Posted Jul 09, 2006 at 06:53PM by Mark M.
Listed in:
Opinions & Analysis
Tags:
Microsoft,
Sony
Ó
|
|
|
|
[Via Gamasutra]
Permalink |
Email this |
Linking Blogs
| Digg It!
Bookmark / Find this article on: |
|
The next-gen console war continues to heat up... At least as much heat as a battle between two not-yet- released consoles and a relatively new console can generate.
12 Jumps
Wii homebrew - Custom IOS38 rev15
1 Jumps
Wii homebrew - Dop-IOS MOD v8
86 Comments
|
 |
by AC (Unregistered) - 2006-07-10 |
|
 
|
» number 55
I couldn't agree with you more. I second that, pricing does matter. Alot of the hardcore gamers would buy a ps3 even if they announced it was $1000 dollars (right?), because video games for them are more than a hobby. It is their life. In fact, there are some people posting on this site that would buy all 3 systems. How much would that cost including games and peripherals? The fact of the matter is, for people who do play games leisurely, $600 is a lot of money to fork over for a game system. Even the Xbox360 is considered expensive, but probably doable. For a lot of people, their world doesn't revolve around video games like us. To get these certain type of people to buy a video game system, is how you sell 100 million consoles. Hardcore gamers on this website are but a small group of consumers in the bigger picture.
I couldn't agree with you more. I second that, pricing does matter. Alot of the hardcore gamers would buy a ps3 even if they announced it was $1000 dollars (right?), because video games for them are more than a hobby. It is their life. In fact, there are some people posting on this site that would buy all 3 systems. How much would that cost including games and peripherals? The fact of the matter is, for people who do play games leisurely, $600 is a lot of money to fork over for a game system. Even the Xbox360 is considered expensive, but probably doable. For a lot of people, their world doesn't revolve around video games like us. To get these certain type of people to buy a video game system, is how you sell 100 million consoles. Hardcore gamers on this website are but a small group of consumers in the bigger picture.
|
by Joe (Unregistered) - 2006-07-10 |
|
|
» Comment
i kinda agree but i feel the wii will do alot better cuz japan is gonna buy a sh*t load and i think its getting way too little credit and is getting really under estimated. and ps3 is ofcoarse gonna kick everyones asses, followed by the wii and the 360 dead last.
i kinda agree but i feel the wii will do alot better cuz japan is gonna buy a sh*t load and i think its getting way too little credit and is getting really under estimated. and ps3 is ofcoarse gonna kick everyones asses, followed by the wii and the 360 dead last.
|
by MGSROCKS1 - 2006-07-10 |
|
|
» Its a hard decion
No one really knows because the race is going to be so close. Many risks are taking for the Next-gen, anything can happen.
Figboy: I have to agree with you on BC. Sometimes you just want to play old games because you might have forgotten the experience. Its really that important, but its nice addition to some and neccessary to others. Like you said, its nice because of convience.
No one really knows because the race is going to be so close. Many risks are taking for the Next-gen, anything can happen.
Figboy: I have to agree with you on BC. Sometimes you just want to play old games because you might have forgotten the experience. Its really that important, but its nice addition to some and neccessary to others. Like you said, its nice because of convience.
|
by AC (Unregistered) - 2006-07-10 |
|
|
» Wii will be successful.
I think the Wii will be successful because a lot of people that rarely played video games or never played before will find the system intriguing, just by watching someone play, or experiencing it themselves. For hardcore gamers who have grown accustomed to a certain way of controlling games probably not so much. Some hardcore gamers may find it tiring, and would rather sit down for many hours like the way they have been doing it for many years. Except for the occassional hardcore gamer that actually finds swinging a sword more interesting and immersive than pressing a button. What you will see happening is people who rarely ever play games will find the Wii control system very instinctive and intuitive, but many veteran gamers will be frustrated with the controls because they have to unlearn what they have learned after doing it the same way all those years. Many of them will probably give up early on because they don't have the patience to adapt to a new control scheme. If the Nintendo DS is any indication to the future of gaming, there's going to be alot of new and interesting people in the gaming community whether you like it or not.
I think the Wii will be successful because a lot of people that rarely played video games or never played before will find the system intriguing, just by watching someone play, or experiencing it themselves. For hardcore gamers who have grown accustomed to a certain way of controlling games probably not so much. Some hardcore gamers may find it tiring, and would rather sit down for many hours like the way they have been doing it for many years. Except for the occassional hardcore gamer that actually finds swinging a sword more interesting and immersive than pressing a button. What you will see happening is people who rarely ever play games will find the Wii control system very instinctive and intuitive, but many veteran gamers will be frustrated with the controls because they have to unlearn what they have learned after doing it the same way all those years. Many of them will probably give up early on because they don't have the patience to adapt to a new control scheme. If the Nintendo DS is any indication to the future of gaming, there's going to be alot of new and interesting people in the gaming community whether you like it or not.
|
by JOVANNI (Unregistered) - 2006-07-10 |
|
|
» whatever
The way the games have been comin' out i highly doubt it!Gears of War and Prey were both supposed to have come out at launch or christmas of last year,and now we're finally gettin' Prey almost a year later!
The way the games have been comin' out i highly doubt it!Gears of War and Prey were both supposed to have come out at launch or christmas of last year,and now we're finally gettin' Prey almost a year later!
|
by soapinmouth - 2006-07-10 |
|
|
» you keep saying...
that the ps3 is great because it can do stuff that a pc can....I'm not getting why this is so great, Im assuming everyone posting here allready has a computer running a better operating sysytem (Microsoft made) and waaaaaaaaaaay faster, do you know how muchcpu and ram is givin to running linux on the ps3, last ttime I checkes it was somewhere around 333mhz, which can barly run an internet browser.
that the ps3 is great because it can do stuff that a pc can....I'm not getting why this is so great, Im assuming everyone posting here allready has a computer running a better operating sysytem (Microsoft made) and waaaaaaaaaaay faster, do you know how muchcpu and ram is givin to running linux on the ps3, last ttime I checkes it was somewhere around 333mhz, which can barly run an internet browser.
|
by Yaz - 2006-07-11 |
|
|
» #67. Hit a nerve? LOL, don't flatter yourself. :D
Your reading skills are not very good it seems. I said and I quote, "I can consider buying an add-on (if I buy a 360 first!)", which should have been sufficient for you to realise that I haven't actually purchased a 360!
As for your change from "every new console" to "any successful new system", lol, that's just typical, when you can't argue, just change the conditions. I guess if I pursue the point further you'll then say "any successful new system beginning with P". :P
Anyway, I never purchase newly launched consoles (despite being more than able to afford it), preferring instead to wait until the first price drop, since besides a lower cost, the console should be free of launch problems and there will be a larger library of great games to choose from. I'll apply the same to the PS3.
Obviously I hit a nerve calling you a fanboy, but if you don't want to be called a fanboy, then don't act like one. It's as simple as that. :|
Your reading skills are not very good it seems. I said and I quote, "I can consider buying an add-on (if I buy a 360 first!)", which should have been sufficient for you to realise that I haven't actually purchased a 360!
As for your change from "every new console" to "any successful new system", lol, that's just typical, when you can't argue, just change the conditions. I guess if I pursue the point further you'll then say "any successful new system beginning with P". :P
Anyway, I never purchase newly launched consoles (despite being more than able to afford it), preferring instead to wait until the first price drop, since besides a lower cost, the console should be free of launch problems and there will be a larger library of great games to choose from. I'll apply the same to the PS3.
Obviously I hit a nerve calling you a fanboy, but if you don't want to be called a fanboy, then don't act like one. It's as simple as that. :|
|
by wii and 360 are cool (Unregistered) - 2006-07-11 |
|
|
» 360 clear victor ps3 and wii neck at neck for 2nd
Yeah, i sorta agree i am a nintendo fan boy but being resonable the 360 is going to be the victor with the ps3 and wii fircely competing for 2nd place, because of the ps3's huge fan base, and the wii being mere pocket change it could be either.
But i know for sure a wii's gonna like mighty fine next to my 360, to bad theres not enought room for a goerge forman grill ah i mean ps3
Yeah, i sorta agree i am a nintendo fan boy but being resonable the 360 is going to be the victor with the ps3 and wii fircely competing for 2nd place, because of the ps3's huge fan base, and the wii being mere pocket change it could be either.
But i know for sure a wii's gonna like mighty fine next to my 360, to bad theres not enought room for a goerge forman grill ah i mean ps3
|
by Advertising - |
|
|
|
by Figboy (Unregistered) - 2006-07-11 |
|
|
» here's a thought...
a lot of people here are saying that only the hardcore are going to purchase a PS3 at $500, $600. well, *DUH*! of *course* only the hard core are going to buy it! why do you think Sony is only shipping 2 million units worldwide at launch? to appease the hard core masses that want their PS3 *now*!
the PS2, when launched in 2000 was $300. in it's first year, it only sold about 6 to 10 million units. we all know that to date, the PS2 has sold 100 million units and counting. applying, oh, i dunno, *logic*, tells me that the other 90 million PS2s shipped, sold *after* that initial launch year, and in conjunction with subsequent price drops.
using some more of that tasty logic, i surmise that the PS3, in it's first year, will sell about 10 million units. *after* that first year, it will probably undergo a price drop, at which point it will probably sell another 10 mil. in 2009 (it's third year), it will undergo another price drop, and sell another few million units.
i swear, some of you people are acting like the PS2 shipped and sold all 100 million units in it's first day on the market. sheesh. it's a slow rampup. the first few million PS2's had to be priced at $300 because of production costs. once the manufacturing process became more refined over time, they were able to cut manufacturing costs, make some profit off of the $300 PS2s for a while, then, due to competition (remember, the X Box and GC came out a year after the PS2, thus affording the PS2 a *second* year at $300, which it wouldn't have been able to do if the X Box and GC had come out at the same time), they dropped the price to maintain their lead.
with the PS3, i see a price drop happening sooner rather than later because they have come out second (again, but the Dreamcast, while a great system, didn't have enough units on the market by the time the PS2 launched), and the 360 has established itself as a very capable system. since the PS3 is priced so far above the 360, to compete, they will have to drop the price by $100 asap. my guess will be fall 2007. they're already talking about refininf the production process, so it's possible we could see that price drop happen by Christmas 2007. the PSP has already dropped by $50 after it's first year.
anyway, my original point was that this 2006 launch of the PS3 is specifically for the hardcore fans that have been with Sony since 1995. 100 million PS2 fans, subtract 4 million PS3's shipped by years end, still leaves 96 million PS2 fans without their follow up. those people will have to wait, but, chances are, they waited to get their PS2's until the price was cheaper, so nothing has changed, and is expected by Sony.
a lot of people here are saying that only the hardcore are going to purchase a PS3 at $500, $600. well, *DUH*! of *course* only the hard core are going to buy it! why do you think Sony is only shipping 2 million units worldwide at launch? to appease the hard core masses that want their PS3 *now*!
the PS2, when launched in 2000 was $300. in it's first year, it only sold about 6 to 10 million units. we all know that to date, the PS2 has sold 100 million units and counting. applying, oh, i dunno, *logic*, tells me that the other 90 million PS2s shipped, sold *after* that initial launch year, and in conjunction with subsequent price drops.
using some more of that tasty logic, i surmise that the PS3, in it's first year, will sell about 10 million units. *after* that first year, it will probably undergo a price drop, at which point it will probably sell another 10 mil. in 2009 (it's third year), it will undergo another price drop, and sell another few million units.
i swear, some of you people are acting like the PS2 shipped and sold all 100 million units in it's first day on the market. sheesh. it's a slow rampup. the first few million PS2's had to be priced at $300 because of production costs. once the manufacturing process became more refined over time, they were able to cut manufacturing costs, make some profit off of the $300 PS2s for a while, then, due to competition (remember, the X Box and GC came out a year after the PS2, thus affording the PS2 a *second* year at $300, which it wouldn't have been able to do if the X Box and GC had come out at the same time), they dropped the price to maintain their lead.
with the PS3, i see a price drop happening sooner rather than later because they have come out second (again, but the Dreamcast, while a great system, didn't have enough units on the market by the time the PS2 launched), and the 360 has established itself as a very capable system. since the PS3 is priced so far above the 360, to compete, they will have to drop the price by $100 asap. my guess will be fall 2007. they're already talking about refininf the production process, so it's possible we could see that price drop happen by Christmas 2007. the PSP has already dropped by $50 after it's first year.
anyway, my original point was that this 2006 launch of the PS3 is specifically for the hardcore fans that have been with Sony since 1995. 100 million PS2 fans, subtract 4 million PS3's shipped by years end, still leaves 96 million PS2 fans without their follow up. those people will have to wait, but, chances are, they waited to get their PS2's until the price was cheaper, so nothing has changed, and is expected by Sony.
|
by Xbox is the best (Unregistered) - 2006-07-11 |
|
|
» No Console
No Console that was priced at more than 300 have been successful period. PS3 is a great system but the price is too high Sony accuses microsoft of coming out too early they are coming out too early PS3 is coming out one year earlier than it is suppossed to if they came out later it would be $400 - $500 not $500 - $600 they rushed because the Xbox 360 came out and they would have been 2 years late in that case Playstation 3 will lose, but even with the early release Playstation 3 is still going to lose because people are still going to wait for the Playstation 3 price to drop which will be in mid to the end of 2007 which by that time will be too late because Xbox 360 will have a stronghold on the videogame market even in Japan.
No Console that was priced at more than 300 have been successful period. PS3 is a great system but the price is too high Sony accuses microsoft of coming out too early they are coming out too early PS3 is coming out one year earlier than it is suppossed to if they came out later it would be $400 - $500 not $500 - $600 they rushed because the Xbox 360 came out and they would have been 2 years late in that case Playstation 3 will lose, but even with the early release Playstation 3 is still going to lose because people are still going to wait for the Playstation 3 price to drop which will be in mid to the end of 2007 which by that time will be too late because Xbox 360 will have a stronghold on the videogame market even in Japan.
|
by Figboy (Unregistered) - 2006-07-11 |
|
|
» to 78
you aren't looking at how the gaming market was back when the Neo-Geo and 3DO came out. back then, the market wasn't older than 18. most gamers back then were in the ages of 5 to 18. the parents of those children weren't about to spend $600 or more on a "toy." also remember that the gaming industry only had a user base of aobut 60 million worldwide.
nowadays, video games have a 160 million person installed user base, over half of which are 18-30. those 80 million people aren't relying on mom and dad to purchase video game consoles for them. they can purchase those consoles themselves if they so wish. also taking into account that out of 160 million gamers, 100 million of them are PS2 owners (the PS2, as stated numerous times before, has sold 100 million units, and counting), i don't think Sony has to worry about finding 2 to 4 million PS2 fans who are foaming at the mouth at the prospect of the PS3. just like Nintendo and Microsoft have their rabid fans that will buy every iteration of the GBA or DS, and purchase an X Box just to play Halo, there are even more rabid Sony fans who remember the first time they fired up Metal Gear Solid, or Resident Evil, or Final Fantasy 7. and they bonded themselves with Sony because of the games. it's not Sony's fault that they're number 1.
and i agree that the PS3 would have been around $400, $500 dollars if released next year. you can blame Microsoft for the current $500, $600 price point for the PS3. because the 360 released prematurelyin 2005, Microsoft put Sony in a difficult postion: release the PS3 in 2007, like was originally planned, and risk giving Microsoft *two* holiday seasons in which to cement the lead (Christmas 2005 and Christmas 2006), or release the PS3 in 2006, before the kinks in production were worked out, and thus be forced to charge more for the system, alienating consumers that won't pay the hefty price tag, and stopping MS from dominating.
considering that the Playstation brand has 100 million users across the world, Sony wagered that they could afford to lose a few million to Microsoft by releasing the PS3 in 2006 at $500 and $600. at the most, i expect Sony to lose about 10 million of their initial user base, leaving them with 90 million, still a significant lead. if Microsoft had released the 360 in 2006 instead, Sony would have released the PS3 in 2007, and for much, much less than $600. i see this console war shaping up with Sony in the lead with 70 million units, Microsoft in second with 50 million units, and the Wii in third with about 40 million units.
you aren't looking at how the gaming market was back when the Neo-Geo and 3DO came out. back then, the market wasn't older than 18. most gamers back then were in the ages of 5 to 18. the parents of those children weren't about to spend $600 or more on a "toy." also remember that the gaming industry only had a user base of aobut 60 million worldwide.
nowadays, video games have a 160 million person installed user base, over half of which are 18-30. those 80 million people aren't relying on mom and dad to purchase video game consoles for them. they can purchase those consoles themselves if they so wish. also taking into account that out of 160 million gamers, 100 million of them are PS2 owners (the PS2, as stated numerous times before, has sold 100 million units, and counting), i don't think Sony has to worry about finding 2 to 4 million PS2 fans who are foaming at the mouth at the prospect of the PS3. just like Nintendo and Microsoft have their rabid fans that will buy every iteration of the GBA or DS, and purchase an X Box just to play Halo, there are even more rabid Sony fans who remember the first time they fired up Metal Gear Solid, or Resident Evil, or Final Fantasy 7. and they bonded themselves with Sony because of the games. it's not Sony's fault that they're number 1.
and i agree that the PS3 would have been around $400, $500 dollars if released next year. you can blame Microsoft for the current $500, $600 price point for the PS3. because the 360 released prematurelyin 2005, Microsoft put Sony in a difficult postion: release the PS3 in 2007, like was originally planned, and risk giving Microsoft *two* holiday seasons in which to cement the lead (Christmas 2005 and Christmas 2006), or release the PS3 in 2006, before the kinks in production were worked out, and thus be forced to charge more for the system, alienating consumers that won't pay the hefty price tag, and stopping MS from dominating.
considering that the Playstation brand has 100 million users across the world, Sony wagered that they could afford to lose a few million to Microsoft by releasing the PS3 in 2006 at $500 and $600. at the most, i expect Sony to lose about 10 million of their initial user base, leaving them with 90 million, still a significant lead. if Microsoft had released the 360 in 2006 instead, Sony would have released the PS3 in 2007, and for much, much less than $600. i see this console war shaping up with Sony in the lead with 70 million units, Microsoft in second with 50 million units, and the Wii in third with about 40 million units.
|
by clouducla (Unregistered) - 2006-07-11 |
|
|
» yaz yaz yaz...
funny that u "chose" to not counter my argument...seems like u kinda ran out of things to say. look im no fanboy, i buy the best value, and as we have seen...its not always the case that the most powerful (xbox) system is the best value. the worst console came out on top (ps2) but it was the best value. oh and yaz...please dont make claims about me...especially cuz u seem like a smart guy...dont ACT ignorant
funny that u "chose" to not counter my argument...seems like u kinda ran out of things to say. look im no fanboy, i buy the best value, and as we have seen...its not always the case that the most powerful (xbox) system is the best value. the worst console came out on top (ps2) but it was the best value. oh and yaz...please dont make claims about me...especially cuz u seem like a smart guy...dont ACT ignorant
|
by Yaz - 2006-07-12 |
|
|
» clouducla
"funny that u "chose" to not counter my argument..."
I would normally counter each of your points, but you've already shown this to be a waste of my time.
Look at #43! I decided to reply to EACH of your comments in turn, but in your responce, you chose to reply to just a fraction of the points raised, hence ignoring most of the arguements made. So as I said, it would be a waste of my time.
"look im no fanboy"
By your own words here you are. Fanboys have a love/hate relationship with companies and consoles, and as you've admitted here, you are "a hater". So much so that you even resort to name calling, i.e. XBox 1.5 and lamebox 360 (which is very childish btw). You are NO different than fanboys who refer to the Playstation as the 'Gaystation' or 'PS Poo' or the Gamecube as the 'Lamecube' etc.
As I said previously, if you don't like being called a fanboy, then you shouldn't act like one. As a gamer, there are no excuses for hating other consoles, there are no excuses for calling consoles by childish names, the only people who you would expect this kind of behaviour from are fanboys. Think about it. :|
"funny that u "chose" to not counter my argument..."
I would normally counter each of your points, but you've already shown this to be a waste of my time.
Look at #43! I decided to reply to EACH of your comments in turn, but in your responce, you chose to reply to just a fraction of the points raised, hence ignoring most of the arguements made. So as I said, it would be a waste of my time.
"look im no fanboy"
By your own words here you are. Fanboys have a love/hate relationship with companies and consoles, and as you've admitted here, you are "a hater". So much so that you even resort to name calling, i.e. XBox 1.5 and lamebox 360 (which is very childish btw). You are NO different than fanboys who refer to the Playstation as the 'Gaystation' or 'PS Poo' or the Gamecube as the 'Lamecube' etc.
As I said previously, if you don't like being called a fanboy, then you shouldn't act like one. As a gamer, there are no excuses for hating other consoles, there are no excuses for calling consoles by childish names, the only people who you would expect this kind of behaviour from are fanboys. Think about it. :|
|
by Yaz - 2006-07-12 |
|
|
» Oh please Figboy... :|
"you can blame Microsoft for the current $500, $600 price point for the PS3. because the 360 released prematurelyin 2005, Microsoft put Sony in a difficult postion: release the PS3 in 2007, like was originally planned, and risk giving Microsoft *two* holiday seasons in which to cement the lead"
Sorry, but that is complete rubbish, it really is.
For years, the average gap between console generations has been 5-6 years. Because of this, and the PS2 launching in March 2000 in Japan, the PS2 was expected to launch between March 2005 and March 2006 (again 5-6 years). ALL the predictions over the years was of Sony's next console launching by March 2006 at the LATEST. No-one ever said 2007, not even Sony, since March 2007 would have been 7 years after the PS2 launch!
The 360 launched November 2005, that was 5 years and 8 months after the launch on the PS2, hence premature for the XBox (which was late last gen), but not premature for a next-gen console! Therefore the 360 launched within the time many expected the PS3 will launch, including MS, who planned to have a console ready to launch close to the PS3. If the PS3 has launched as originally planned (Spring 2006), then it would be in keeping with the 5-6 year predictions (give or take a month or so), however as we all know, it is now November 2006, 6 years and 8 months after the PS2.
So no, you can NOT blame MS for the cost of the PS3, all the blame lies with Sony (if blame is even the right word). The PS3 costs as much as it does because of the technology involved, and the PS3 was due to launch THIS year at the latest, not 2007!
"you can blame Microsoft for the current $500, $600 price point for the PS3. because the 360 released prematurelyin 2005, Microsoft put Sony in a difficult postion: release the PS3 in 2007, like was originally planned, and risk giving Microsoft *two* holiday seasons in which to cement the lead"
Sorry, but that is complete rubbish, it really is.
For years, the average gap between console generations has been 5-6 years. Because of this, and the PS2 launching in March 2000 in Japan, the PS2 was expected to launch between March 2005 and March 2006 (again 5-6 years). ALL the predictions over the years was of Sony's next console launching by March 2006 at the LATEST. No-one ever said 2007, not even Sony, since March 2007 would have been 7 years after the PS2 launch!
The 360 launched November 2005, that was 5 years and 8 months after the launch on the PS2, hence premature for the XBox (which was late last gen), but not premature for a next-gen console! Therefore the 360 launched within the time many expected the PS3 will launch, including MS, who planned to have a console ready to launch close to the PS3. If the PS3 has launched as originally planned (Spring 2006), then it would be in keeping with the 5-6 year predictions (give or take a month or so), however as we all know, it is now November 2006, 6 years and 8 months after the PS2.
So no, you can NOT blame MS for the cost of the PS3, all the blame lies with Sony (if blame is even the right word). The PS3 costs as much as it does because of the technology involved, and the PS3 was due to launch THIS year at the latest, not 2007!
|
by X-Box is Garbage (Unregistered) - 2006-07-12 |
|
|
» Thats a lie
I think it not even going to make it after a year when the p23 comes out because everyone is going to forget about the 360 and everyone is going to get the ps3, and like is name the 360 sales is really going to take a turn for the worst they didnt even get the sales they wanted.
I think it not even going to make it after a year when the p23 comes out because everyone is going to forget about the 360 and everyone is going to get the ps3, and like is name the 360 sales is really going to take a turn for the worst they didnt even get the sales they wanted.
|
by Figboy (Unregistered) - 2006-07-12 |
|
|
» to Yaz
actually, Sony did consider the idea of launching the PS3 in 2007, because the PS2 was still going strong sales wise. i can't remember where i read that, but it was probably ign.com, since that's the site i read the most. and if the average console life is 5 to 6 years, why did Microsoft release the 360 in 2005, roughly *3* to *4* years after the original X Box launched? by your definition of a consoles life cycle, the X Box still had another year or two to go before it was time for a new iteration. sounds to me like they launched prematurely.
and i can and do blame Microsoft for the cost of the PS3. the next gen war was begun 1 year too soon. the PS2, X Box, and GC had plenty of life left in them, and definitely the PS2, judging by the high profile titles coming out for the console this year and next year. the fact that the PS3 was pushed back to November shows that Sony wasn't ready to mass produce the thing this year. which is why they're scrambling to get that November launch going asap.
if Sony had waited into spring 2007 (which they've said they had considered doing (again, check the ign archives for the actual articles and quotes), Microsoft would have had the Christmas 2005 season, and the Christmas 2006 season to sell 360s virtually unopposed. not to mention the arrival of the Nintendo Wii. Arrogant as Sony is, even they knew that if they let those two have Christmas 2006, they'd lose too much market share. Sony says a lot of things, and yes, they planned to release the PS3 in March of 2006 in Japan, but realistically, they knew that that wasn't possible. they hadn't even begun production of the individual components needed to create the system. a company that was planning on a March 06 launch would have released knews back in 2005 that production of the key PS3 components were underway. hell, it wasn't until E3 2006, which takes place in *May* that Sony finally revealed the final specs for the system. despite what they've said, they had no plans whatsoever to release the PS3 in March 06.
the life expectancy of game consoles were roughly 5 to 6 years, but that was before gaming technology got as advanced as it is now. Sony had been working on the Cell for nearly 4 years. how long do you think it's going to take to develop the *next* processor? as the technology gets more and more complex, the gestation period of consoles will get longer. from the NES to Genesis, it was roughly 4 years, from the SNES to the PS1, it was roughly 5 years, from the PS1 to the PS2 it was roughly 5 years, from the PS2 to the PS3, it's 6 years. see the trend? Sony spent a lot of money on the Cell processor, more money than they spent on the emotion engine, and they made sure that they created something flexible enough to go beyond the 5-6 year cycle. i doubt we see the PS4 anytime before 2014.
actually, Sony did consider the idea of launching the PS3 in 2007, because the PS2 was still going strong sales wise. i can't remember where i read that, but it was probably ign.com, since that's the site i read the most. and if the average console life is 5 to 6 years, why did Microsoft release the 360 in 2005, roughly *3* to *4* years after the original X Box launched? by your definition of a consoles life cycle, the X Box still had another year or two to go before it was time for a new iteration. sounds to me like they launched prematurely.
and i can and do blame Microsoft for the cost of the PS3. the next gen war was begun 1 year too soon. the PS2, X Box, and GC had plenty of life left in them, and definitely the PS2, judging by the high profile titles coming out for the console this year and next year. the fact that the PS3 was pushed back to November shows that Sony wasn't ready to mass produce the thing this year. which is why they're scrambling to get that November launch going asap.
if Sony had waited into spring 2007 (which they've said they had considered doing (again, check the ign archives for the actual articles and quotes), Microsoft would have had the Christmas 2005 season, and the Christmas 2006 season to sell 360s virtually unopposed. not to mention the arrival of the Nintendo Wii. Arrogant as Sony is, even they knew that if they let those two have Christmas 2006, they'd lose too much market share. Sony says a lot of things, and yes, they planned to release the PS3 in March of 2006 in Japan, but realistically, they knew that that wasn't possible. they hadn't even begun production of the individual components needed to create the system. a company that was planning on a March 06 launch would have released knews back in 2005 that production of the key PS3 components were underway. hell, it wasn't until E3 2006, which takes place in *May* that Sony finally revealed the final specs for the system. despite what they've said, they had no plans whatsoever to release the PS3 in March 06.
the life expectancy of game consoles were roughly 5 to 6 years, but that was before gaming technology got as advanced as it is now. Sony had been working on the Cell for nearly 4 years. how long do you think it's going to take to develop the *next* processor? as the technology gets more and more complex, the gestation period of consoles will get longer. from the NES to Genesis, it was roughly 4 years, from the SNES to the PS1, it was roughly 5 years, from the PS1 to the PS2 it was roughly 5 years, from the PS2 to the PS3, it's 6 years. see the trend? Sony spent a lot of money on the Cell processor, more money than they spent on the emotion engine, and they made sure that they created something flexible enough to go beyond the 5-6 year cycle. i doubt we see the PS4 anytime before 2014.
|
by Figboy (Unregistered) - 2006-07-12 |
|
|
» to Yaz
the PS3 was due to launch this year because it had no choice. if Sony had it's way, they would have launched in Spring or Fall 2007, because the PS2 is still kicking ass in the stores. why compete with yourself? in the month of May alone, it sold 250,000 units. i think it sold roughly the same in June, and will continue to sell well into the Christmas season. the Wii's main competition is a $130 PS2, with a library of thousands of games (a lot under $20). hell, even the PS3 had to compete with the PS2, but since there are only 2 million units shipping, and those will be gobbled up by the hardcore Sony fans, it's not really an issue. and unless the 360 offers something this year thats not involving shooting people and blowing ***** up with guns, it's not going to appeal to the part of the market that *doesn't* want to shoot stuff (i know it's hard to believe, but not everyone wants to be a miscellaneous bald guy with tattoos and giant weaponry).
sure, the technology going into the PS3 is expensive. for *2006*. you're telling me that the cost to produce the Cell and Blu Ray wouldn't *drop* by 2007? the reasons why systems cost what they do at launch is because of the production rampup neccessary to create the consoles needed to meet demand. if Sony actually tried to produce 100 million PS3's by years end, they'd go out of business. i guess during their meetings, they figured that 4 million units by years end, and 2 million more by the end of their fiscal year (ending March 2007) at $500 and $600 was an acceptable number, and would allow them to catch up with Microsoft. after March 2007, the ball game really starts. and Sony will play hard. once mass production of the units begin, there will be a marketing blitzkrieg about Blu Ray, a number of high profile titles coming out on PS3 *and* Blu Ray (Spider-Man 3 Blu Ray in fall 2007 anyone?), *and* the price of the unit will drop because they won't have to produce millions of units in such a short ammount of time. they can put out shipments of 500,000 every three months, meeting a slow demand, and lowering production costs. next year is going to be the true beginning of the PS3, not this year. this year is like the advanced screening before the world premiere.
the PS3 was due to launch this year because it had no choice. if Sony had it's way, they would have launched in Spring or Fall 2007, because the PS2 is still kicking ass in the stores. why compete with yourself? in the month of May alone, it sold 250,000 units. i think it sold roughly the same in June, and will continue to sell well into the Christmas season. the Wii's main competition is a $130 PS2, with a library of thousands of games (a lot under $20). hell, even the PS3 had to compete with the PS2, but since there are only 2 million units shipping, and those will be gobbled up by the hardcore Sony fans, it's not really an issue. and unless the 360 offers something this year thats not involving shooting people and blowing ***** up with guns, it's not going to appeal to the part of the market that *doesn't* want to shoot stuff (i know it's hard to believe, but not everyone wants to be a miscellaneous bald guy with tattoos and giant weaponry).
sure, the technology going into the PS3 is expensive. for *2006*. you're telling me that the cost to produce the Cell and Blu Ray wouldn't *drop* by 2007? the reasons why systems cost what they do at launch is because of the production rampup neccessary to create the consoles needed to meet demand. if Sony actually tried to produce 100 million PS3's by years end, they'd go out of business. i guess during their meetings, they figured that 4 million units by years end, and 2 million more by the end of their fiscal year (ending March 2007) at $500 and $600 was an acceptable number, and would allow them to catch up with Microsoft. after March 2007, the ball game really starts. and Sony will play hard. once mass production of the units begin, there will be a marketing blitzkrieg about Blu Ray, a number of high profile titles coming out on PS3 *and* Blu Ray (Spider-Man 3 Blu Ray in fall 2007 anyone?), *and* the price of the unit will drop because they won't have to produce millions of units in such a short ammount of time. they can put out shipments of 500,000 every three months, meeting a slow demand, and lowering production costs. next year is going to be the true beginning of the PS3, not this year. this year is like the advanced screening before the world premiere.
|
by Advertising - |
|
|
|
by Yaz - 2006-07-12 |
|
|
» To Figboy
"the PS3 was due to launch this year because it had no choice. if Sony had it's way, they would have launched in Spring or Fall 2007"
Again, that's rubbish. Sorry to be so direct but it really is. At no time in all these years since the PS2 launched, was there any suggestion of Sony's next-gen console having a debut launch in 2007, 7 YEARS after the PS2. No reports, no articles, not even analysis predictions. The only time 2007 would be mentioned is for Europe, on the assumption that the console had already launched in Japan and the US in 2006.
Not only that, MS officially announced their plans for the 360 last year, at a time when PS3 developement was already going ahead, and yet NO developer or anyone has commented on PS3's launch being brought forward from 2007.
After YEARS of developement, all the components were due to be ready on time for Sony to release their next-gen console in Spring 2006. So, with the hardware ready, Sony were going to sit on it for a year until the price was right? Come on!
And if the original plan was for 2007, then NVidia would not have needed to finish the RSX design so early (way back in Febrary this year), over 1 year before the console was due to launch!
Then there's Blu-ray. Sony have ALWAYS planned to use the PS3 as a means to establish a large base of Blu-ray owners QUICKLY to counter HD-DVD in the format wars. So, how were they going to achieve this by launching the PS3 in 2007, long after the first HD-DVD and Blu-ray players hit the market in 2006? This would give HD-DVD one year to establish itself against the more expensive Blu-ray, giving HD-DVD a head start. The PS3 was meant to counter this by launching around the same time as Blu-ray players.
So PS3's launch has as much to do with the battle for the next-gen DVD format (HD-DVD vs Blu-ray) as it has for consoles. Hence whichever way you look at it, Sony had no intention of launching the PS3 in 2007.
The cost of the PS3 has nothing to do with Microsoft.
"the PS3 was due to launch this year because it had no choice. if Sony had it's way, they would have launched in Spring or Fall 2007"
Again, that's rubbish. Sorry to be so direct but it really is. At no time in all these years since the PS2 launched, was there any suggestion of Sony's next-gen console having a debut launch in 2007, 7 YEARS after the PS2. No reports, no articles, not even analysis predictions. The only time 2007 would be mentioned is for Europe, on the assumption that the console had already launched in Japan and the US in 2006.
Not only that, MS officially announced their plans for the 360 last year, at a time when PS3 developement was already going ahead, and yet NO developer or anyone has commented on PS3's launch being brought forward from 2007.
After YEARS of developement, all the components were due to be ready on time for Sony to release their next-gen console in Spring 2006. So, with the hardware ready, Sony were going to sit on it for a year until the price was right? Come on!
And if the original plan was for 2007, then NVidia would not have needed to finish the RSX design so early (way back in Febrary this year), over 1 year before the console was due to launch!
Then there's Blu-ray. Sony have ALWAYS planned to use the PS3 as a means to establish a large base of Blu-ray owners QUICKLY to counter HD-DVD in the format wars. So, how were they going to achieve this by launching the PS3 in 2007, long after the first HD-DVD and Blu-ray players hit the market in 2006? This would give HD-DVD one year to establish itself against the more expensive Blu-ray, giving HD-DVD a head start. The PS3 was meant to counter this by launching around the same time as Blu-ray players.
So PS3's launch has as much to do with the battle for the next-gen DVD format (HD-DVD vs Blu-ray) as it has for consoles. Hence whichever way you look at it, Sony had no intention of launching the PS3 in 2007.
The cost of the PS3 has nothing to do with Microsoft.
|
by Yaz - 2006-07-12 |
|
|
» #84
"and if the average console life is 5 to 6 years, why did Microsoft release the 360 in 2005, roughly *3* to *4* years after the original X Box launched?"
It was 4 years after, and I explained it already. To quote myself from post #82; "The 360 launched November 2005... hence PREMATURE FOR THE XBOX (which was LATE LAST GEN), but not premature for a next-gen console! ....planned to have a console ready to launch close to the PS3."
"and i can and do blame Microsoft for the cost of the PS3. the next gen war was begun 1 year too soon. the PS2, X Box, and GC had plenty of life left in them"
Planning for next-gen consoles take YEARS Figboy. The hardware and software is scheduled to be ready at a certain time in the future, and everything is set to meet that target. They do not develope the console first and THEN decide when to release it depending on market conditions!
Thanks to the 360, the next-gen console began on time, not early.
I could go on, but not until you provide PROOF that Sony were originally planning to release the PS3 in 2007, despite the battle between Blu-ray and HD-DVD (which I belive is equally important to Sony).
"and if the average console life is 5 to 6 years, why did Microsoft release the 360 in 2005, roughly *3* to *4* years after the original X Box launched?"
It was 4 years after, and I explained it already. To quote myself from post #82; "The 360 launched November 2005... hence PREMATURE FOR THE XBOX (which was LATE LAST GEN), but not premature for a next-gen console! ....planned to have a console ready to launch close to the PS3."
"and i can and do blame Microsoft for the cost of the PS3. the next gen war was begun 1 year too soon. the PS2, X Box, and GC had plenty of life left in them"
Planning for next-gen consoles take YEARS Figboy. The hardware and software is scheduled to be ready at a certain time in the future, and everything is set to meet that target. They do not develope the console first and THEN decide when to release it depending on market conditions!
Thanks to the 360, the next-gen console began on time, not early.
I could go on, but not until you provide PROOF that Sony were originally planning to release the PS3 in 2007, despite the battle between Blu-ray and HD-DVD (which I belive is equally important to Sony).
|
by Figboy (Unregistered) - 2006-07-12 |
|
|
» i have a question
after this i'm done debating the point. my question is do you regularly read magazines devoted to playstation specifically?
if you do, then you may remember that a short time after the PS2 launched, Kaz Hirai or someone in a similar position stated that the PS3 would probably be seen sometime around 2007, 2006 at the earliest.
i wouldn't just spout off these things if they didn't have any basis in fact.
the reason why i say Microsoft had something to do with the PS3's cost (which i thought would be plain by now) is because the PS3 is indeed launching 6 months to a year too early as a direct result of Microsoft launching the 360 in November.
Sony has stated (maybe not a thousand times), that the PS3 wouldn't be ready until 2007. Microsoft saw that as an opportunity to get the upper hand by releasing the 360 a full *two* years before the PS3's expected launch (not confirmed launch, just expected based off of Sony's comments prior to 2005). Sony had to counter by bumping the release of the PS3 to early 2006, cutting into Microsoft's head start. they realized that that just wasn't econnomically or physically feasable, so they moved the Japanese launch to November, when they realised that it must launch in all territories in 2006 or hand over the Next Gen crown to Microsoft.
since the PS3 is releasing *this* year, instead of next year, the cost of Cell and Blu Ray components are more expensive than they would have been, say, in 2007. BECAUSE OF THAT, the PS3 has the hefty price tag. if the console had released in 2007, it probably would have been $50 to $100 less than what it is now.
there. i can't state it any plainer than that.
as for the Blu Ray HD DVD war, HD DVD has failed to take off, prior to it's competition even launching. Sony could launch their Blu Ray players in 2007 and it still wouldn't have an impact on the slow start of HD DVD. if Microsoft had added an HD DVD player to the 360, there would be 3.8 million HDDVD players in peoples homes right now. since they didn't there are only a few thousand HD DVD players sold thus far. when the PS3 launches in November, it will sell out of however many million units Sony manages to ship, thus establishing Blu Ray into those peoples homes. couple that with the fact that Blu Ray has the support of 7 out of the 8 major motion picture studios, along with the Porn Industry, and HD DVD only has the support of 3 of the 8, and Blu Ray clearly has the advantage. Sony didn't have anything to worry about in regards to competition. much like the PS2, there will be a larger library of Blu Ray movies because of the ammount of support it's getting. Sony knows this, so they don't care if Blu Ray gets delayed. come November, the PS3 will be the cheapest Blu Ray player on the market. and those that want a home theatre system with the largest collection of movies will smartly choose Blu Ray (or just stick to standard DVDs, actually).
anyway, i'm done arguing. you don't see my point, and i don't see yours, so i'm walking away.
after this i'm done debating the point. my question is do you regularly read magazines devoted to playstation specifically?
if you do, then you may remember that a short time after the PS2 launched, Kaz Hirai or someone in a similar position stated that the PS3 would probably be seen sometime around 2007, 2006 at the earliest.
i wouldn't just spout off these things if they didn't have any basis in fact.
the reason why i say Microsoft had something to do with the PS3's cost (which i thought would be plain by now) is because the PS3 is indeed launching 6 months to a year too early as a direct result of Microsoft launching the 360 in November.
Sony has stated (maybe not a thousand times), that the PS3 wouldn't be ready until 2007. Microsoft saw that as an opportunity to get the upper hand by releasing the 360 a full *two* years before the PS3's expected launch (not confirmed launch, just expected based off of Sony's comments prior to 2005). Sony had to counter by bumping the release of the PS3 to early 2006, cutting into Microsoft's head start. they realized that that just wasn't econnomically or physically feasable, so they moved the Japanese launch to November, when they realised that it must launch in all territories in 2006 or hand over the Next Gen crown to Microsoft.
since the PS3 is releasing *this* year, instead of next year, the cost of Cell and Blu Ray components are more expensive than they would have been, say, in 2007. BECAUSE OF THAT, the PS3 has the hefty price tag. if the console had released in 2007, it probably would have been $50 to $100 less than what it is now.
there. i can't state it any plainer than that.
as for the Blu Ray HD DVD war, HD DVD has failed to take off, prior to it's competition even launching. Sony could launch their Blu Ray players in 2007 and it still wouldn't have an impact on the slow start of HD DVD. if Microsoft had added an HD DVD player to the 360, there would be 3.8 million HDDVD players in peoples homes right now. since they didn't there are only a few thousand HD DVD players sold thus far. when the PS3 launches in November, it will sell out of however many million units Sony manages to ship, thus establishing Blu Ray into those peoples homes. couple that with the fact that Blu Ray has the support of 7 out of the 8 major motion picture studios, along with the Porn Industry, and HD DVD only has the support of 3 of the 8, and Blu Ray clearly has the advantage. Sony didn't have anything to worry about in regards to competition. much like the PS2, there will be a larger library of Blu Ray movies because of the ammount of support it's getting. Sony knows this, so they don't care if Blu Ray gets delayed. come November, the PS3 will be the cheapest Blu Ray player on the market. and those that want a home theatre system with the largest collection of movies will smartly choose Blu Ray (or just stick to standard DVDs, actually).
anyway, i'm done arguing. you don't see my point, and i don't see yours, so i'm walking away.
|
by Yaz - 2006-07-12 |
|
|
» ...
"Sony has stated (maybe not a thousand times), that the PS3 wouldn't be ready until 2007"
I Look forward to your links for proof of this (links from before the 360 announcement which are not based on speculation or rumour).
"anyway, i'm done arguing. you don't see my point, and i don't see yours, so i'm walking away."
Always a wise when you're wrong. ;)
Goodbye.
"Sony has stated (maybe not a thousand times), that the PS3 wouldn't be ready until 2007"
I Look forward to your links for proof of this (links from before the 360 announcement which are not based on speculation or rumour).
"anyway, i'm done arguing. you don't see my point, and i don't see yours, so i'm walking away."
Always a wise when you're wrong. ;)
Goodbye.
|
by Yaz - 2006-07-12 |
|
|
» Finally
"after this i'm done debating the point. my question is do you regularly read magazines devoted to playstation specifically?"
I regularly read magazines for all consoles and have done so for many years, as well as the internet of course.
Sony are the market leader, and I don't believe for one moment that they were forced into launching the PS3 atleast one year earlier than planned (spring 2006) because of the 360. It just doesn't work that way, since there is no way Sony could have brought their software and hardware plans forward by 1 year in response to Microsoft's XBox 360.
But as you said, we'll have to agree to disagree. :|
"after this i'm done debating the point. my question is do you regularly read magazines devoted to playstation specifically?"
I regularly read magazines for all consoles and have done so for many years, as well as the internet of course.
Sony are the market leader, and I don't believe for one moment that they were forced into launching the PS3 atleast one year earlier than planned (spring 2006) because of the 360. It just doesn't work that way, since there is no way Sony could have brought their software and hardware plans forward by 1 year in response to Microsoft's XBox 360.
But as you said, we'll have to agree to disagree. :|
|
by Yaz - 2006-07-12 |
|
|
» Finally Figboy...(but for real this time :))
And twisting this arguement around for a moment. Let's say what you say is true, and the PS3 does cost more because of MS's 360. Why should MS care?
In fact, why should you care?
If the PS3 has arrived earlier than planned because of the 360, then gamers are paying for the privilege of owning the PS3 console EARLY. Afterall, you say without the 360, the PS3 wouldn't arrive until 2007.
If you don't want to pay so much for the console, then you just need to be patient and wait for the first price drop, by which time the PS3 would be available for the price and at the time it was originally due to launch (according to you).
So, is paying more to get the PS3 earlier than expected really a problem? I don't think so. :p
And twisting this arguement around for a moment. Let's say what you say is true, and the PS3 does cost more because of MS's 360. Why should MS care?
In fact, why should you care?
If the PS3 has arrived earlier than planned because of the 360, then gamers are paying for the privilege of owning the PS3 console EARLY. Afterall, you say without the 360, the PS3 wouldn't arrive until 2007.
If you don't want to pay so much for the console, then you just need to be patient and wait for the first price drop, by which time the PS3 would be available for the price and at the time it was originally due to launch (according to you).
So, is paying more to get the PS3 earlier than expected really a problem? I don't think so. :p
|
by Xx*****xX (Unregistered) - 2006-07-13 |
|
|
» ...
***** ANDERSON! hes a ***** bag...
***** ANDERSON! hes a ***** bag...
|
by Punejap (Unregistered) - 2006-07-18 |
|
|
» LOLOLOLOLOLOL
MY *****IN ASS!!! XbOX 360 IS BARELY NEX GEN LOLOLOL once ps3 and wii come out its *****ed. my predictions, 360 right over ps3 (cuz its been out longer) and wii will definetely win by a ***** load.
MY *****IN ASS!!! XbOX 360 IS BARELY NEX GEN LOLOLOL once ps3 and wii come out its *****ed. my predictions, 360 right over ps3 (cuz its been out longer) and wii will definetely win by a ***** load.
|
by i bangs 360's (Unregistered) - 2006-09-14 |
|
|
» 360+wii-ps3=g00d
360 is amazing and i think it will stay dominant and the wii with alot of fans excited it will probably sell more than 6.5mill with the release date nov.19.06. but with the ps3 will be last to appear and hoping that this will help them but with the price and the problems with being powerful enough to play hi-def but cant is pretty stupid, and if i remember correctly the gamecube came out after the other 2 systems and it withered away it to almost nothing.in my opinion i think 360 will stay atop the video game ladder then wii with ps3 close behind
360 is amazing and i think it will stay dominant and the wii with alot of fans excited it will probably sell more than 6.5mill with the release date nov.19.06. but with the ps3 will be last to appear and hoping that this will help them but with the price and the problems with being powerful enough to play hi-def but cant is pretty stupid, and if i remember correctly the gamecube came out after the other 2 systems and it withered away it to almost nothing.in my opinion i think 360 will stay atop the video game ladder then wii with ps3 close behind
Contact Us:
|
The QJ.net Network |
|
| Site | Feed |
| QJ.NET | RSS |
| Nintendo DS | RSS |
| PlayStation 3 | RSS |
| PSP Updates | RSS |
| Wii | RSS |
| Xbox 360 | RSS |
| MMORPG | RSS |
| Personal Computer Games | RSS |
| iPhone - iPod Touch | RSS |
| QJ.NET Forums | RSS |
Add QJ.NET
User Favorites - November
| Most Commented | |
| (43) | |
| (41) | |
| (31) | |
| (23) | |
| (21) | |
| (19) | |
| (17) | |
| (13) | |
| (12) | |
| (11) | |
| (11) | |
| (10) | |
| (9) | |
| (9) | |
| (9) | |
| (9) | |
| (7) | |
| (6) | |
| (6) | |
| (6) | |
User Favorites - November
Accessories
(298)Applications
(91)Artwork
(93)Cheats
(7)Controller
(431)Deals
(160)Events
(173)Games
(6524)Hacks & Exploits
(141)Homebrew Applications
(420)Homebrew Development
(111)Homebrew Emulators
(173)Homebrew Games
(277)How-To
(52)Humor
(123)Imports
(9)Interviews
(878)Mods
(166)News
(7424)Off Topic
(1182)On Shelves This Week
(35)Opinions & Analysis
(1061)Previews
(386)QJ How-To Series
(1)QuickJump QuickPeek
(34)Reviews
(18)Rumors
(785)Scans
(197)Screenshots
(943)Site News
(55)Videos
(1631)Virtual Console
(528)Weekend Warrior
(39)Wi-Fi
(38)Wii Channels
(225)WiiWare
(82)
Titles
Archives
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
