Support NeoGAF

[Zombie James]

So in NPD threads, folks say the PS3 won't sell until it's cheaper.

In the '10 year threads' they say being cheaper won't help it sell well, it needs more software.

Awesome sauce.

Not just software, bad software.

 

[Flakster99]

Hear that, Sony? You need more shit on your system to attract teh casuals.

1. Lair sequel.
2. Lair sequel with nothing but sixaxis mini-games.
3. Lair sequel with nothing but sixaxis mini-games and cute, pink dragons.
4. ???
5. Victory.

You jest, yet mistakenly, stumbled your way into something quite true.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

Not just software, bad software.

Do me a favour and go to your local Wal-Mart sometime, and look at the amount of shovelware out for the PS2 in the 10 dollar bin.

You might have a bit of trouble though, from the absolute swarm of people hovering around it at any one time. More software is never a bad thing.

 

[Burai]

Again, this is looking at the business in a bubble. Why exactly would people be picking the cheap PS3 over a cheap Wii?

Why would they have to? You act as though there is only room for one budget machine. The fact is that all three manufacturers will be offering their current consoles at knock-down prices in ten years and there's no reason why the market can't support all three.

 

[BobsRevenge]

Do you even know what you're arguing? Do you honestly believe everybody with a PS2 is buying MGS3, GoW2, and DMC3? While you may not acknowledge it, party titles and shovelware push sales of consoles. The PS3 lacking these will only look bad for it long term.

It will get those when it makes sense. Right now the PS3 is a $400 console. Who the shit is going to buy a $400 console to play party games and shovelware? When the price lowers and it makes sense to make those games for it because there is an audience for it then it will happen.

People act like the PS3 should do all these things to make it more attractive to casuals when there is a big fat price tag of $400 saying "stay the fuck away" to those people. Why would they care about what games are out on it? It doesn't make much sense for third parties.

Sony has released Singstar and Buzz for it so they are building up the party line-up with their first party.

 

[Draft]

As a current PS3 owner, I really do feel like it has a lot of potential.

I look at the thing now. Sitting quietly. Solemn. Like some kind of warrior monk. And I think, man, what potential.

 

[vanguardian1]

It's nothing personal, don't worry. I just find it stupid that in this generation people seem to be more preoccupied with systems getting horrible games than they are about getting them out. People should be striving for and demanding the best from third parties, not the other way around. Does that mean no party or licensed game ever? No, there can be good, quality party titles, but people shouldn't welcome the bad ones with open arms in hopes that their fucking grandmother might hold a controller for 10 seconds.

And yet if Nintendo should actually start saying no to these games, they'll be known once again as the iron handed company that are trying to take control of 3rd parties again. Sadly, how can one expect Nintendo to create any amount of positive support on their platform when they'll be judged 100x harsher than their competition would?

 

[Vinci]

As a current PS3 owner, I really do feel like it has a lot of potential.

I look at the thing now. Sitting quietly. Solemn. Like some kind of warrior monk. And I think, man, what potential.

:lol :lol

 

[tha_con]

Do me a favour and go to your local Wal-Mart sometime, and look at the amount of shovelware out for the PS2 in the 10 dollar bin.

You might have a bit of trouble though, from the absolute swarm of people hovering around it at any one time. More software is never a bad thing.

That software will come, in a few years. Dev kit prices will drop, PS3 prices will drop, profit margins will increase, blu-ray discs will become cheaper, etc.

Now =/= 12 months from now.

Now =/= 24 months from now.

Now sure as hell =/= 5 years from now.

Shovelware, casual games, price drops, everything will eventually fall into place, and Sony will continue to support the PS3 until it becomes less than worth their while.

Until then, the PS3 will still be here, and everyone can continue to be bitter about gaming, isntead of shutting up, buying all of the consoles, and enjoying all of the great games on them.

 

[Zombie James]

Do me a favour and go to your local Wal-Mart sometime, and look at the amount of shovelware out for the PS2 in the 10 dollar bin.

You might have a bit of trouble though, from the absolute swarm of people hovering around it at any one time. More software is never a bad thing.

I know about the shit on the PS2, but there's always a time when manufacturers let the flood gates open. The difference is that in the PS2's case - and every other successful system before it - it usually comes near the end of it's cycle, not year one.

(And yeah, don't confuse bad games - which there always are at every point in a console's life - with cash-in shovelware).

 

[vanguardian1]

Time goes on

And so does the difference in install base between the PS3 and Wii. It's growing larger at a radical pace, and showing no signs of slowing down yet. How much damage will be done in that period of time in between now and then?

 

[Flakster99]

So in NPD threads, folks say the PS3 won't sell until it's cheaper.

In the '10 year threads' they say being cheaper won't help it sell well, it needs more software.

Awesome sauce.

Hyperbole. No one has said that being cheaper will not help the PS3 sell more units. Other factors have been presented, such as the ones in my previous post, along with other posts, will give you ample reason why there is more to it.

Here is another example.

3rd parties, more importantly western 3rd parties have not put AAA effort behind the Wii to combat Nintendo directly, in effect, 3rd parties have little to no proof said AAA wares will not sell on the Wii. When a target audience, genre, product price point, etc. is not represented well, it is an open market for the taking. It is called a blue ocean. The Wii itself is a blue ocean and now a blue ocean exists within itself.

If/when 3rd parties come to this realization and understand what is out there, greater revenue and profit streams, development will further shift away from the PS3, HD twins and reinforce the Wii's software market.

 

[Doubledex]

I'm not way off anything, your twisting sony's bullshit marketing into something remotely plausible. The reason they are spouting the 10 year lifespan is because they are trying to convince consumers that their ridiculously overpriced machine was going to be the only console they'd need for a long time.

If you think by "10 year lifespan" they meant "10 years we'll be selling PS3's, but the succesor will be out in 5" you are delusional.

:lol :lol :lol :lol

 

[charlequin]

Historically you are almost universally correct -- except, perhaps, for the example of the PS3 itself. After the price drop to 399 last Holiday Season, the PS3 has been consistently performing nearly 100% better YoY since that time, month after month, in the US.

My argument there would basically be that the overall level of desirability for the PS3 was always pretty much comparable to the X360 (not surprising, given how ultimately similar the two systems are), that they burned through the supply of people willing to pay $500+ for a system that provided that package during the launch window, and that then they hit a long doldrum period until they could actually provide a $399 price -- the same way 360's hit two periods of declining monthly sales before its two price drops. At and after launch, the PS3 price was a constant issue; once they got it down to the same neighborhood as 360 it largely stopped being one.

I might believe that $399 is still too high for a mass market system and that getting to $299 is actually the huge deal, but in that case we should see a huge uptick for 360 in September for hitting the same price. Alternately, the PS3's boost could be because they dropped much faster than is normal, in which case I would say that dropping again will have no meaningful effect if they do it on the "normal schedule" from here on out but might give them a big boost if they do it super-fast again (which I think everyone can agree they will not.)

So in NPD threads, folks say the PS3 won't sell until it's cheaper.

My position has always been that launch price sets an indelible flag for your eventual level of success and that while you need to price drop to maintain that success, you can't magically improve just by getting to lower price levels -- a position that has been pretty strongly supported in the past by the evidence.

 

[[Nintex]]

Yeah, Xbox 360 it's all about the bigger picture, changing a system half way through its life with software, we just did that, it's incredible! - Don Mattrick E3 2008

*360 sales remain the same*

As much as we like the Xbox 360 the future is obviously with the Xbox 720 this year and HALO 4 for launch, and boy do those RARE fella's have some nice games for ya lot! - Don Mattrick E3 2010

PS3 is a 10 year plan, I mean the potential is there, we just got to tap that ass of awesome PS3 power! - Scott Steinberg E3 2008

*PS3 sales remain the same*

Killzone 3 will rock your socks, also Insomniac games is working even more efficient now. Did we say Ratchet, Killzone 3, GTAV and Final Fantasy XIII Versus for PS4 launch, yes we sure did! - Scott Steinberg E3 2010

They always talk about 10 year plans and they never happen due to various reasons. By 2010/11 the RSX and Xenos will be ancient, we're already at DirectX 11 and the current consoles are comparable to DirectX 9. They can only repeat the same cycle over and over again. We'll see a new console from one of the big three in 2010. Who knows 9/9/09 might happen, or another company (Apple?) might offer a new console. No one wants to be late to the new console party.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

I know about the shit on the PS2, but there's always a time when manufacturers let the flood gates open. The difference is that in the PS2's case - and every other successful system before it - it usually comes near the end of it's cycle, not year one.

(And yeah, don't confuse bad games - which there always are at every point in a console's life - with cash-in shovelware).

Which brings us full circle to the argument I was positing before; why are we going to see the PS3 increase its mindshare with the same titles?

This current line of argument has established that the PS3 is trailing behind its competitors in the amount of games, both debuting and sold. So why are we to believe that the PS3 will increase its positioning enough to maintain a 10 year lifecycle when there are already two other consoles doing what it isn't?

 

[Private Hoffman]

My argument there would basically be that the overall level of desirability for the PS3 was always pretty much comparable to the X360 (not surprising, given how ultimately similar the two systems are), that they burned through the supply of people willing to pay $500+ for a system that provided that package during the launch window, and that then they hit a long doldrum period until they could actually provide a $399 price -- the same way 360's hit two periods of declining monthly sales before its two price drops. At and after launch, the PS3 price was a constant issue; once they got it down to the same neighborhood as 360 it largely stopped being one.

I might believe that $399 is still too high for a mass market system and that getting to $299 is actually the huge deal, but in that case we should see a huge uptick for 360 in September for hitting the same price. Alternately, the PS3's boost could be because they dropped much faster than is normal, in which case I would say that dropping again will have no meaningful effect if they do it on the "normal schedule" from here on out but might give them a big boost if they do it super-fast again (which I think everyone can agree they will not.)



My position has always been that launch price sets an indelible flag for your eventual level of success and that while you need to price drop to maintain that success, you can't magically improve just by getting to lower price levels -- a position that has been pretty strongly supported in the past by the evidence.

Price wasn't the only issue of the Playstation 3. It was also functionality. Even after the introduction of the 40 GB PS3 for $399, the PS3 wasn't keeping up with the 360 in the US; getting significantly outsold in November and December.

It wasn't until Blu-Ray was cemented as a viable component of that Playstation 3 hardware that you saw the significant gains that brought the Playstation 3 above parity with the Xbox 360, despite the higher price point.

 

[xs_mini_neo]

I guess I will just have to work a little harder to buy one.

Well, you've got ten years to save up... with the economy the way it is right now, you just might

Spoiler

not

make it.

 

[tha_con]

rofl, so many of you really don't understand what "10 year lifespan" means. Incredible.

 

[Wollan]

The future laid out:
Sony to launch break-a-part controller (+ slim console) on 09/09/09.
(!) Apple to launch iConsole (evolution of Apple TV) on 10/10/10 featuring Larrabee cpu + Nvidia with Remote/nunchuck.
MS to launch X1080 on 11/11/11 with break-a-part controller.
Nintendo to launch Super Wii in 2012, with Remote/nunchuck.
Sony to launch HomeStation with break-a-part controller in 2012-2014.
2015, Atari returns.

 

[Private Hoffman]

rofl, so many of you really don't understand what "10 year lifespan" means. Incredible.

Some people think, wrongly, that in order to have a 10 year lifespan you need to be the market leader. So long as you're selling a decent number of consoles and remaining profitable, there is no reason why the PS3 shouldn't have a 10 year lifespan.

 

[Raistlin]

If you want a PS3 that cheap, you better hope that both companies stay in the game.

Healthy competition is what drops prices.

Actually, HW cost reductions are more important.

 

[solid2snake]

The future laid out:
Sony to launch break-a-part controller (+ slim console) on 09/09/09.
(!) Apple to launch iConsole (evolution of Apple TV) on 10/10/10 featuring Larrabee cpu + Nvidia with Remote/nunchuck.
MS to launch X1080 on 11/11/11 with break-a-part controller.
Nintendo to launch Super Wii in 2012, with Remote/nunchuck.
Sony to launch HomeStation with break-a-part controller in 2012-2014.
2015, Atari returns.

and when will Jesus bring his own console?

 

[Flakster99]

rofl, so many of you really don't understand what "10 year lifespan" means. Incredible.

I see a 1/2 dozen or so posts from arm-chair analysts (you are also guilty as charged), myself included, that reasonably I might add, explain why it is nothing but dust in the wind at this point, and how the competition (Nintendo & Microsoft) are in a much better place than they were in the previous generation, and how they are not going to lay down and spread their legs for Sony.

Some people think, wrongly, that in order to have a 10 year lifespan you need to be the market leader. So long as you're selling a decent number of consoles and remaining profitable, there is no reason why the PS3 shouldn't have a 10 year lifespan.

Has any console ever sustained a 10 year profitability cycle that was not the market leader the generation it was introduced?

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

Some people think, wrongly, that in order to have a 10 year lifespan you need to be the market leader. So long as you're selling a decent number of consoles and remaining profitable, there is no reason why the PS3 shouldn't have a 10 year lifespan.

*Thinks back to the NES, SNES, GB, GBA, PS1, and PS2*

You know, on one side, we have history, that says in order to enjoy a super long life span, you have to be the Market Leader. Then we have Sony, (and I guess you) that say otherwise. Which one should people be inclined to believe I wonder?

 

[Wollan]

and when will Jesus bring his own console?

That's the Apple product.

 

[Jokeropia]

Uh...what GAMES are coming out this year for the PS2.

PS2 got the longest support from third parties last generation because it was the winning system.

Uh, the Wii won't be selling in 10 years time. Wii 2 will have been out for 5 years already.

Systems life lengths generally depend on how successful they are. More successful system = longer life. Wii is the most successful console of all time at this point.

I know about the shit on the PS2, but there's always a time when manufacturers let the flood gates open. The difference is that in the PS2's case - and every other successful system before it - it usually comes near the end of it's cycle, not year one.

Uh, the PS2 was the de facto system for third parties right from the start, for the shovelware publishers as well as the non-shovelware ones.

 

[Private Hoffman]

*Thinks back to the NES, SNES, GB, GBA, PS1, and PS2*

You know, on one side, we have history, that says in order to enjoy a super long life span, you have to be the Market Leader. Then we have Sony, (and I guess you) that say otherwise. Which one should people be inclined to believe I wonder?

Just because other companies have traditionally operated differently, essentially abandoning support once the successor releases, does not mean that Sony has to operate that way.

 

[charlequin]

It wasn't until Blu-Ray was cemented as a viable component of that Playstation 3 hardware that you saw the significant gains that brought the Playstation 3 above parity with the Xbox 360, despite the higher price point.

Actually, thanks for pointing that out, I had forgotten that aspect of it. But you recognize that this position implicitly supports the position that further price drops will not help raise the PS3 to a new sales plateau, right?

Some people think, wrongly, that in order to have a 10 year lifespan you need to be the market leader.

I think people have mostly pointed out why no system that was not a market leader has ever had a lifespan that lasted meaningfully beyond it's successor's release: to wit, third parties abandon the system en masse while first-party releases are focused on the new system, so everyone stops buying it.

In order to explain how PS3 would achieve a 10-year lifespan were the generation to end much sooner than that (again, I expect it to go 8 years myself), you'd need to establish what will make the PS3 unlike every other also-ran and therefore stay alive after its successor releases. (And this analysis should address Sony's nigh-explicit reduction of focus on third-party releases for PS3, and how they'll successfully launch PS4 if their software teams are working on PS3 titles well after its release.)

 

[OldJadedGamer]

Has any console ever sustained a 10 year profitability cycle that was not the market leader the generation it was introduced?

No.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

Just because other companies have traditionally operated differently, essentially abandoning support once the successor releases, does not mean that Sony has to operate that way.

So your reason for believing it will happen is blind faith then?

Gotcha.

 

[squatingyeti]

rofl, so many of you really don't understand what "10 year lifespan" means. Incredible.

And so many of you really don't understand the consumer will decide the lifespan of a console. Sony can try to have the PS3 go for 10 years, but if people have two other strong choices, it may not happen. Is that so hard to grasp?

 

[NullPointer]

So when does this 10 year plan actually start?

The PS3 has yet to get into its groove. It has some pretty fucking stellar games, but just not enough of them.

 

[solid2snake]

No.

the Dreamcast still gets new games in japan lol. Last Hope for example.

The PS3 has yet to get into its groove. It has some pretty fucking stellar games, but just not enough of them.

the plan starts, when sony fucking says so.

 

[Flakster99]

Just because other companies have traditionally operated differently, essentially abandoning support once the successor releases, does not mean that Sony has to operate that way.

Quite true, it has never happened before, and the landscape of this generation just may include Sony, even Microsoft, in providing them with a healthy, longer then usual console cycle for consoles not in first place.

My question is: who gives a fuck if its 6 years, 8 years, or even 10 years? It is an arbitrary number that Sony stumbled upon due to the wild success of the PS1, PS2 and have sinced used said time stamp as a marketing tool, quite brilliantly I might add.

What's next, Nintendo advertising the NES and the SNES as being the first home consoles to have lasted 10 years? Would you and anyone outside of company politics gives two shits?

 

[Beer Monkey]

If PS3 manages to capture 70% of the global market like PS2 did there really isn't any reason to think that it can't last as long as PS2.

 

[NarcissisticJay]

If Fanboys on either side cant admit that by not owning a 360 or a PS3 that they are both missing out on some of the best moments in gaming... then they are fucking retarded.

Fanboys have tainted this generation so much. Why cant you fucktards pull your heads out of you ass long enough to see that if you dont have a 360 your gonna miss GoW2 and if you dont have a PS3 your gonna miss KZ2? (just a FPS example)

If you can, buy both.

Its like a Hip Hop fan not listening to 2Pac, cause they are down with Biggie.

nothing is fucking worse for this Gen... than this fanboy hatred, nothing.

Spoiler

except the wii

 

[Mamesj]

the Dreamcast still gets new games in japan lol. Last Hope for example.

That's like one or two games a year from with tiny print runs. I don't know if that's what Sony has in mind.

 

[tha_con]

And so many of you really don't understand the consumer will decide the lifespan of a console. Sony can try to have the PS3 go for 10 years, but if people have two other strong choices, it may not happen. Is that so hard to grasp?

Don't start with me pound puppy. You're too caught up with console wars and e-peen to really talk logically about it.

The PS3 won't be the same machine forever, the price will change, the catalog will change, and the feature set will change.

PSP sold like shit for how long? And sales are starting to pick up.

Go back to your fantasy world where YOU run things.

 

[NullPointer]

the plan starts, when sony fucking says so.

:lol

And here I am with a second job for nuthin...

 

[kaching]

I've lightly skimmed the thread, had a laugh at Draft claiming he owns a PS3 (true or not, either way its funny) but other than that haven't seen whether there was much consideration given to how digital marketplaces will redefine the ability to continue to deliver to a platform whether or not retail continues to provide maximum shelf space to said platform and its content. I mean, just on the basis of how slowly Sony is rereleasing PS1 games on PSN, you can clearly see evidence that they may even be considering a 20yr plan.

In seriousness, the notion that competitor's will force Sony's hand by releasing new hardware in a few years is thinking rooted in previous absolute dependency on fighting for shelf space at retail for the vast majority of hardware and content sales. With digital delivery of content, that need obviously begins to subside. Obviously this is a universal change for the market which benefits not just Sony and means everyone is less dependent on each other's platform cycles.

 

[Paracelsus]

And so many of you really don't understand the consumer will decide the lifespan of a console. Sony can try to have the PS3 go for 10 years, but if people have two other strong choices, it may not happen. Is that so hard to grasp?

It has to be said that it will depend on how strong the other choices will be.

PS3 has lost many of its exclusives either for the low userbase and for the high development costs.

An X720 might not be so lucky in getting so many timed exclusives if the hardware is too much powerful. I seriously ask myself when the limit will be reached. Hardcore games sells basically the same from gen to gen, WHILE dev costs keep rising. It's not because GTA costed 100 millions that people will buy three copies each (sorry for the crappy example, it's just to give the idea).

At this point, it all comes down to the next iteration of consoles. If X720 is more powerful, but not so much, and Wii reaches a PS360 level, than keeping PS3 alive while launching a PS4 en par with 720 is feasible.

the Dreamcast still gets new games in japan lol. Last Hope for example.

Isn't that an X360 game?

Spoiler

*zing*

 

[Zoe]

*Thinks back to the NES, SNES, GB, GBA, PS1, and PS2*

You know, on one side, we have history, that says in order to enjoy a super long life span, you have to be the Market Leader. Then we have Sony, (and I guess you) that say otherwise. Which one should people be inclined to believe I wonder?

The biggest problem with this thread is everybody making up their own definitions of "life span." It could mean anything from being a major sales contender to just receiving official support.

If you look at it simply as a gaming console, then yeah, it's questionable how much game support it will have in 2016 (then again, FFVII and MGS1 both got reprints in the past couple of years). If you look at it as a media center, then the PS3 will continue to be viable as long as the PSN store is around.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

the Dreamcast still gets new games in japan lol. Last Hope for example.

Wait, are these officially licensed games from SEGA that have gone through their certification process? Does SEGA even have a third party approval process anymore?

 

[Mamesj]

The bottom line is that game consoles don't lend themselves well to super long life spans like VHS, CDs, DVD, or other comparable media formats. It seems like it would be better to shoot for strong systems with decent pricing and lots of strong selling titles for shorter periods of time, then moving on.

 

[Jokeropia]

nothing is fucking worse for this Gen... than this fanboy hatred, nothing.

Spoiler

except the wii

Exemplary display of irony.

 

[squatingyeti]

Don't start with me pound puppy. You're too caught up with console wars and e-peen to really talk logically about it.

The PS3 won't be the same machine forever, the price will change, the catalog will change, and the feature set will change.

PSP sold like shit for how long? And sales are starting to pick up.

Go back to your fantasy world where YOU run things.

I'M caught up in console wars? Where am I caught up in them? Please, point that out to me. It seems YOU are caught up in them. So much so that instead of addressing my points, you felt like attacking me. Would it be better if I just toed your line and didn't make valid points that defeat the fantasy world where YOU run things?

As far as the PSP is concerned, has it been around for 10 years yet? How's software doing? Once again, the CONSUMERS will decide if a platform is viable for 10 years. Sony can NOT make that decision for them.

Maybe you're too caught up in your console wars and e-peen to take a realistic look at this?

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

In seriousness, the notion that competitor's will force Sony's hand by releasing new hardware in a few years is thinking rooted in previous absolute dependency on fighting for shelf space at retail for the vast majority of hardware and content sales. With digital delivery of content, that need obviously begins to subside. Obviously this is a universal change for the market which benefits not just Sony and means everyone is less dependent on each other's platform cycles.

I can't find any literature on Sony's 10 year plan that implicitly points at PSN as the reason for an extended lifespan, so I don't see it as something that is being overlooked (if you can find something, than by all means, please post it). Subsequently I don't see why it would be wrong to assume that Sony's plan is relying on established trends and not a shift in the industry to Digital distribution. They seem pretty bullish on the idea that PS3 will enjoy ten years on the market due to its physical game library as well as "The power of Blu-Ray".

However, assuming DD will be a focal point, it is still subject to the laws of opportunity cost. Why would a third party publisher continue to support a dwindling system in its golden years when it can just as easily jump to the next generation of systems, or stick with platforms that speak to a larger user base? DD isn't something exclusive to the PS3.

As for First party efforts, you may have a point in that Sony may just continue with the PS3 for 10 full years, however I personally find that dubious considering that 1st party support for the Juggernaut PS2 has dried up 8 years in.

edit: we also have to consider that retailers will have little impetus to continue with the PS3 if they're only seeing profit on kit and not with games, plus the thought of dwindling shelf space and mindshare (both problems that plagued the GameCube).

 

[solid2snake]

:lol

And here I am with a second job for nuthin...

well, you can donate to Kutaragi, i heard he has some serious money problems.

and games like Last Hope are offical Licensed games by SEGA IIRC.

 

[NullPointer]

I'll give Sony a free suggestion to help them meet their 10 year plan and save some money in the process.

Step 1: Dump Home. Just really. Just do it. Nobody needs it.
Step 2: Put all the cool stuff that Home was supposed to deliver into Little Big Planet.

People who want a home-like experience will pay for Little Big Planet. Little Big Planet will get stuff like custom Warhawk rooms and personal apartments and knick-knacks and what have you.

Everybody wins. Sackboys and Sackgirls are our future.