles, in spite of what was supposed to be a significant power edge, but Sony had successfully sold "more power", and gamers bought into it. Sega, practically broke and with no third-party support, couldn't afford any significant advertising to counter the Sony hype machine. Much later, it was found that the 75 million polygons per second that Sony had claimed for the PS2 on their original spec sheet was actually closer to 7 million in actual applications, but by then, everyone already had a PS2 and no one cared they had stretched the truth.

What Sony learned was that if you can make people think your console is going to be significantly more powerful, they will wait for you to get to market. They also learned that people like to hear impressive numbers, and it doesn't matter if you can actually deliver on them or not. So it is you get wild performance claims about the Cell that may or may not bear any resemblance to how it will perform in the final product. No one can really dispute them because no one really knows any better.

But it isn't enough to simply TELL people you are more powerful. They will demand "proof". Since your opponent will be showing actual works in progress, which as anyone who has followed the industry knows makes games look worse than the final product, counter with a little showbiz magic that "SHOWS" people how much more powerful you really are. After all, "seeing is believing", and most of the people in the media don't know to ask if it's real or not. I do not believe for a second that most members of the non-gaming media are "industry savvy" enough to realize how unfair it is to compare a real game in progress to someone's CGI fantasy. But that is what Sony wanted, and that is what they got. Killzone was being compared to Need for Speed, apple to apple.

The more perceptive in the gaming media will think to ask about it, and look into it, and get specific information, read between the lines of the "representation of the look and feel" or "to system specs" marketing doublespeak, and report the truth....but by then, the mainstream media will consider E3 old news, and the general idea "twice as powerful" will be ingrained into the public mindset.

So phase one has already been accomplished. Now you have to promote Big Lie, Part 2, which is to promote the idea that you are much farther along in production than you actually are.

First, the history: After Sega folded the tent, Sony had the whole marketplace to themselves for nearly a year. In that time, the software lineup got up to speed, and by the time MS and Nintendo showed up, they had 100 games out, among them Gran Turismo 3, Metal Gear Solid 4, Devil May Cry, and Final Fantasy 10. They won the last round because they had a strong foothold in the marketplace and a large library of quality titles when their main competition launched. It was over before it even began.

Looking at MS, Sony realized that the tables could very well be turned this time around. Sony would be the ones arriving late, and MS had shown they could produce "system seller" software right off the bat. The promise of more power might wilt under a constant barrage of quality software. Topping it off, MS developers have had the kits for upwards of a year longer than their PS3 counterparts.

This is a key point, and where, if you apply critical thinking skills, you must reach the conclusion that the claim of a Spring 2006 launch is so much Sony marketing fertilizer. It is generally recognized that the 360 is somewhat easier to program, which means games may be able to be produced a little more quickly. Now, if MS developers have had 12-15 months to work with their development kits as of today, and PS3 developers have only had them for 2-3 months....AND the 360 is easier to program.....then how does Sony figure to have an exclusive launch lineup that's worth anything 4 months after the 360 launches, when developers have barely had their kits a year? This is especially true when you consider the lack of quality of the PS2 launch lineup (proof of this found here), and the slow flow of software at first. It was 10 months from launch before Gran Turismo, 14 months before Metal Gear Solid, and 16 months until Final Fantasy hit the shelves. Sony got away with it because they had the market to themselves almost the whole time. There was nowhere else for consumers to go.

So, once again, how can Sony deliver a worthy software lineup in March 2006? The answer is simple: They can't. It is not possible, unless their developers have magically figured out how to cut production times in half on an all-new system. But if they are honest about it and tell people that the really good games won't hit the shelves until mid-2007, a million gamers or so might figure it's not worth the wait and get a 360 to "hold them over". These consumers just might be so impressed with MS they make it their preferred system...and they tell their friends....and suddenly Sony is facing an opponent who is firmly entrenched in the marketplace and the public mindset.

Sony can't allow this to happen, so the perception must be created that they will be on the store shelves a lot sooner than they actually will. Microsoft must be stopped and stopped early; any momentum in the marketplace is very bad news for Sony. Even if they wind up selling more systems, a strong start by Microsoft may mean the difference between charging $399 for the "superior" system or having to sell it at $299 in order to compete. When you are talking about eventual sales in the tens of millions of consoles, you are looking at a potential loss of over a billion dollars in possible revenue.

Now do you understand why Sony is lying to consumers?

The CGI fantasy sequences do double-duty in this case. They provide the impression of power and near-completion in one neat stroke. Hey, if they've got "realtime" stuff that looks that good, they must be damn near ready to launch, right? Heck, Killzone 2 practically looked ready to go tomorrow....bring it on! This is what the Sony fanboys and the unsavvy civilian press will think and report back to their sheep...and as for the gaming press, most of what I've seen after E3 suggests to me that a large portion of them clearly don't understand the industry very well.

So the Big Lie takes the form of "Spring 2006", which many people would interpret to mean that in March or April they'll be playing MGS4 and watching Blu-Ray movies on a PS3. I have seen media reports suggesting it will be out in the US as early as March, so the "coming very soon" message got through. But if the games aren't there (and I just gave some pretty strong evidence that they won't), Sony gets eviscerated in the marketplace, period. So Spring is an utter fantasy...maybe in Japan, given Sony likes to "beta" its hardware in Japan (who are more likely to be forgiving of flaws in the hometown product) and the potential for bugs in something that packs in this much shiny new high-tech stuff has to be pretty high. Add to this that summer is a horrible time to launch a video game system, and I can practically guarantee you won't see a non-grey market PS3 for sale in the US until September 2006 at the earliest. They did the same thing back in 1999-2000, delaying the US launch several times until it finally arrived in the Fall. I can foresee the same thing happening again this time.

I predict Sony will announce this delay in mid-to-late January. Any earlier and they provide 360 with a sales boost in the holidays. Any later and it becomes obvious that they are stalling for time.

The reason they can get away with this is because of a psychological phenomenon called "buy-in". All buy-in means is that once you've invested a little time or money into something, it's a lot easier to justify spending a little more to get what you want. Once people have already waited two months, it makes it easier to wait a little longer until E3...at which time Sony is free to try their luck with another smoke-and-mirror show. If they can convince people who have already waited seven months that they'll deliver the software at launch, those people will wait the additional four months with no problems. Given the way people reacted to last week's show, that's going to be a piece of cake.

Is Sony going to get away with the Big Lie? In one sense they already have, because the "twice as powerful" and "will be here in early 2006" ideas have already permeated the mainstream media. Microsoft got the worst grades coming out of E3, and Sony got the best. Mission accomplished....partially.

The problem, though, is that this time they actually have to deliver on the promises they've made in a timely manner, or people will call them on their BS. Unlike 2000, they don't have the luxury of having the marketplace to themselves for 14 months. In the very least, Microsoft will have four months alone on the shelves to make an impression, which in all likelihood will be much closer to ten months to a year. A poor launch lineup, significant delays in major software titles (likely if the PS3 turns out to be difficult to get a handle on, as was the PS2), production difficulties, a major format war with DVD/HD, bugs in the Cell or Blu-Ray....the number of potential pitfalls is enormous. Then they have MS, who just might come up with enough great games this time to carve deeply into their market share....maybe not enough to win, but enough to make it hurt their bottom line in a major way.

So, did Sony lie and get away with it? Yes. Is the console war over before the first one is even manufactured? Not by a long shot.

Thaks for reading.

--------------------
"The PlayStation is not a game machine," says Ken Kutaragi. "We have not once referred to the PlayStation as a game machine."

Discuss.

First of all, this message is coming from an Xbox site as as well as a long time Xbox supporter. I didn't even have to read this guy's opinion to realise how it'll turn up, which was bias as hell. Plus, if you notice, there is not one single finger being pointed at Microsoft what so ever dispite what happen with the specs at E3. The author is a straight up fanboy without question. If he can't get the facts straight on either side, then he might as well not even comment on the issue, because it defeats his entire point being made.

Moreover, there WERE running demos at E3 for the PS3 console. There were several shown to prove that they were running on the PS3's hardware. The developers of the footage paused and navigated the screen almost in every direction with the PS2 controller. Those demos were Fight Night, Unreal Tournament, The Getaway, and the Alfred Molina/Otto Octavius demo. Denying it ever happened is just plain ridiculous and down right fanboyish.

Then there was the I-8 trailer with the dozens of soldier running through the field. If that wasn't a game running on the PS3 early dev kits, then niether was the Ghost Recon footage for the 360. The point is, many narrow-minded Xbox fanboys will do anything in there power to remain faintful to the Xbox console while dragging the opposite platform through the dirt - even if it means lying.

There is so much I could comment on in this guys message that it's almost laughable, but I'll leave it a bit brief for now.

Red_Eyes
05-31-2005, 09:52 AM
Look how frustrated and desperate those xbox people have become.
To be THIS THREATEN by Sony's mere presence at E3.
This could only mean one thing. Sony has won already. And Xbox is just trying to do the only thing it could now, and that's calling Sony a lier.
So pathetic. I feel sorry for those xbox 360 fans. Lol.

Ducey
05-31-2005, 10:28 AM
What if he's right?

Now before you start throwing fruit, shoes and bricks at me give me a moment.

What, now in no way do I follow this path, but what if he is? Are we going to jump the fence and renounce sony?

Doubt it!

If the in game graphics arent as good or smooth as they propose?

Not even!

Might an uninformed neutral reader?

Hmm, maybe.

But we arent Joe Public, we are people with an interest and a desire for information. It appears to me that MS seems to be trying for the average vote, but Im not so sure its a good idea.

As I understand it, MS didnt do so well in Japan, a lucrative market to say the least, so why go for the path of least achievment?

They are in no way to be underestimated, and I am biased towards PS3, but I simply believe Sony has a far superior console. Sure numbers dont mean everything, and these debates will most likely continue until people don't play these consoles anymore, but there really is no comparison until we can... errr... compare 8)

P.S I personally think either company is capable of... twisting the truth. This is a war, and its a weak general that doesnt use all his arsenal

trakais
05-31-2005, 11:28 AM
what good would it be for anyone to show rendered videos and then release a product that is far off what they promised? that would be a total disgrace for sony and they would never do that. even if some of the demos were rendered, visually they certainly did not exceed what ps3 will be capable off. it simply is not possible to make so much noise and promises and then to tell everyone - well sorry, we cut all the good stuff because it was all too expensive. never possible. the videos were at least an approximate representation of the games they demonstrated. imagine what scandal would it be if it all turned out to be a big lie? sony is not that stupid and all the xbox fanboys are just making it all up.

kraken
05-31-2005, 12:25 PM
Blue ray > DVD
256XDR+256DDR3 > 512 DDR3
Bluetooth Wireless 7 controller > 2.4 GHz Wireless 4 controller
GPU550 MHz > 500MHz
1080p > 1080i
6 USB 2.0 > 3 USB 2.0
2 x HDMI > 1 x HDMI
CF Slot (Type I, II), SD Slot (Regular, Compact), Memory Stick, Memory Stick Duo, 1 x Optical Audio > ???
Cell 512 L2 cashew +7 X SPU 256L2 Cache > 1MbL2 Cache
MGS4 - only that really counts for me :)

And for the BS I recommend http://news.com.com/2100-1040-250632.html?legacy=cnet where can be found promises for Xbox made in 2001 and the best part is:” "One of the basic premises of the Xbox is to put the power in the hands of the artist," Blackley said, which is why Xbox developers "are achieving a level of visual detail you really get in 'Toy Story.'".
I don’t think that EA and Epic, since both of them are developing for multi-platform, would lie that Fight Night and UT was real-time.

trakais
05-31-2005, 12:29 PM
also - why does anyone think that a game like fight night can be a problem for the PS3 or the developers? come on, we still have beautiful games even on PS2 which doesn't even come close to any of the next-gen consoles. i think all of the shown games are possible and not only that - we will see them next year.

Brad
05-31-2005, 03:31 PM
This is from the Xbox site. Why would I take this information as valid? Microsoft themselves have lied and misconstrued information to their liking. They're both guilty.


Yes, but this is our regular xbox fanboy in denail. Gotta love it.

Domination
05-31-2005, 04:04 PM
What if he's right?

Now before you start throwing fruit, shoes and bricks at me give me a moment.

What, now in no way do I follow this path, but what if he is? Are we going to jump the fence and renounce sony?

Doubt it!

If the in game graphics arent as good or smooth as they propose?

Not even!

Might an uninformed neutral reader?

Hmm, maybe.

But we arent Joe Public, we are people with an interest and a desire for information. It appears to me that MS seems to be trying for the average vote, but Im not so sure its a good idea.

As I understand it, MS didnt do so well in Japan, a lucrative market to say the least, so why go for the path of least achievment?

They are in no way to be underestimated, and I am biased towards PS3, but I simply believe Sony has a far superior console. Sure numbers dont mean everything, and these debates will most likely continue until people don't play these consoles anymore, but there really is no comparison until we can... errr... compare 8)

P.S I personally think either company is capable of... twisting the truth. This is a war, and its a weak general that doesnt use all his arsenal

If he's right, then I have no problem with that. But the fact is, he doesn't seem to be in any case. He has snatched a great deal on info straight from his rear to uplift what Microsoft is currently doing with their console, instead. I mean, even if the other demos weren't real, there is just no freakin' way you could have ignored the ones running in real-time unless you are trying to be some naive fanboy.

Gears of War, I didn't see that running in real-time, but people still ate it up like candy. The author is a bias fanboy, and that's all to it. I don't even need to comment on the other crap he spewed. This here is enough to discredit his entire point, IMO. I could just imagine some of the people setting around swallowing this garbage without a single thought.

Z
05-31-2005, 08:31 PM
1-such degrading posts that humiliates the intelligent of readers are not allowed here.
2-No trolling. Leave your fanboyish low actions in the proper forums like the one this poor excuse for bandwith use came from
3-One can bring valid points and make good opinions and will be discussed. Trash talking and the like were left in kindergarten and the forums mentioned above.
4-No trolling.
5-For all fanboys out there: suck it up.
6-No trolling
7-This thread’s place (other than in the garbage) is in the general gaming section.
8-No trolling

And finally, no trolling!

P.S. I repeated some points for the intelligently challenged. I am amazed how they can use a keyboard. But then again, I guess chimps can be trained to push buttons.