PS3 600 dollars? Sony is on crack

[Vigilance]

No, it's not. First to market doesn't always win, but it never hurts. And first to ten million (which will be the 360 this generation unless something crazy happens) does always win. This may be the first exception, but I wouldn't bet on it.



There's not really a good analogy. I think the closest model is Nintendo going from SNES->N64, but that's a bit strained (where they were coming from market leadership, but their next-gen console was late, over-promised, and under-delivered, and so dropped from market leadership to a major niche player).

Nobody's been coming from a previous-gen position as strong as Sony's coming from since Nintendo in the NES days. And nobody's done as much to shoot themselves in the foot since Nintendo and Sega in the SNES/Genesis->N64/Saturn/PS1 transition. No major console maker has been in such bad shape financially since Sega around the Dreamcast launch (though Sega was in worse shape).

I have to say, it's refreshing to see SOMEONE on this board agrees with me. When I read what analysts and tech writers for the newspapers are saying, they say a lot of the things I say but disagree with others.

On this board however, absolutely everyone has been acting like Im sort of a dummy for not falling right in line with Sony.

Like they never make mistakes. Betamax anyone? 8-track tapes? Rootkits?

Chuck

 

[drothgery]

On this board however, absolutely everyone has been acting like Im sort of a dummy for not falling right in line with Sony.

What I'd guess is going on here is that a lot of people are thinking "didn't most of the tech press and hardware geek types say the same thing about the PS2?" And there are definite parallels. Most of the tech press panned the hard-to-code-for PS2, and loved the clean, straightforward, gaming-focused Dreamcast, which had better games for years. And Sony destroyed Sega's hardware division with pure marketing muscle.

But the thing is that they aren't sitting on a PS1-led mountain of profits this time, and didn't spot a year to a nearly-bankrupt Sega with questions as to whether Nintendo was staying in the non-portable console game; they spotted a year to Microsoft with nearly $40 billion in the bank, and a Nintendo that's definitely in the non-portable console game business is launching at the same time. And the PS2 wasn't debuting at $600.

 

[John Crichton]

No, it's not. First to market doesn't always win, but it never hurts. And first to ten million (which will be the 360 this generation unless something crazy happens) does always win. This may be the first exception, but I wouldn't bet on it.

It is a huge monetary benefit and a direct result of the console having the best 3rd party support and a long successful life. And the 10 million units is a fine benchmark but that company needs the full support of the gaming development community which Microsoft doesn't have as of yet.

Nobody's been coming from a previous-gen position as strong as Sony's coming from since Nintendo in the NES days. And nobody's done as much to shoot themselves in the foot since Nintendo and Sega in the SNES/Genesis->N64/Saturn/PS1 transition. No major console maker has been in such bad shape financially since Sega around the Dreamcast launch (though Sega was in worse shape).

How does this effect the games we'll be getting for the PS3? Sony has shot themselves in the foot? The console isn't out yet so that statement is premature.

Perhaps I'm missing the point here but what is the big deal with all the Sony hate? Did your PS2 launch a bottle rocket at your head? The rumor mill is so huge because the console is a big deal. It will be tops in Japan and at the very least have a slight edge over the 360 after both systems have their killer titles hit the stores.

So, the thing is $600? Don't have HD and don't care? $500. That price is genius for Sony. It won't stay there for longer than a year and if it does the system could be in trouble. I've been waiting for these companies to wise up to the launch market tactics and release a major system at prices that people are paying for on ebay anyway.

And if it is still selling well they don't have to lower the price. The only way the PS3 will go the way of the DC is if the 360 has a superior selection of games which is unlikely for this console cycle. I do like that Microsoft has been aggressive in the console market. Just think where we would be if we just had the Wii & PS3 for this time around. Ick.

 

[John Crichton]

I have to say, it's refreshing to see SOMEONE on this board agrees with me. When I read what analysts and tech writers for the newspapers are saying, they say a lot of the things I say but disagree with others.

On this board however, absolutely everyone has been acting like Im sort of a dummy for not falling right in line with Sony.

Perhaps it is your stance? Your posts are essentially Sony hate and the title "Sony is on crack" doesn't exactly say that you are an objective party. Yes, you hate the price point, we get it. Posting about how hard it is to develop for, linking to rag gaming magazine articles that are the equivelent of The National Inquierer and assuming that the prices of the games will be up to $20 more than what is out there now without any solid evidence is like screaming the sky is falling.

And I'll say this again and for the last time: you are not the target audience for the PS3 launch. You don't care about HD. It's cool. They'll try and get you on board later with price drops and big selection of games.

Like they never make mistakes. Betamax anyone? 8-track tapes? Rootkits?

BR is the media (which you hate on principle unseen), not the games themselves. It'll work out better anyway because the PS3 launch lineup doesn't look all that hot.

It's well known that companies like Sony have huge failures and especially a company as visible as they are. The 3 companies are all out for your dollar and nothing else: one company is videogame royalty, the other has unlimited resources and the other is the current leader with the most overall support from the people who make games. The only thing that matters is what their respective output is in actual entertainment. A $600 next-gen HD console doesn't mean the sky is falling. It just means that you won't be in line on launch day. I can respect that.

 

[drothgery]

How does this effect the games we'll be getting for the PS3?

If nobody has a PS3 (because the thing's late, overpriced, and volumes will be extremely limitted for at least six months after launch), and it's hard to program for (which it is), you'll see a lot of PS3 games being delayed (which we've seen a lot of), and PS3 versions of multiplatform games being cancelled (which we've seen some of).

Sony has shot themselves in the foot? The console isn't out yet so that statement is premature.

One of the ways they've shot themselves in the foot is that the console hasn't come out yet. Another is that they built another PS2-esque difficult-to-program highly customized box; I remain convinced that there's some idiot running Sony's engineering department who thinks that since it worked last time, they should do it again, not realizing that the PS2's success last time had nothing to do with technical merit. The specs keep getting revised down (most recently they cut GPU and video memory clockspeeds). The third is the pricing -- no console that launched at over $400 has ever succeeded even in gaining a niche market.

Perhaps I'm missing the point here but what is the big deal with all the Sony hate?

Other than a certain iritation as a programmer with a passing interest in hardware design that they managed to get away with the kludge that was the PS2, and they seem intent on essentially doing the same thing again, except more so, there's not much.

I guess I just don't understand the kind of bizzaro-logic that says that having a console be late and expensive is good for Sony.

 

[Arnwyn]

What I'd guess is going on here is that a lot of people are thinking ...

Nah. What's going on here is that a lot of people are thinking it's a little premature to start screaming 'the sky is falling'.

Start screaming a year from November when Sony screws the pooch with an overly expensive, hard to program for system with fewer exclusives than in the PS2 generation - because it'll be legitimate then.

 

[Vigilance]

Perhaps it is your stance? Your posts are essentially Sony hate and the title "Sony is on crack" doesn't exactly say that you are an objective party. Yes, you hate the price point, we get it. Posting about how hard it is to develop for, linking to rag gaming magazine articles that are the equivelent of The National Inquierer and assuming that the prices of the games will be up to $20 more than what is out there now without any solid evidence is like screaming the sky is falling.

All the articles I've quoted came from Gamespot more or less, which I find to be a fairly neutral source. They're pro-gaming, but not specifically pro-PS or pro-MS or pro-Nintendo.

And besides a rather provocative title, I don't think I have been that extreme in my opinions. I'm reporting what I'm reading. Everything I read says that Blue Ray is more expensive than HD-DVD, whether it's for movies or games. HD-DVD can use existing DVD manufacturing, but Blue Ray cannot. So it's my understanding that this alone will make them more expensive, and I still think that's the case.

I will be HAPPY to be proven wrong.

See this is what you continue to miss about me. Because of the thread title maybe, or maybe just defensiveness cause I disagree with you, you have decided that I "hate Sony".

So you ask "what is with the Sony hate".

I bought a Playstation and a PS2 AT LAUNCH.

How the hell is that hate?

I *want* this to be a successful console because the more successful consoles there are out there, the more games there will be. But I also will not sit by and say nothing when I see Sony making mistakes.

And I think charging 100 dollars more for what is essentially the same product, IS a mistake.

You think I like Microsoft? Not particularly. But if the console is less expensive for a comparable product, I'll buy it. I never considered buying an X-box. Customers like me, who have been pushed to consider the competition by Sony's current strategy, are a loss to the company.

And I'll say this again and for the last time: you are not the target audience for the PS3 launch. You don't care about HD. It's cool. They'll try and get you on board later with price drops and big selection of games.

Good for them. That big price drop had better bring it in line with X-box or I will be buying an X-box.

See how that works? I'm going to SHOP AROUND, LOOK AT COMPETING PRODUCTS and then DECIDE.

I'm not sure how using my head as a consumer means that I "hate Sony" as you allege.

BR is the media (which you hate on principle unseen), not the games themselves. It'll work out better anyway because the PS3 launch lineup doesn't look all that hot.

So you finally admit that their launch lineup doesn't look that good. Why do you "hate Sony" so much John?

And think about WHY their launch lineup might not be as good this time around. Could it be that they have made a mistake or two by overpricing the console?

And yeah I hate Blue Ray "sight unseen" because it is just another copy protection scheme and another grab to get everyone to upgrade to the new thing and ditch their DVDs. I know a company flexing its muscle when I see it. Again, I shop, I read, call me funny that way.

I'm a geek. It's pretty easy to talk me out of my money with the new shiny. I'm currently counting the days till Marvel Ultimate Alliance and FF XII come out.

It's well known that companies like Sony have huge failures and especially a company as visible as they are. The 3 companies are all out for your dollar and nothing else: one company is videogame royalty, the other has unlimited resources and the other is the current leader with the most overall support from the people who make games. The only thing that matters is what their respective output is in actual entertainment. A $600 next-gen HD console doesn't mean the sky is falling. It just means that you won't be in line on launch day. I can respect that.

And I'm fairly certain I have never claimed the sky *IS* falling.

I have much bigger problems with MS business practices than Sony and was a launch customer for the PS2 and the PS. The fact that I am so annoyed with what's going on right now should be a concern to them, but maybe I'm in the minority and maybe people WILL pay 100 dollars more for what is essentially the same console on the strength of the PS brand.

Chuck

 

[Michael Morris]

Sony lost a LOT of goodwill from the game manufacturers with the PS2. A couple of manufacturers pressed more copies of their game than Sony got consoles on the market - leaving a lot of them with a bad taste in their mouth. The only lines that are staying PS exclusive are those contractually bound to - terms that haven't been renewed and run out about the same time this box launches.

Will the PS3 do well in Japan? Of course - the Japanese remain highly nationalistic in their purchasing habits so Microsoft is really kidding themselves if they think they'll ever get a foothold there. The Wii is the only console with a chance against the PS3, and it's a snowballs chance in a rather warm place.

The US market isn't the only one. Atari lingered as long as they did because the 7800 did well in Europe where Nintendo got to the market afterward. Globally I expect the PS3 to win Japan with the Xbox 360 winning out here and in Europe.

Besides, who gives a crap - the chipsets are getting so standardized porting is far less of an issue than it was in earlier generations.

 

[TwistedBishop]

The Wii is the only console with a chance against the PS3, and it's a snowballs chance in a rather warm place.

If the DS vs. PSP sales are any indication, it's the PS3 that may be in trouble in the motherland.

 

[Jdvn1]

Sony and MS tend to sell the consoles at a loss and make it up in software.

In theory, though MS never made up for the loss in hardware. MS has consistently posted losses.