PDA

View Full Version : Sony Lost $3 Billion on the PS3



TheDomesticInstitution
06-26-2008, 10:11 PM
http://videogames.yahoo.com/feature/sony-has-lost-over-3-billion-on-the-ps3/1223467

That sucks.

I have a Wii and PS3- no 360 though.

How does this loss compare to past systems or other current ones? Do you care or could you give 2 fucks?

It's a pretty good Blu-Ray player and cost effective compared to other players.

Xizer
06-26-2008, 10:17 PM
Hey look, some good news! :)

rkotm
06-26-2008, 10:17 PM
i dont know if theres much they can do now, price dropping wont help because of manufacturing costs. more exclusives? maybe. they should just count their losses and learn from their earlier consoles (or from other companies).

The Shawn
06-26-2008, 10:22 PM
I don't feel sorry for em'.
:p

ooXxXoo
06-26-2008, 10:25 PM
I'm glad....After doing so many people wrong with the PS2....Sony is finally taking the loses....

smokehouse
06-26-2008, 10:30 PM
I figured they would lose their shirt on this unit...it's just too much. It's too costly, it basically requires a HDTV and doesn't have enough decent titles. There are simply too many gamers without HD sets right now and without one, you're really missing what the PS3 has to offer. Add to those things having 4 different models since release and it creates even more consumer confusion...

In other words...they really F'd up on this one.


On a lighter note, I picked one up during the $100 Wal-Mart gift card promotion...$299 for a full featured Blu Ray player is a great deal.

TheDomesticInstitution
06-26-2008, 10:37 PM
I figured they would lose their shirt on this unit...it's just too much. It's too costly, it basically requires a HDTV and doesn't have enough decent titles. There are simply too many gamers without HD sets right now and without one, you're really missing what the PS3 has to offer. Add to those things having 4 different models since release and it creates even more consumer confusion...


I agree. I've really only bought 1 game on the system since I've got it. I've used it more as Blu-Ray player- and considering the prices of other BD players its a fairly good deal.

In fact, when the PS3 was 1st released i said I would never buy a $600 video game console. Of course, to play video games was a secondary reason for buying it... and Blu-Ray players really haven't come down in price.

EdFick
06-26-2008, 10:45 PM
I picked up a PS3 earlier this year, mainly because it was the only system with a worthy baseball title (the Show). The fact that it's a blu-ray player also interested me, although I only use that sparingly.

Sony knew going in that they would take a huge hit on the system. Their main goal was to win the blu-ray HD format war, which they did. While 3 billion it a lot to lose, they will recoup much of that from game sales and bluray rights.

Dangerboy
06-26-2008, 10:54 PM
"...requires a HDTV..."

Hardly, at least if you want your movies in 1080p. I was bless with picking up a 60gig for $300 off of ebay, and when I went to go rent a game to see what it could do, I was shocked at how many games didn't offer 1080p when Sony was forcing it and HDMI down our throats. Heck, I don't think any of Sony's own games offer 1080p.

On the other side, I mainly got it for upscaled PS1 games, and let me tell you, FF7 in HDMI looks amazing. It's a bit hit or miss, but there are a lot of PS1 favorites that look fantastic.

Jason

exit
06-26-2008, 11:10 PM
Can't really say that this surprises anyone, but I'm sure they were expecting this to begin with. The PS2 is still selling pretty well and the PSP isn't doing too bad either, so it could be a lot worse for them if they didn't have those backing them up.

smokehouse
06-26-2008, 11:11 PM
"...requires a HDTV..."

Hardly, at least if you want your movies in 1080p. I was bless with picking up a 60gig for $300 off of ebay, and when I went to go rent a game to see what it could do, I was shocked at how many games didn't offer 1080p when Sony was forcing it and HDMI down our throats. Heck, I don't think any of Sony's own games offer 1080p.

On the other side, I mainly got it for upscaled PS1 games, and let me tell you, FF7 in HDMI looks amazing. It's a bit hit or miss, but there are a lot of PS1 favorites that look fantastic.

Jason

I stand by what I say...it basically requires a HDTV...

I have 2 titles for the PS3...Gran Turismo 5p and Metal Gear solid 4 (funny enough both are 1080 games)...

Other than that...I have the thing for a Blu Ray player as do many other PS3 owners, had the unit not played BR titles many that are current owners would have skipped over it completely. I use my PS3 at around a 75-25% ratio...75% BR, 25% games.If I didn't have a HD set my PS3 would loose 75% of it's usefulness. For me no HD set = little use for a PS3.

Now, my % may be different than others but I imagine it's safe to say most PS3 units are used heavily for BR playback...which requires a HD set...there aren't enough good titles out there to make the PS3 a stand alone unit...

Thus my "basically requires a HDTV" comment...

EdFick
06-26-2008, 11:17 PM
I would agree, for movies (either bluray of up converting dvd's), you really need to have a decent HDTV to get the most out of a Ps3. For games though, even though I have a 46" 1080P set, I prefer using my 22" PC's LCD when playing ps3 games. It doesn't do true 1080P, but it still looks great via HDMI to DVI converter.

Iron Draggon
06-27-2008, 01:29 AM
I don't feel sorry for em'.
:p

me either :sob:

Frankie_Says_Relax
06-27-2008, 02:04 AM
If the lifespan of the console is what Sony predicts (they want to ride this one at least as long, if not longer than their previous marketplace standard of 10 years per console) there's a chance that they could come close to putting a dent in their losses in the long-term.

Will it ever be a cash cow?

Not many consoles ever are.

The money is in the software, and with digital distribution growing, that's even more profit to the bottom line for Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo.

In any case, in terms of profit off of console sales XBOX 360 isn't making Microsoft any money either, so I don't really see the point on "rubbing it in" to either Sony or MS ... these corporations know what they're doing, they know what it costs to make and sell something like a PS3 down to the last screw.

Mayhem
06-27-2008, 04:41 AM
In any case, in terms of profit off of console sales XBOX 360 isn't making Microsoft any money either

Indeed... I've heard Microsoft has lost $6bn on the Xbox consoles over their lifetimes (though I imagine a chunk of that is swallowed by XBox Live costs).

gepeto
06-27-2008, 06:04 AM
I can't help but think if Sony released there console at 300-399 the gaming landscape would be so different.

smork
06-27-2008, 10:52 AM
I've been wanting one out of pure for a while now, but still haven't pulled the trigger as there's 2-3 titles I want to play that aren't on the 360.

I'm sure I play much more current gen games than the majority of the gaming population, and if I can't find any justification to buy one I can only imagine how the average gamer feels. In short, I ain't surprised.

Sony REALLY needs to fix their exclusive title lack, exclusives were the reason to get a PS2....

modest9797
06-27-2008, 11:08 AM
They really didn't need the Blu-ray player. All it did was increase prices and the price to make them. What happens when they desperately need a price drop and they are close to the price of making them?

Frankie_Says_Relax
06-27-2008, 11:30 AM
They really didn't need the Blu-ray player. All it did was increase prices and the price to make them. What happens when they desperately need a price drop and they are close to the price of making them?

They didn't "need" the DVD player in the PS2's architecture either, but that wound up being as much of a lauded "multimedia" feature/trojan horse for building-in sales as the Blu-Ray has been for the PS3. (And I suppose by "as much of" I mean, some people loved DVD playback on PS2, others didn't. Some people love Blu-Ray on on PS3, other's don't.)

And arguably, the PS3 won the high-def war for Sony as film studios really seemed to be looking at player install rates over just about anything else.

And while I could also take it or leave it in terms of it's movie disc playback, I think that the Blu-Ray disc medium makes perfect sense from a software development standpoint in terms of their massive size.

I've always agreed that the PS3 was cost prohibitive at it's inception, and remains relatively high now for a full-featured unit ... but it's been proven in a pure numbers game time and time again - considering all that's built into it, and what one would have to spend to make an equivalent multimedia/gaming system out of an XBOX360 (WiFi, HDMI, HDD size, HD movie disc playback, etc.) ... it's really not a bad value in terms of built-in components/functionality.

Zap!
06-27-2008, 05:24 PM
Good.

joshnickerson
06-27-2008, 09:45 PM
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b235/joshnickerson/simpsons_nelson_haha2.jpg

swlovinist
06-28-2008, 01:00 AM
I figured they would lose their shirt on this unit...it's just too much. It's too costly, it basically requires a HDTV and doesn't have enough decent titles. There are simply too many gamers without HD sets right now and without one, you're really missing what the PS3 has to offer. Add to those things having 4 different models since release and it creates even more consumer confusion...

In other words...they really F'd up on this one.

Yes they did. The PS3 is a good system, but it competing against better game systems. I have all three, and my PS3 gets limited play. The problem is that it tries to do everything and nothing spectacular. It is a game system...one with limited exclusives. It is a movie player for Blu Ray...but the movies are still like 25 to 30 buck a piece. It also is frigging expensive in a time when the economy is bad. $400 bucks for a gimped game system is way too much.

Sony missed the boat with what the consumer base wanted. I mean just having the dam thing backwards compatible is a no brainer...instead they went the cheap route and pissed off a bunch of people.

The PS2 is one of my favorite game systems, it baffles my mind how bad Sony has screwed the pooch on this one.


....speaking of cheap, how about a price break Sony now that your cheapest system is $100 more than your competator?

badinsults
06-28-2008, 01:42 AM
Even if the PS3 was the same price as their competitors, I doubt that it would boost it ahead of them, due to the lack of games and poor consumer confidence. At this point, I would say with confidence that they lost to the Wii and Xbox 360 (in North America, at least). Already we are seeing that MGS4 is not going to shift a lot of units beyond the launch of the game (at least that is evident in Japan and Europe, it will be a few weeks until we know for sure in the US). Unfortunately, Final Fantasy 13 is still a long way off, and it will not likely boost their marketshare for the time being.

And as for the argument that it is a Blu Ray player, well, Blu Ray is not going to be a DVD killer. When the PS2 came out, many got it just for the DVD player, but let's face it, DVD was designed to be a shift away from the archaic VHS format. Too few see the benefit of Blu Ray over DVD to justify paying an extra $10 for a movie. I know that many analysts see little reason why Sony would jeopardize their video game business to try and prop up a minor upgrade in video discs. And as we have seen over the past year and a half, it has done just that.

Fuyukaze
06-28-2008, 02:14 AM
Maybe this will teach sony the lesson they need most. Never take your established customers for granted by believing they will buy your product reguardless of cost. Not crying over this spilt milk here.

Wraith Storm
06-28-2008, 05:43 AM
:D THAT is what sony gets for shutting down LIK SANG!!! It might have been almost 2 years but I haven't forgotten and I never will.:angry:

LONG LIVE LIK SANG!!!

boatofcar
06-28-2008, 05:55 AM
Will it ever be a cash cow?

Not many consoles ever are.


I beg to differ.

http://cybernetnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/nes-console.jpg

http://static.emulator-zone.com/gallery/emulators/nds/nintendo_ds_lite.jpg

http://www.cnet.com.au/i/r/2005/games/hardware/22050780/nintendo_wii_b.jpg

Notice a pattern?

There are some very rich men in Japan right now due to hardware sales, and they don't work for Sony.

http://kotaku.com/assets/resources/2007/11/prints_moneylots.gif


Ok, I've used up my image posting allotment for like the next three months :)

jdc
06-28-2008, 08:59 AM
Do I care? Nope. The PS3 is an amazing system with great capabilities. It's a Sony and they did pretty darned good in the last two generation "wars", if I remember correctly. Like many DPers, I buy of all the systems and it's by far my favorite. Those of you who keep slamming the damned thing need to just get over it and go and buy one. It's like a fuckin' gamefaqs forum around here sometimes.

boatofcar
06-28-2008, 10:03 AM
Those of you who keep slamming the damned thing need to just get over it and go and buy one.

Yeah, what's wrong with you people? Don't like the price? No games you want to play? Mad about lack of PS2 compatibility?

Just get over it! Buy the damned thing!

m117
06-28-2008, 10:36 AM
I own a ps3 and honestly don't think too much of it. Sony had to have expected great losses going in or their strategy would have been different. Businesses endure losses quite often in order to achieve more long term goals. Just my opinion, not defending sony; as a matter of fact, I think Microsoft seems to have employed a strategy that has cost them much but awarded them a clear advantage against competitors. Its just business people, lets get back to our COD4 multiplayer please.

Mangar
06-28-2008, 11:56 AM
I own one, and it was purchased as a gift and SOLELY as a Blue Ray Player and due to it's PS2 backwards compatibility. (60gb one)

I think the only actual PS3 games I play on the PS3 with any degree of consistency are Eye of Judgement and Super Puzzle Fighter 2 HD Remix which i downloaded. That will change with the release of the new Madden, and I may pick up Metal Gear 4. But aside from that.... the PS3 as a games machine for me has been a complete bust. Regardless how powerful it is.

Sudo
06-28-2008, 12:32 PM
Yes they did. The PS3 is a good system, but it competing against better game systems. I have all three, and my PS3 gets limited play. The problem is that it tries to do everything and nothing spectacular. It is a game system...one with limited exclusives. It is a movie player for Blu Ray...but the movies are still like 25 to 30 buck a piece. It also is frigging expensive in a time when the economy is bad. $400 bucks for a gimped game system is way too much.

Sony missed the boat with what the consumer base wanted. I mean just having the dam thing backwards compatible is a no brainer...instead they went the cheap route and pissed off a bunch of people.

The PS2 is one of my favorite game systems, it baffles my mind how bad Sony has screwed the pooch on this one.


....speaking of cheap, how about a price break Sony now that your cheapest system is $100 more than your competator?
How is it a "gimped game system?" It has plenty of good exclusives currently available:

MGS 4
Ratchet and Clank
Uncharted
Ninja Gaiden Sigma
Folklore
Heavenly Sword
Motorstorm
Warhawk
Hot Shots Golf
MLB 08 The Show
Eye of Judgement
SingStar

Exclusives coming later this year:
Disgaea 3
LittleBigPlanet
Motorstorm 2
Naruto: Ultimate Ninja Storm
Resistance 2
Tekken 6
Valkyria Chronicles
White Knight Chronicles
Wipeout HD

It's getting plenty of 3rd party releases, as well. As far as Blu-ray movies being $30, you must not be shopping around, as you can get get most of them for $20 or so online.

I don't mean to paint myself as a PS3 fanboy, as I own a 360 as well and actually play it more than my PS3. I just wanted to point out that the "no games" argument is BS and has been for a year or s.

violentsnake
06-29-2008, 08:41 AM
I've got every game system and nothing gets more play than the PS3. The only games I have for 360 are Gears and Halo3 since they're exclusive, and although Wii is fun the only game I've put more than 20hrs into is Zelda.

For THIS generation of consoles my 3 fav games are MGS4, Ratchet and Clank and Hot Shots Golf. All PS3 exclusive. I even bought another system just for a blu-ray player in another room. I couldn't see any possible way I'd buy a multi-platform game on any system other than PS3. I didn't even care the 360 version of GTAIV has the exclusive downloadable content coming out, I still bought the PS3 one. I'm on my 3rd 360 (since the hardware is junk) and I've barely played it.

Don't confuse me for a PS fanboy though. I think the DS owns the PSP and last gen I loved the Gamecube best.

Nophix
06-29-2008, 09:59 AM
The Blu-Ray part of it isn't nearly as costly to Sony as you would expect. The only reason they have a high price on it right now is so they CAN keep selling t he PS3. Think about it... Samsung, Magnavox, and other companies have to purchase their components to build BR players from Sony. Manufacturing costs and component costs drive the price to the $500+ range, even more for good ones. Well, here comes Sony, and their PS3, which offers not only BR playback rivaling systems hundreds of dollars more, but a full featured gaming system as well. Value-added benefit.

I found myself criticizing Sony over the PS3 pricepoint for a long time. It wasn't until I realized the cost of other BR players that the price point made sense. At the time, even an HD-DVD player wsa near the same price, and they lost the format war.

Sony is a strong company with a hand in just about everything. 3 billion to them is like the average Joe losing $50 on a bad hand pf poker. They consider it the cost of winning a format war which will eventually make them a far larger profit than the lost coin, so no sweat.

As for the HDTV concerns, how many of you that own a PS3 have an HDTV anyhow? Even better, how many people looking at the PS3 as even just a BR player would do so if they had no intent on owning an HDTV? Now, anyone walk into a Wal Mart lately? How many CRT TV's do you see left over 20"? HDTV is basically the new standard anyhow, and you can get a 32" LCD for under $500, so that really doesn't mean a lot either.

m117
06-29-2008, 05:25 PM
The Blu-Ray part of it isn't nearly as costly to Sony as you would expect. The only reason they have a high price on it right now is so they CAN keep selling t he PS3. Think about it... Samsung, Magnavox, and other companies have to purchase their components to build BR players from Sony. Manufacturing costs and component costs drive the price to the $500+ range, even more for good ones. Well, here comes Sony, and their PS3, which offers not only BR playback rivaling systems hundreds of dollars more, but a full featured gaming system as well. Value-added benefit.

I found myself criticizing Sony over the PS3 pricepoint for a long time. It wasn't until I realized the cost of other BR players that the price point made sense. At the time, even an HD-DVD player wsa near the same price, and they lost the format war.

Sony is a strong company with a hand in just about everything. 3 billion to them is like the average Joe losing $50 on a bad hand pf poker. They consider it the cost of winning a format war which will eventually make them a far larger profit than the lost coin, so no sweat.

As for the HDTV concerns, how many of you that own a PS3 have an HDTV anyhow? Even better, how many people looking at the PS3 as even just a BR player would do so if they had no intent on owning an HDTV? Now, anyone walk into a Wal Mart lately? How many CRT TV's do you see left over 20"? HDTV is basically the new standard anyhow, and you can get a 32" LCD for under $500, so that really doesn't mean a lot either.

well said!

unwinddesign
06-29-2008, 06:09 PM
Revenue was 85 billion for Sony in fiscal 2007. Net profit was 3.5 billion. The game division's loss was 1 billion dollars.

If you bet 1.2 or 1.3% of your overall annual income on one poker hand, then methinks that's a lot more than $50 for most people...

That aside, a billion dollars is hardly a drop in the bucket, even for Sony being as massive as it is. Shit, if their game division didn't exist last year, profits would have been about 30% higher. Obviously they have the money to spend fighting the console war...but so do their two competitors. Will they make the money lost off of the PS3 back in Blu-Ray sales? Possibly. But even then, it seems that we're moving to a digital distribution mechanism...and $5 to rent an HD title is a lot more appealing for me than to purchase one at the currently ludicrous price of $20 - $30 (even online/eBay).

MeTmKnice
06-29-2008, 07:23 PM
I ahve not read EVERY post in here, so someone may have stated what I am gonig to say. They are not losing money, nor was Microshit losing money on their 360's They are just not making as much money as expected. Honestly, why would any company sell a product they are "losing" money on?

Frankie_Says_Relax
06-29-2008, 08:34 PM
I ahve not read EVERY post in here, so someone may have stated what I am gonig to say. They are not losing money, nor was Microshit losing money on their 360's They are just not making as much money as expected. Honestly, why would any company sell a product they are "losing" money on?

They are losing money.

Sony and Microsoft lose a few hundred dollars per console sold.

Selling consoles at a loss is a very standard business practice. It's no big "secret" and it's been public knowledge for a very long time.

Another thing that's no secret in this industry is that video game companies make their largest profits off of software, not hardware.

...in other news, I hate these kinds of threads at DP ... there's so little company bashing and fanboyism around these parts, it kind of makes me die a little inside when people have to take such wanton pleasure in attacking companies/consoles/each other over crap like this.

carlcarlson
06-29-2008, 09:55 PM
They are losing money.

I believe what he is saying is, it is a loss they expected. It's not like they started manufacturing all of these systems and then went "Oh NO! These cost more to make then we sell them for!" If it's a planned loss then it's not a real loss. According to the above guy at least. I know what he's saying though.

swlovinist
06-29-2008, 09:57 PM
How is it a "gimped game system?" It has plenty of good exclusives currently available:

MGS 4
Ratchet and Clank
Uncharted
Ninja Gaiden Sigma
Folklore
Heavenly Sword
Motorstorm
Warhawk
Hot Shots Golf
MLB 08 The Show
Eye of Judgement
SingStar

Exclusives coming later this year:
Disgaea 3
LittleBigPlanet
Motorstorm 2
Naruto: Ultimate Ninja Storm
Resistance 2
Tekken 6
Valkyria Chronicles
White Knight Chronicles
Wipeout HD

It's getting plenty of 3rd party releases, as well. As far as Blu-ray movies being $30, you must not be shopping around, as you can get get most of them for $20 or so online.

I don't mean to paint myself as a PS3 fanboy, as I own a 360 as well and actually play it more than my PS3. I just wanted to point out that the "no games" argument is BS and has been for a year or s.

I was referring to the PS3 not playing PS2 games. Sorry, but that is retarded. It makes a $400 machine gimped in my opinion. I know that great PS3 games are "coming", but the PS3 has been a big dissapointment any way you cut it. Coming on near two years now, and while it does have some exclusives, for a console to be following one of the greatest consoles ever, it is weaksauce. For the hardcore PS3 fans, you might be able to turn the cheek and not see things. For others such as myself, I cant look past some glaring mistakes the PS3 has made. It is not a bad system, the problem is that there are two other consoles that are competing in this generation. Each system has pros and cons, but the favor is not with the PS3 currently. While they have some great exclusives coming out, unless they adjust their price before the holidays, they are not going to make a dent.

BTW, I own all three systems as I have mentioned before. I like my PS3, but I like my other two consoles more for different reasons. I have said this time and time again, Sony needs a wake up call onto how to market themselves to their fanbase.

CelticJobber
06-30-2008, 02:49 AM
I was referring to the PS3 not playing PS2 games. Sorry, but that is retarded. It makes a $400 machine gimped in my opinion. I know that great PS3 games are "coming", but the PS3 has been a big dissapointment any way you cut it. Coming on near two years now, and while it does have some exclusives, for a console to be following one of the greatest consoles ever, it is weaksauce. For the hardcore PS3 fans, you might be able to turn the cheek and not see things. For others such as myself, I cant look past some glaring mistakes the PS3 has made. It is not a bad system, the problem is that there are two other consoles that are competing in this generation. Each system has pros and cons, but the favor is not with the PS3 currently. While they have some great exclusives coming out, unless they adjust their price before the holidays, they are not going to make a dent.

BTW, I own all three systems as I have mentioned before. I like my PS3, but I like my other two consoles more for different reasons. I have said this time and time again, Sony needs a wake up call onto how to market themselves to their fanbase.

So lack of compatibility with the last-gen makes a system "gimped"? Funny, I've never heard anyone complain about the Super Nintendo's lack of NES compatibility.

And if you pick up any of the non-40 GB versions of PS3 it will play PS2 games. And maybe I'm wrong, but doesn't XB360 have alot of issues with playing original XBox titles?

I keep all of my old systems, so compatibility is not an issue. I prefer to play PS2 games on an actual PS2.

And I'm not throwing this at any specific person, but I think alot of the people bashing Sony are just bitter Sega fans still hurting over the PS2's retail slaughter of the Dreamcast.

G-Boobie
06-30-2008, 03:01 AM
And I'm not throwing this at any specific person, but I think alot of the people bashing Sony are just bitter Sega fans still hurting over the PS2's retail slaughter of the Dreamcast.

Ah say, ah say snap!! Dude, if they had an emoticon for that urban, Queen Latifa head roll, I'd be typing it right now....

Fuyukaze
06-30-2008, 03:22 AM
How is it a "gimped game system?" It has plenty of good exclusives currently available:
Eye of Judgement
SingStar

Exclusives coming later this year:
Naruto: Ultimate Ninja Storm


These are good games? People are actualy looking forward to them? Seriously, these are "good" games?

Hasnt Naruto been done to death by now?

Frankie_Says_Relax
06-30-2008, 06:52 AM
I believe what he is saying is, it is a loss they expected. It's not like they started manufacturing all of these systems and then went "Oh NO! These cost more to make then we sell them for!" If it's a planned loss then it's not a real loss. According to the above guy at least. I know what he's saying though.

If that's what he's saying, those are the words he should have used to say it.

And whether or not they plan on a loss, it's still a loss.

Flack
06-30-2008, 08:29 AM
So lack of compatibility with the last-gen makes a system "gimped"? Funny, I've never heard anyone complain about the Super Nintendo's lack of NES compatibility.

That's because the Super Nintendo was never advertised as being backwards compatible. If Sony had been honest in their ads, I think people would be less upset. Maybe if they had done something like: The PS3 (*1) will be 100% (*2) backwards compatible (*3).

*1 = certain models.
*2 = 100% applies to PS1 games only.
*3 = For PS2 games, "backwards compatible" means "most" on a 60gig, "some" on an 80 gig and "none" on a 40 gig, except for games dependent on the hard drive or certain other peripherals, in which case "100% backwards compatible" actually means 0%.

Something like that.

Gentlegamer
06-30-2008, 08:52 AM
Will it ever be a cash cow?

Not many consoles ever are.Nintendo consoles are.

Sudo
06-30-2008, 12:32 PM
These are good games? People are actualy looking forward to them? Seriously, these are "good" games?

Hasnt Naruto been done to death by now?

EoJ and SingStar aren't my cup of tea, but the Naruto game looks good. It's been getting positive previews pretty much universally. There's a demo coming in a couple weeks, so we'll be able to judge for ourselves, then. Way to ignore the other games I listed, btw. ;)

Frankie_Says_Relax
06-30-2008, 01:30 PM
Yes. Nintendo does a good job of making sure they craft hardware that avoids taking losses at the register, however, that hasn't always translated into them being market leaders in the game business at any given time.

The GBC, GBA, and DS were all practically un-challenged in their handheld gaming monopolies until the release of the PSP, and the Wii is a grand slam in terms of both profitability and market share. (Of course them short-supplying the units to retail for close to two years helped maintain the supply/demand.)

So, yes, when I said "NOT MANY consoles ever are." As some people astutely pointed out, Nintendo makes up the lions share of that statement.

swlovinist
06-30-2008, 09:10 PM
That's because the Super Nintendo was never advertised as being backwards compatible. If Sony had been honest in their ads, I think people would be less upset. Maybe if they had done something like: The PS3 (*1) will be 100% (*2) backwards compatible (*3).

*1 = certain models.
*2 = 100% applies to PS1 games only.
*3 = For PS2 games, "backwards compatible" means "most" on a 60gig, "some" on an 80 gig and "none" on a 40 gig, except for games dependent on the hard drive or certain other peripherals, in which case "100% backwards compatible" actually means 0%.

Something like that.

Agreed. The Super Nes was a different time, this day and age, I think that backwards compatibility is a big deal. Even though the 360 had so/so backwards compatibility, it was improved over time to accomodate many of the games that were popular. The bottom line is that that 40gig model not being able to play PS2 games was just plain stupid. Being that Sony really did try to market the system as an "everything device", it makes the decision to not include BC even more retarded.

gepeto
06-30-2008, 09:31 PM
The thing that gimped the ps3 was price. They gambled that people would jump to blue ray from dvd. The problem was the jump in the average joes eye didn't warrant the price.

There was a big difference fronm vhs to dvd. The price at the time of the ps2 launch for dvd players was high just as high as blue ray there were only a few movies out. Ps2 took the loss at the initial release of 300.00 but made up in spades because now every home had a dvd player.

DVD stock was so low anyone remember when gamestop/eb ran a 1 week special giving 10.00 trade in credit for any dvd. Boy we bought in the farm on that one. That was one insane week 10 dvd 100.

I credit the ps2 with making the dvd player mainstream the blue ray strat backfired. Had the ps3 released at 300-399 and had enough at launch the loyal base would have followed.

Icarus Moonsight
07-01-2008, 12:53 AM
Logically, if you were a Sony fanboy wouldn't you want to dissuade folks from buying a PS3? It hurts Sony! Oh noes! Maybe I should buy one to put them deeper into the hole...

Razor/Blade sales model finally slits their throat. I say GOOD. It's a bullshit business model. Works consistently for the Mach 3 but not retail electronics. Or so it seems. The evidence is there.

The PS3's main problem was (and still IS) Sony was so assured of their creation taking top market share that they did practically nothing of worth to realize the goal. In fact, it wasn't a 'goal' in their minds but, the consoles birthright! On top of all that they botched practically everything since. Creating even more barriers between them and the consumer. Apparently, their gods were not appeased by the goat offering. LOL

Zap!
07-01-2008, 01:03 AM
Guys, it didn't "fail" only because of the high price. Yes, that's a big part of the reason, but another reason why it didn't do nearly as well as expected is because of the Nintendo Wii and it's revolutionary controller.