Support NeoGAF

[krypt0nian]

Hey, put forth a weak argument and you're going to get a weak comeback. What can I say

Not weak to me at all. Like I said, we're just going to disagree. Saying it's an argument at all is pretending either of us is going to change our views.

 

[Speevy]

They seemed to be getting pretty good support up to the point where they pulled the plug. If you yourself don't support your console no one will.

Xbox support was always great. But it was also condensed into a smaller time frame.

Sony honestly has so many developers that it could provide all the exclusive support by itself.

Looking at the Xbox's last year (2005), most of the big games were 1st party with a few PC developer ports. Doom 3, Half-Life 2, and Far Cry Instincts. Then KUF, Conker, Phantom Dust, Forza, Jade Empire. So yeah, we saw the results of long-developed projects that finally made it. There wasn't this mountain of exciting support a la Smilebit and Tecmo in the early Xbox days. Otherwise I'm sure MS would have moved it to the Xbox 360, and we saw only a few games like that (PDZ and Kameo). Library-wise, MS probably figured they had accomplished what they set out to do and could gain no more ground competitively against either a dead Gamecube that had no support, or a thriving PS2 that would always lead the software charts with late gen. releases and budget priced software.

 

[Ponn]

I'm pretty sure the only reason Microsoft dropped support of the original Xbox is because it isn't profitable, unlike Sony systems. If Sony was losing hundreds of dollars on the PS1 and PS2 after 5 years, they would drop support of those systems also. Unlike the Xbox, Microsoft owns the IP for the most expensive components of the Xbox 360, so they won't be handcuffed by high royalties on components this coming generation and thereby won't be losing hundreds of dollars per Xbox 360 after 5 years, and thereby will be willing to support it beyond the launch of the next next gen systems.

Yes, i'm not arguing why they dropped support. That's pretty clear. What i'm saying is 3 - 4 year life cycles for consoles are pretty damn shitty for consumers. If I put my money down for a console I don't want to hear you dropped support for the console I purchased because it was too expensive for you. Thats not my problem, well, you made it my problem but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth and makes me question how you are going to deal with me in the future. Generally from the Playstation brand and Nintendo I have seen good 5-6 years and beyond support from them. This 3-4 years is for the birds and I would hate to see it become the norm in the hobby I love.

 

[GhaleonEB]

1) Bill Gates saying that the future of gaming is downloadable.
2) Sticking with DVD
3) Making the 360 a "gaming only" (relative) machine while Sony tries for the "computer" thing.


I think those are strong indicators that MS thinks it can make more money by focusing on offering a relatively affordable console that can play Western-centric and multiplatform games. That's why it's important for MS that the PS3 get on the market.

I don't know if the 360 will stay around for 4 or 6 years, but I suspect that the point at which we start seeing sequels to games that began as new IPs this generation, the 360 will be nearly done. I think the 360's lifespan is strongly tied to the amount of exclusive support MS can get, how willing consumers are to accept 2 consoles 6 years into their lives, and of course sales in those later years.

Well, I disagree. To run through your points:

1) The future of games IS downloadable. Which is why Live Arcade launched alongside the console. It's a small step, but a very important one. It will continue to grow just as explosively as it has so far with XBLA. Not sure how that means the 360's days are numbered, though.

2) Sticking with DVD was aimed at one thing: cost. The lower the cost, the lower the barrier to entry for consumers. It was a decision made to ensure the 360 could be as competitive as possible so that it could build as a large a userbase as possible, and the reason to do that is to sell games to that large userbase as long as possible.

3) I think Microsoft has a more clear vision of what the 360 is than Sony with the PS3. For MS, it's about the game: play games, download games, play games online, download game demos, trailers, themes. For the same audience, a small and perhaps growing portion of other entertainment content and features to interface with the PC for music and other media. And again - keep it affordable. MS plays in the PC space as its bread and butter and does not need to try and muscle in the way Sony is trying to. I think making the 360 a very capable games-focused system is a better strategy than loading up the hardware with features aimed at a broader sector - consumer electronics - which will ultimately limit the gaming audience due to the price barrier.

Just my $0.02.

 

[JCBossman]

5 GOOD Solid years is all I'm asking for from my X360 after that I am going to be Jonsing for a system with at LEAST 2gb of ram and 500gb hard drive and high def drive. I think I can see Sony's statagey if you LISTEN to Ken, He is talking about how the PS3 has different Configurations(like a computer) NOT models, so in 5 years or whenever MS comes out with a new system you will be able to buy a PS3 with dual cells and much bigger drive, this MIGHT be the last MODEL of Playstation EVER!

 

[Mojovonio]

Why do I keep seeing the same thread being made over and over again.

"random source" says PS3 is Sony's death.

SEE! XBOX=BEST ROUNDED FTW!
NO, BLURAY WILL PWN!

How can you make any sort of prediction for a 3 armied console war when only one army is sitting on the battlefield?

 

[Speevy]

GhaleonEB, don't get me wrong. I like the 360. I'm just trying to convey the fact that Sony commands not only the most exclusive developer support, but practically an entire region of it.

It's just silly to expect that MS is going to make a run at Sony in 2011 with the console that was released in 2005.

 

[The Innocent X]

GhaleonEB, don't get me wrong. I like the 360. I'm just trying to convey the fact that Sony commands not only the most exclusive developer support, but practically an entire region of it.

It's just silly to expect that MS is going to make a run at Sony in 2011 with the console that was released in 2005.

Exclusive developer support is like leaves blowing in the wind of money. If 360 or Wii is the leading console in a given territory, masses of developer support moves to that console for games which will sell well in that territory. A lot of small industry players (say for example, the guys behind guitar hero before they were bought out ) can only afford to develop on one console, and so will go with the one that shifts most units in the region they expect to sell best in. Previously this was PS2 in all regions, but may not be this time around. These small industry players should not be underestimated.

 

[bud]

(neutral) Cerebral Palsy
Banned
(Today, 06:22 AM)
Reply | Quote

God exists after all...

you worship amirox huh?

to each his own i guess...

 

[Zaptruder]

More truth about Sony's dire propositions upcoming. I wonder if Sony realizes that there's not a single really positive voice standing behind the PS3 pricing strategy, and if they have any ideas how to fix this growing hole. It will rip a huge gap into the PlayStation brand and will suck all life from it until it holds no more power.

I hate you.

Good thing he wasn't asking if you wanted to buy it. He is confirming, and rightfully so, that there are many potentially quality titles that others do feel it's worth it for. That you cannot find on alternative systems.

Good job, though, and the "Downgradestation" troll gets you a few weeks in the brig alongside IAmNude, since you two have weeks and months of dedicated trolling under your belts.

I hate you less.

Seriously though, you were really wondering where I came from yesterday/last night? It's exactly because of shit like this I say what I did.

You're not a bad mod, just a crappy representative of what a mod should be; that is if mods are posters that should lead by example...

your example would be to continuing spouting vitriol and cast aspersions and forecast doom and gloom at every possible possible point, it's no wonder the likes of IAmNude and Cerebral Palsy feel confident trolling PS3 and supporters at every turn.

 

[Amir0x]

You're not a bad mod, just a crappy representative of what a mod should be; that is if mods are posters that should lead by example...

Leading by example does not mean formulating bullshit opinions down the middle. I am forecasting doom precisely because it reflects reality. Tell me how I am wrong; I'm open ears. Sony priced the PlayStation 3 at $600 dollars. I can try my damndest to spin it, again, if it makes you feel happy - but in the end, it's bullshit. There's nothing good to be said here. And there is so little positive press exactly because of this. NOBODY thinks this was a good move. And EVERYBODY, by extension, feels this will hurt Sony dramatically.

So, how is this poor leading? I'm not a leader anyway, my being a mod has nothing to do with my views as a poster.

your example would be to continuing spouting vitriol and cast aspersions and forecast doom and gloom at every possible possible point, it's no wonder the likes of IAmNude and Cerebral Palsy feel confident trolling PS3 and supporters at every turn.

Casting doom with legitimate views is not the same as trolling, which is the difference between me and someone like IAmNude and Cerebral. Sony IS in trouble. Now, you and anyone else is free to disagree with my viewpoint - only time will tell who will be right and who will be wrong - but there's nothing reflecting upon me poorly for believing this was a terrible strategy and will significantly hurt Sony.

Just like WSJ forecasts, just like every significant player and analyst has forecasted, Sony did a bad thing and when you do bad things like this the result is you take a dramatic hit. I believe it will cost Sony the marketshare and will put them underneath Wii even.

Now, is this bad to say this? This is no less than the third time you're sitting here making these accusations, so I expect a damn good and logical response here.

 

[Zaptruder]

Leading by example does not mean formulating bullshit opinions down the middle. I am forecasting doom precisely because it reflects reality. Tell me how I am wrong; I'm open ears. Sony priced the PlayStation 3 at $600 dollars. I can try my damndest to spin it, again, if it makes you feel happy - but in the end, it's bullshit. There's nothing good to be said here. And there is so little positive press exactly because of this. NOBODY thinks this was a good move. And EVERYBODY, by extension, feels this will hurt Sony dramatically.

I'll agree, at $600, it is expensive, and there will be much fewer gamers buying it at that price then there would at $400. But all that is blatantly obvious, and IMO, not enough justification to shout from every rooftop doom repeatedly, which is largely what you've done.

Moreover, it ignores the $500 option, which IS viable (moreso then the $300 option for the X360), despite your fixation for having the 'best'. Given that the realistic difference between having a machine that plays PS3 games and Xbox games is only $100 difference, you wanna know what pisses me off? People are treating the gap like it's $600. They'll continually make reference to the worst case.

Maybe you're right, people are stupid, they're affected psychologically easily, they don't take time to sit down and assess the options; if they don't do that, then regardless of what ever the reality is, then it'll come across very poorly. But you see, that's not the shit you're saying. You're simply pointing at $600 and crying foul, like all the other syncophants. Yeah, it's $600, but so is a Xbox 360 and 4 years of Gold Live.

$600 isn't a good price, I'll agree, but again, you paint this shit too simply; as if it were Sony simply been arrogant and saying, these ****ers will lap it up, so we can up the price to this amount no problems. No, it's $600 because their plan for this all inclusive machine hasn't been quite as successful as they hoped at least in pricing terms; it's a reality they'll have to deal with, but again, you'd prefer to forgo that and simply say Sony is ****ing retarded without qualifying or justifying the statement.

How are they that retarded for wanting to bring a machine that can 'do it all' to the masses? It's been their plan for a while now, and I don't recall people saying it was retarded before the prices were announced. Despite the cost, it would in all probabilty be more costly to re-engineer and refocus to do without all the benefits that they want to distinguish this iteration of the PS brand with.

There's a lot of noise on the forums and from market analysts; but I don't see how that's justification to be a party to it. There are good arguments coming from both sides, but it shits me how you consistently deny the idea that there are any good arguments that can be made.

There's nothing good to be said here

In the context of the quote, nothing good to be said about $600; I'd point to the value of its features, they're worth more then $600. When you break down the components and what you get, to some people, It IS value for money, even if it is higher priced than originally. But of course, according to you, it's only doom and gloom.

So, how is this poor leading? I'm not a leader anyway, my being a mod has nothing to do with my views as a poster.

You might not see yourself as a leader, but the bright red text casts you as one regardless of whether you like it or not. By extension, people see that red name as the standard to which they can conduct themselves, maybe a little less than (given that leaders are held to higher standards). Not all mind, but some.

Casting doom with legitimate views is not the same as trolling, which is the difference between me and someone like IAmNude and Cerebral. Sony IS in trouble. Now, you and anyone else is free to disagree with my viewpoint - only time will tell who will be right and who will be wrong - but there's nothing reflecting upon me poorly for believing this was a terrible strategy and will significantly hurt Sony.

It's not even your opinion that I have a problem with. It's the fact that not only are you a mod, but that you so actively, so tirelessly go into every thread and repeat the same shit again and again. Much moreso then me calling you out for this shit.

Saying it a few times lets people know your point of view, saying it in every thread and expressing your opinion of how much shit Sony is in, and how much of a bullshit liar they are and constantly rehashing $600 as if it were a valid argument in and of itself in every thread is an agenda.

Now, is this bad to say this? This is no less than the third time you're sitting here making these accusations, so I expect a damn good and logical response here.

You might not agree with my arguments, but I haven't shied away from this call out.

 

[Guns N' Poops]

Dooming PS3 is THE thing right now, heh. Yet it will sell over 50 million units I bet.

 

[Wulfer]

Amirox is right, this is how I see it (after all I got to watch the Saturn launch too) PS3 will be a sale out for the first 3-4 months but with Wii launching beside and and 360 using clever marketing the PS3 will slowly start sitting on shelves while Wii and 360's will continue to fly off shelves. Price will be a big factor and Sony will find out not many people care about upgrading their DVD player. Sony made some big mistakes this time around the costly ones that forced Sega out of the hardware business. It's kind of funny Sony took Sega out of the hardware business by bleeding the company to death. How ironic, Microsoft and Nintendo are in the same poistion to do to Sony what Sony did to Sega. Let's just hope that Sony's smart enough to keep the bleeding down so, they can stay for the PS4.

 

[Scalemail Ted]

Amirox is right, this is how I see it (after all I got to watch the Saturn launch too) PS3 will be a sale out for the first 3-4 months but with Wii launching beside and and 360 using clever marketing the PS3 will slowly start sitting on shelves while Wii and 360's will continue to fly off shelves. Price will be a big factor and Sony will find out not many people care about upgrading their DVD player. Sony made some big mistakes this time around the costly ones that forced Sega out of the hardware business. It's kind of funny Sony took Sega out of the hardware business by bleeding the company to death. How ironic, Microsoft and Nintendo are in the same poistion to do to Sony what Sony did to Sega.

...And then Sega can strike back and get its just revenge by relaunching Dreamcast!

 

[scissorfight]

I'll agree, at $600, it is expensive, and there will be much fewer gamers buying it at that price then there would at $400. But all that is blatantly obvious, and IMO, not enough justification to shout from every rooftop doom repeatedly, which is largely what you've done.

Moreover, it ignores the $500 option, which IS viable (moreso then the $300 option for the X360), despite your fixation for having the 'best'. Given that the realistic difference between having a machine that plays PS3 games and Xbox games is only $100 difference, you wanna know what pisses me off? People are treating the gap like it's $600. They'll continually make reference to the worst case.

Maybe you're right, people are stupid, they're affected psychologically easily, they don't take time to sit down and assess the options; if they don't do that, then regardless of what ever the reality is, then it'll come across very poorly. But you see, that's not the shit you're saying. You're simply pointing at $600 and crying foul, like all the other syncophants. Yeah, it's $600, but so is a Xbox 360 and 4 years of Gold Live.

$600 isn't a good price, I'll agree, but again, you paint this shit too simply; as if it were Sony simply been arrogant and saying, these ****ers will lap it up, so we can up the price to this amount no problems. No, it's $600 because their plan for this all inclusive machine hasn't been quite as successful as they hoped at least in pricing terms; it's a reality they'll have to deal with, but again, you'd prefer to forgo that and simply say Sony is ****ing retarded without qualifying or justifying the statement.

How are they that retarded for wanting to bring a machine that can 'do it all' to the masses? It's been their plan for a while now, and I don't recall people saying it was retarded before the prices were announced. Despite the cost, it would in all probabilty be more costly to re-engineer and refocus to do without all the benefits that they want to distinguish this iteration of the PS brand with.

There's a lot of noise on the forums and from market analysts; but I don't see how that's justification to be a party to it. There are good arguments coming from both sides, but it shits me how you consistently deny the idea that there are any good arguments that can be made.

In the context of the quote, nothing good to be said about $600; I'd point to the value of its features, they're worth more then $600. When you break down the components and what you get, to some people, It IS value for money, even if it is higher priced than originally. But of course, according to you, it's only doom and gloom.



You might not see yourself as a leader, but the bright red text casts you as one regardless of whether you like it or not. By extension, people see that red name as the standard to which they can conduct themselves, maybe a little less than (given that leaders are held to higher standards). Not all mind, but some.




It's not even your opinion that I have a problem with. It's the fact that not only are you a mod, but that you so actively, so tirelessly go into every thread and repeat the same shit again and again. Much moreso then me calling you out for this shit.

Saying it a few times lets people know your point of view, saying it in every thread and expressing your opinion of how much shit Sony is in, and how much of a bullshit liar they are and constantly rehashing $600 as if it were a valid argument in and of itself in every thread is an agenda.



You might not agree with my arguments, but I haven't shied away from this call out.

 

[Amir0x]

I'll agree, at $600, it is expensive, and there will be much fewer gamers buying it at that price then there would at $400. But all that is blatantly obvious, and IMO, not enough justification to shout from every rooftop doom repeatedly, which is largely what you've done.

Moreover, it ignores the $500 option, which IS viable (moreso then the $300 option for the X360), despite your fixation for having the 'best'. Given that the realistic difference between having a machine that plays PS3 games and Xbox games is only $100 difference, you wanna know what pisses me off? People are treating the gap like it's $600. They'll continually make reference to the worst case.

It is $600. That's what everyone knows, that's what Sony will try to push because it saves them the most money. If you genuinely believe the $500 dollar system is gonna be the true choice for most gamers who buy the PS3, I have a few magical beans to sell you. You'll just join the same people who thought the 360 core would be the entrance for all casuals, even though the pack sells to, what, less than 10% now?

I'm sorry if that "pisses you off", again, but as a catalyst of market penetration, the $500 pack might as well not even exist in my view. But hey, if I'm wrong - we'll know in due time. Not that $500 dollars would change my view at all, considering it's still 100 bucks more expensive minimum than the alternatives.

$600 isn't a good price, I'll agree, but again, you paint this shit too simply; as if it were Sony simply been arrogant and saying, these ****ers will lap it up, so we can up the price to this amount no problems. No, it's $600 because their plan for this all inclusive machine hasn't been quite as successful as they hoped at least in pricing terms; it's a reality they'll have to deal with, but again, you'd prefer to forgo that and simply say Sony is ****ing retarded without qualifying or justifying the statement.

Funny you say that... because that is almost exactly what Sony said. They said that the first 5 million will buy this shit without there being even any games. Are they right? That's beside the point - that's arrogant, and it's insulting to the customers. But we'll put that aside, since you brought that up and that's not part of my argument.

Sony IS ****ing retarded. I am qualifying it simply: They have a machine that, fundamentally, is for games. It doesn't matter if you put Blu-Ray in, when most customers aren't going to take advantage of that for a long time. And that's IF Blu-Ray even succeeds. What they did was lock themselves into this trojan horse strategy and they are going to fail because of it. Because they have a $600 dollar game machine.

How are they that retarded for wanting to bring a machine that can 'do it all' to the masses? It's been their plan for a while now, and I don't recall people saying it was retarded before the prices were announced. Despite the cost, it would in all probabilty be more costly to re-engineer and refocus to do without all the benefits that they want to distinguish this iteration of the PS brand with.

There's a lot of noise on the forums and from market analysts; but I don't see how that's justification to be a party to it. There are good arguments coming from both sides, but it shits me how you consistently deny the idea that there are any good arguments that can be made.

I am denying it. There has yet to be a good argument made for this strategy. Saying "they wanted to bring a machine that can 'do it all' to the masses" is not justification for a shitty strategy. Nobody asked them to do it all. The PlayStation brand is first and foremost a a game machine, and that's all it ever will be to most people. And even though they gave us the games, one could argue, they sure as **** didn't give us no competitiveness. They priced themselves out of the game, and that's the part that I am arguing.

In the context of the quote, nothing good to be said about $600; I'd point to the value of its features, they're worth more then $600. When you break down the components and what you get, to some people, It IS value for money, even if it is higher priced than originally. But of course, according to you, it's only doom and gloom.

yes, I'm sure the AVS forums love the shit out of it. No one would deny that there are SOME PEOPLE in the universe who think the value is worth it. Heck, I can sit here and say "yes, judging by the components it is probably priced as best as they could." But these people that feel this is a good value are not even NEAR enough to sustain the system throughout its life. It doesn't make it a good price for a videogame system, and it sure as **** doesn't mean they're going to succeed. It's too expensive, and they will suffer because of it. Doom is predicted (by almost everyone, mind you) because of the reality of this situation.

I am sorry you feel that this is not the truth.

It's not even your opinion that I have a problem with. It's the fact that not only are you a mod, but that you so actively, so tirelessly go into every thread and repeat the same shit again and again. Much moreso then me calling you out for this shit.

Saying it a few times lets people know your point of view, saying it in every thread and expressing your opinion of how much shit Sony is in, and how much of a bullshit liar they are and constantly rehashing $600 as if it were a valid argument in and of itself in every thread is an agenda.

I am a poster before anything else, and the only reason it feels like it's "on repeat" is because I post a lot. So what you're hearing is consistency. I'm not going to stop participating in many threads because it annoys you, or because you think it reflects poorly. I'm just not. If you feel this is an agenda, oh the **** well eh.

 

[Zaptruder]

It is $600. That's what everyone knows, that's what Sony will try to push because it saves them the most money. If you genuinely believe the $500 dollar system is gonna be the true choice for most gamers who buy the PS3, I have a few magical beans to sell you. You'll just join the same people who thought the 360 core would be the entrance for all casuals, even though the pack sells to, what, less than 10% now?

Because I'm eating I'll keep it to one point.

As far as practicallity goes, the $500 IS VIABLE, if it isn't then it's only because people are morons who have a fixation on the best option possible even if they don't need it.

Some of that might be attributed to the fact that the X360's core pack was so unviable, causing people to view core packs with disdain, rather than considering premium packs to be more like collectors editions (like games are).

Where as the HDD in the X360 wasn't *needed* for games, but you'd damn well better have one if you want to take any advantage of the systems better features, the same isn't true for the PS3 core;

HDMI ISN'T needed, considering a great deal of HDTVs in peoples homes aren't even equipped with a port, considering that component is perfectly adequate for 720p which again is what's present in most peoples homes (much more so than HDMI), given that they don't need it for watching HD movies until at the very least 2011.
Nor are card readers NEEDED; not when USB memsticks are cheap as chips, and not when there are plenty of cheap options for card readers if you really feel its necessary.

Given that, you still persist in pushing the $600 option like its the ONLY viable option available. No, I won't buy your smelly old beans, of which you probably don't have anyway!

And to part with a jab; consistency is where you keep the same opinion over time as long as everything that created that opinion holds true.
Although sounding like a broken record, pushing the same opinion constantly, may be consistent, it isn't consistency in and of itself.

 

[gofreak]

Tey have a machine that, fundamentally, is for games. It doesn't matter if you put Blu-Ray in, when most customers aren't going to take advantage of that for a long time. And that's IF Blu-Ray even succeeds. What they did was lock themselves into this trojan horse strategy and they are going to fail because of it. Because they have a $600 dollar game machine.

Blu-ray gets way too much stick. I fail to see how it is any more disposable to a games machine than any other component in these systems. They could have put in a less powerful CPU or GPU and saved money there too. I don't know why people draw the line at optical storage, particularly when it's something developers are starting to bring up as a particular issue.

Personally, I'd rather have the Blu-ray in my games machine. Yep, I'm paying more for the system, but I'm getting more game machine for that. If the technology had been available to MS at the time, I'd have preferred if they had included it too. But then I'm an enthusiast, I spend a lot on my games and my gadgets, and I prefer fewer compromises, and don't mind paying for it.

 

[Amir0x]

Given that, you still persist in pushing the $600 option like its the ONLY viable option available. No, I won't buy your smelly old beans, of which you probably don't have anyway!

No, I readily accept that the $500 dollar pack will be a viable option for some people. The problem is in the split between the $500/$600, which in my view is definitely gonna lean heavily toward the premium because it saves Sony the most money. And then, in the end, when the press covers it... it's gonna focus on that pack, and so is Sony, and so are the units shipped, and in the end it'll all converge to make the premium pack the only viable option to the majority of people.

Now, even putting this aside, and focusing PURELY on the $500 pack... if Sony ditched the $600 pack, I still feel $500 is not a marketable casual price. It is not a good thing when you have two viable alternative systems that are far cheaper in the end. And that's what Sony is fighting against in all territories.

In Japan, it is becoming less and less relevant... a system which will fight against a cheap Wii and probably lose. And in the US, you got a growingly relevant 360. Sony is just bring the PS3 out with its pricing and whatnot with a very poor strategy considering its competitors.

Personally, I'd rather have the Blu-ray in my games machine. Yep, I'm paying more for the system, but I'm getting more game machine for that. If the technology had been available to MS at the time, I'd have preferred if they had included it too. But then I'm an enthusiast, I spend a lot on my games and my gadgets, and I prefer fewer compromises, and don't mind paying for it.

Right, problem is... as we all know, you are the rarity. And in the end, mainstream acceptance is what makes a good system because with it comes the developer support and with the dev support comes the most quality games.

So that's all I am saying. Sony ****ed themselves with this pricing strategy, and that's my truthful viewpoint.

 

[Zaptruder]

Blu-ray gets way to much stick. I fail to see how it is any more disposable to a games machine than any other component in these systems. They could have put in a less powerful CPU or GPU and saved money there too. I don't know why people draw the line at optical storage, particularly when it's something developers are starting to bring up as a particular issue.

Personally, I'd rather have the Blu-ray in my games machine. Yep, I'm paying more for the system, but I'm getting more game machine for that. If the technology had been available to MS at the time, I'd have preferred if they had included it too. But then I'm an enthusiast, I spend a lot on my games and my gadgets, and I prefer fewer compromises, and don't mind paying for it.

Bluray for the PS3 was always a given since they announced it (Bluray).

Like I've said before, can you imagine the shit storm that would've ensued if they hadn't included it? The same as what happened given their price announcements, but with "LOL NO BLURAY" as the catch cry instead.

Given the two options would've resulted in the same or similar outcome prelaunch, we can only really rely on hindsight to tell us if they've made the right decision or not.

 

[Ranger X]

Damn. Those "i'm worried about the PS3" articles are legion!

We should have an official thread like "Who's not worried about PS3". It would be alot simplier and less annoying.

 

[travisbickle]

I reckon Sony will get away with their strategy for the PS3 in Britain, as an example here is the promotional PS3 page at PCWorld

LINK

Straight to the point, techy stuff to get the right people interested, I reckon if they promote it like this it will do all right.

 

[Vieo]

i love how the $600 bundle has suddenly become the DE-FACTO PS3 price for critics of the PS3, while TOTALLY ignore the $500 option

and how at the same time they also like to revel in the de-facto "360+wii FTW11!!!11"......as if we already knew what wii costs, and that the $300 is the only 360 price

They only mention the $600 PS3 because they know no one in their right mind is going to spend $500 on a watered-down version that can't be upgraded.

If you're going to burn $500 on a console, you might as well spend an extra $100 and get the real version.

 

[gofreak]

Right, problem is... as we all know, you are the rarity. And in the end, mainstream acceptance is what makes a good system because with it comes the developer support and with the dev support comes the most quality games.

I'm the early adopter. I kind of have to laugh when you start surmising about mainstream adoption of these prices when it's pretty much irrelevant at this point (not quite as much as I laugh at the blu-ray arguments that get raised in arguments such as yours, but almost).

So that's all I am saying. Sony ****ed themselves with this pricing strategy, and that's my truthful viewpoint.

We know jack about their pricing strategy beyond the initial price, to be honest.

 

[Amir0x]

I'm the early adopter. I kind of have to laugh when you start surmising about mainstream adoption of these prices when it's pretty much irrelevant at this point (not quite as much as I laugh at the blu-ray arguments that get raised in arguments such as yours, but almost).

It's irrelevant at this point? Sony PS3 being $600 is irrelevant at this point for mainstream adoption?

Well ok man! If that's what you think, but I don't know how that's an argument. I, uh, disagree?

We know jack about their pricing strategy beyond the initial price, to be honest.

yeaaaah... and the initial price is hugely important and a big ****ing chunk of the strategy. it suggests rate of initial adoption, which is a lot of what developers use to spread their developement investment down the line.

 

[marc^o^]

They only mention the $600 PS3 because they know no one in their right mind is going to spend $500 on a watered-down version that can't be upgraded.

If you're going to burn $500 on a console, you might as well spend an extra $100 and get the real version.

If you get the 600$ version, you still have to buy a game or two, and an extra controller. Most people won't cross this 700$ line. Hardcore gamers will, but not the casuals/mass market. I'm sure Sony has a big enough fanbase to sell millions of PS3. But still, PS3 is not likely to perform as well as the PS2. Thus threads like this one.

 

[gofreak]

It's irrelevant at this point? Sony PS3 being $600 is irrelevant at this point for mainstream adoption?

It's irrelevant at launch, obviously. Although you can argue when the mainstream starts to adopt. 10m in? 15m? I don't know, but it won't be this year or early next year certainly.

yeaaaah... and the initial price is hugely important and a big ****ing chunk of the strategy. it suggests rate of initial adoption

It might suggest something about how long it'll take to reach certain pricing thresholds, but that's about it. But something that's forgotten is that proportionately the difference between the 360 premium and the PS3 is 25% - 50%, which makes for increasingly smaller absolute differences in prices as pricing comes down (easy to forget this given the numbers are so relatively big right now). When the mainstream is really coming in, when a 20GB 360 is $200, a PS3 may be $250.

 

[Zaptruder]

They only mention the $600 PS3 because they know no one in their right mind is going to spend $500 on a watered-down version that can't be upgraded.

If you're going to burn $500 on a console, you might as well spend an extra $100 and get the real version.

Althought someone will take exception to this,

isn't that like saying, Why buy a X360 premium? Just spend an extra $100 and you get a real console (or a console with extras).

 

[Amir0x]

It's irrelevant at launch, obviously. Although you can argue when the mainstream starts to adopt. 10m in? 15m? I don't know, but it won't be this year or early next year certainly.

Of course, but you can't say it has 0 effect. For one, it IS going to be the first thing any mainstream person seeing a PS3 will soak in regards to the PlayStation 3. It'll be the first taste, and it'll be a sour one down the line.

And secondly, it'll impact WHEN the system comes down to a mass market price. Which will be after 360 and Wii, and then at that point... why even get a PS3? You can make a case, I suppose, about the possibility PS3 will be able to fight off such perceptions in the various markets it's competing in, and I am suggesting it's a fight they can do nothing except lose.

 

[Pimpwerx]

Sony talks like they still expect the same volumes of systems as the PS2, but the price is too goddamn high. And they're gonna lose a considerable amount of people to the 360. Hell, I was a few seconds away from getting a 360 and saying **** you to the PS3 the other night. I have a feeling that if MS drops the price to $300 or $350, that the exodus will begin for real. $300 has almost become an impulse buy.

Still, the PS3 will sell. The PSP is selling, right? People will pay. I'm gonna wait about a year, and see how things shake out. If the PS3 is the next Saturn or N64 (contenders that fell by the wayside) then I'll gladly shift over to one of the other two camps. I need GT like crack, but the price of admission is almost prohibitive. Sony either has something really big planned for later this year, or we are watching the gradual collapse of a gaming giant. PEACE.

 

[Guileless]

SDF needs to lighten up. Even if you know all of the info, a story like this in the Wall Street Journal is big news, as the WSJ is not exactly some horseshit fan site with a goofy sounding name. Millions of rich investors are reading it today and will make future decisions accordingly.

 

[gofreak]

Of course, but you can't say it has 0 effect.

I didn't, I went on to elaborate on the most direct effect it would have.

I simply think that talking about launch prices and mainstream adoption is a little funny. There are connections there, but the price the mainstream consumer cares about is ultimately the price they see when they want to buy, and that's highly unlikely to be the given prices we have now in the majority of cases.

 

[firefoxsux]

Blu-ray gets way too much stick. I fail to see how it is any more disposable to a games machine than any other component in these systems. They could have put in a less powerful CPU or GPU and saved money there too. I don't know why people draw the line at optical storage, particularly when it's something developers are starting to bring up as a particular issue.

Maybe they have already did it? Pp

 

[Pedigree Chum]

While I hate threads of this nature, thinking they provide fodder for the assorted Sony-Haters on this forum that fiend for any reason to chime in with their venom (GhaleonB, kryptonian), I actually agree with Amir0x.

Sony bungled the pricepoint, allowing the needless inclusion of BluRay to raise the PS3's price to possibly prohibitive heights. While I think -- hope, in fact -- that they'll survive the folly of their arrogance, there's no denying that the criticism they're receiving is justified. I would wager that only a minority of Sony's faithful cares about Bluray, for now, and it's unfair of them to foist $200 of technology on those of us who're looking for an alternative to the disappointing 360. They dropped the ball.

Still, while there's a fair amount of criticism that Sony deserves for their decision, portentous articles like this -- which fail to factor in the positives of Sony's position -- serve no purpose outside of fueling fanboy bickering. Sony's coming into this upcoming gen with the most powerful system, unprecedented mindshare, and third party support that's unchanged. Those are positives that need to be acknowledged alongside the understandable misgivings expressed over their ability to successfully launch at the $600 pricepoint.

 

[kaching]

SDF needs to lighten up. Even if you know all of the info, a story like this in the Wall Street Journal is big news, as the WSJ is not exactly some horseshit fan site with a goofy sounding name. Millions of rich investors are reading it today and will make future decisions accordingly.

WSJ needs filler articles just like any other paper and rich investors who have an interest in the game industry will already be aware of the info this article provides. The article exposes no new insights, in particular providing no new investigation about why Sony thinks they can sell the PS3 at the prices they've announced. We're in a holding pattern until Sony actually reveals the full itemization of what the PS3 will offer out of the box. This article doesn't change that.

 

[sinseers]

Well, now the industry is doomed in total. So, in a way, Nintendo is still doomed.

If it is then bring it on. This bog ol toilet full of shish needs a flushing anyway. Then maybe we start over again and have just game makers making games.

 

[sinseers]

Sony talks like they still expect the same volumes of systems as the PS2, but the price is too goddamn high. And they're gonna lose a considerable amount of people to the 360. Hell, I was a few seconds away from getting a 360 and saying **** you to the PS3 the other night. I have a feeling that if MS drops the price to $300 or $350, that the exodus will begin for real. $300 has almost become an impulse buy.

Still, the PS3 will sell. The PSP is selling, right? People will pay. I'm gonna wait about a year, and see how things shake out. If the PS3 is the next Saturn or N64 (contenders that fell by the wayside) then I'll gladly shift over to one of the other two camps. I need GT like crack, but the price of admission is almost prohibitive. Sony either has something really big planned for later this year, or we are watching the gradual collapse of a gaming giant. PEACE.

The wait and see approach is what killed the DC from the devs point of view. Everybody wanted to -wait and see-.

 

[charlequin]

Just like it did six years ago with the WSJ and the PS2 right?

Six years ago Sony wasn't undergoing a massive restructuring to stop themselves from hemmorhaging money. Sony shareholder confidence is definitely a lot lower right now than it was leading into the PS2, and bad news is going to be taken differently as a result.

 

[DarienA]

Six years ago Sony wasn't undergoing a massive restructuring to stop themselves from hemmorhaging money. Sony shareholder confidence is definitely a lot lower right now than it was leading into the PS2, and bad news is going to be taken differently as a result.

I don' tknow if it's just me or not but it seems like in some form or fashion Sony has been "restructuring" since like 2000... isn't Stringer's plan the 2nd restructing they've attempted?

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

While I hate threads of this nature, thinking they provide fodder for the assorted Sony-Haters on this forum that fiend for any reason to chime in with their venom (GhaleonB, kryptonian), I actually agree with Amir0x.

Sony bungled the pricepoint, allowing the needless inclusion of BluRay to raise the PS3's price to possibly prohibitive heights. While I think -- hope, in fact -- that they'll survive the folly of their arrogance, there's no denying that the criticism they're receiving is justified. I would wager that only a minority of Sony's faithful cares about Bluray, for now, and it's unfair of them to foist $200 of technology on those of us who're looking for an alternative to the disappointing 360. They dropped the ball.

Still, while there's a fair amount of criticism that Sony deserves for their decision, portentous articles like this -- which fail to factor in the positives of Sony's position -- serve no purpose outside of fueling fanboy bickering. Sony's coming into this upcoming gen with the most powerful system, unprecedented mindshare, and third party support that's unchanged. Those are positives that need to be acknowledged alongside the understandable misgivings expressed over their ability to successfully launch at the $600 pricepoint.

I was going to post more, but this says it.

$600 is stupid, no major voice is saying it's a good idea, as Amirox points out.

But do we really need *another* thread about it? There's little new in here except a reflection on WSJ's pessimisstic view of the PS2, and some little talk about stock prices and investor confidence. That stuff is all true, but not worthy of nearly 200 posts so far.

Really, next gen is weird. 360 ought to be selling like crazy, based on conventional wisdom and the PS3 pricepoint, but it's not yet (it might this fall). Conventional wisdom is out the window, and Sony better hope it's out the window on pricing and success as well. Conventional wisdom also says the Wii will not do well, and it very well might. In the meantime, GAF goes crazy and people make asses out of themselves trying to quell their anxiety of the unknown, which is exactly where we are-- unknown territory.

 

[Tom_Bombadil]

The point of--> if MS launches the X360 early on then they'll have to launch a new console within 4 years is irrelevant for me. The cycle of a generation is not marked by some kind of absolute reasons, it's more of a situation dependant atmosphere.

Just look at the PS2, looking through the same theories you're launching here, Sony would have to launch a new console early on just because of two poweful consoles like XBOX and GC. The only factor that can change things is software quality/quantity ratio and- to a minor extent- hardware prices.

What is my point? We're talking of mainstream here, of casuals. All this people out of this 8% hardcore gamers or people with online gaming interest. The cliched videogame consumer is the average casual with the obvious commercial influences and franchise bent tastes. So XBOX Live is not a factor right now, if you ask me. Sony attracted these kind of customers extremelly well creating the modern videogame industry as we know it today, and substituted the Marios, Zeldas, Sonics, etc. for the Crash, Jak, FF, GT, etc.

So online gaming is not going to be a factor, put it as you want (so you have to put out of the equation one of the most praised and strong MS weapons). Maybe is a factor for you, and the vast majority of this boards have claimed their concerns of Sony's online strategy, but you're not the average videogame consumer. Period. You have to look through the eyes of the casual to analize correctly this controversy in a worldwide, $$$ billion industry.

The price seems to be a good point but, to a certain extent. The original PS2 sold initially at a very high price, was hard to program, was ugly, very bad designed technically speaking with bottle necks a "tutti pleni", but it did pretty well I think . So maybe we need to focus on what can bring on MS to revert this Sony dominance. Or if the Sony hype machine will be able to produce the right amount of exclusive mainstream titles that sell their console as they did on the two prior generations with the FFs, GTs, GTAs, etc.

I believe all the controversy reduces to this point: the software quantity/quality ratio and also the hardware price but to a minor extent. Put in some really incredible games and maybe people will be willing to change their minds over the 600$ issue. Imagine some kind of game, exclusive to the Sony hype machine, that can do what FFVII did to the industry and maybe the $$$ are not a problem anymore. So, though I agree to the price being too high, if MS wins is because they have more games people are willing to play than its rival.

I see this "war" more in terms: are the TH, ME, GoW and the likes enough industry boomers, must have, console-sell titles to guarantee a momentum to MS to keep on its advantage in price and time span? For me is games, sorry if it sounds too simple to be interesting.

 

[Piper Az]

I don' tknow if it's just me or not but it seems like in some form or fashion Sony has been "restructuring" since like 2000... isn't Stringer's plan the 2nd restructing they've attempted?

They may need a 3rd restructuring after PS3's poor performance prediction becomes a reality.

To SDF who pitches that the $500 model is a viable option, I say "no way". To me and everyone around me, the $400 360 SKU is too damn expensive. To some people, it may be the upper limit for them. So, to say "just spend $100 extra to get the PS3" doesn't work, since the idea of getting the premium 360 is already stretching enough for the mainstream folks.

 

[rastex]

So online gaming is not going to be a factor, put it as you want (so you have to put out of the equation one of the most praised and strong MS weapons). Maybe is a factor for you, and the vast majority of this boards have claimed their concerns of Sony's online strategy, but you're not the average videogame consumer. Period. You have to look through the eyes of the casual to analize correctly this controversy in a worldwide, $$$ billion industry.

Halo 2, Socom and Counterstrike disagree with you. Online gaming is very much mainstream. And that's last generation, now with MySpace, MSN etc going crazy online is becoming a huge force in all industries, WAY more than just a few years ago. So no no, you're quite wrong on that one.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

They may need a 3rd restructuring after PS3's poor performance prediction becomes a reality.

To SDF who pitches that the $500 model is a viable option, I say "no way". To me and everyone around me, the $400 360 SKU is too damn expensive. To some people, it may be the upper limit for them. So, to say "just spend $100 extra to get the PS3" doesn't work, since the idea of getting the premium 360 is already stretching enough for the mainstream folks.

I think the point is nto that $500 is viable, but that the $500 configuration is a perfectly adequate gaming and movie solution, whereas the $300 Xbox configuration is not (needs a $40 memory card, to start, HD is needed for Live stuff, and HD only games seem likely).

Yeah, even $500 is a lot, but that wasn't the point of the term "viable" there. It's that people act as though the $500 option can't be considered when comparing prices.

 

[Mojovonio]

SDF is coming on strong!

"WSJ DOESN'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT! I DO! I BELONG TO A FORUM!"

 

[Nightbringer]

Sony could make a PS3 without BD-ROM drive and with a normal DVD-Drive like 360 and Microsoft would go out of the market in few months.

The people cannot understand that PSone was a console with a lifespan from 1994 to 2000, PS2 is a console with a lifespan between 2000 and 2006 (and it can go beyond of it), obviously I am talking about the active market. Now the BluRay is an idea of the future and isn´t interesting for a lot of people but...

... are we able to say the same 3 years later?

PS3 is a system designed for a 6 years life.

 

[kaching]

SDF is coming on strong!

If only we could say the same for your reading comp.

 

[Mojovonio]

If only we could say the same for your reading comp.

You mistake my reading comprehension for my desire to read through the 4 pages of monotonous complaining and predictions.

 

[cheekymunky]

If only we could say the same for your reading comp.

:lol :lol :lol