PS3 Losing More Money Than PS2 Made

[Zap!]

I can only hope that none of the hardcore gamers HERE would revel in the losses of a major contributor of videogaming culture.

Example: If you want Sony to fail, then you either want their competitors to win (oh, great... let's give MICROSOFT a bajillion more dollars) or you're hoping their collapse will create some kind of bargain-bin discount on their product (foolish, as Sony isn't going to fire-sale their gaming star and blu-ray poster child). Hoping for Sony's failure doesn't make any sense as a gamer.

What we really want is for NO ONE to establish superiority. We want them to fight tooth and nail for every sale. We want every game to be that hopeful "push to the top" product. We don't want any company to be so far behind that it doesn't matter anymore. We don't want any company to be so far AHEAD that it doesn't matter anymore. In that scenario (the anti-fanboy "let's get the best games we can" scenario) Sony puts out a mega hit. Microsoft follows. Nintendo follows. Sony counters. Microsoft counters. Nintendo counters. Get it?

THINK, gamers.

Well, there are those of us longtime (70's on) gamers who despise Sony simply because they entered the video game race as a non video game company (unlike Nintendo, Sony, Sega, and SNK, who were seasoned arcade companies before introducing their systems). Many also blame them for knocking Sega out of the hardware business, and severely wounding Nintendo, who thankfully managed to fully recover.

I'm sorry Joe, I almost never disagree with you, but to me it will be a beautiful day once Sony exits the video game industry once and for good. Good riddence. M$, you're next.

[The 1 2 P]

I'm sorry Joe, I almost never disagree with you, but to me it will be a beautiful day once Sony exits the video game industry once and for good. Good riddence. M$, you're next.

So you want Nintendo to be the only video game company left?:hmm:

[Ed Oscuro]

Well, there are those of us longtime (70's on) gamers who despise Sony simply because they entered the video game race as a non video game company
What a rational reason for dismissing them!

In other news, those of us who are super-longtime (1890s on) Hanafuda players simply despise Nintendo because they spend too much time on TV Games these days.

We also hate Microsoft because the support they gave to the MSX console concept from 1984 on was as a non-gaming company.

[otoko]

...who despise Sony simply because they entered the video game race as a non video game company (unlike Nintendo, Sony, Sega, and SNK, who were seasoned arcade companies before introducing their systems).

Wait.. what?

[Kid Ice]

Well, there are those of us longtime (70's on) gamers who despise Sony simply because they entered the video game race as a non video game company (unlike Nintendo, Sony, Sega, and SNK, who were seasoned arcade companies before introducing their systems).

Then there are those of us longtime (70's on) gamers who think the Playstation, for its day, was the best console ever made (yes better than the 2600).


Many also blame them for knocking Sega out of the hardware business, and severely wounding Nintendo, who thankfully managed to fully recover.

Well if you're going there, Nintendo was more responsible for Sega's issues than Sony was. Although I would blame Sega's issues on Sega. And when was Nintendo "severely wounded"?


I'm sorry Joe, I almost never disagree with you, but to me it will be a beautiful day once Sony exits the video game industry once and for good. Good riddence. M$, you're next.

Uhh...no. Maybe in 20 years?

[megasdkirby]

Well, there are those of us longtime (70's on) gamers who despise Sony simply because they entered the video game race as a non video game company (unlike Nintendo, Sony, Sega, and SNK, who were seasoned arcade companies before introducing their systems). Many also blame them for knocking Sega out of the hardware business, and severely wounding Nintendo, who thankfully managed to fully recover.

I'm sorry Joe, I almost never disagree with you, but to me it will be a beautiful day once Sony exits the video game industry once and for good. Good riddance. M$, you're next.

Every company has a right to create, manufacture, and distribute video games and consoles. For example, I can make my own console and distribute it. Does that mean I should fail as well, because I have no background?

If the games are good, isn't that what is most important? And in one point, all those "season veterans" were beginners as well, not having ANY background whatsoever.

Sega knocked themselvesout with consoles like the 32X and Saturn. Can you really blame the public for past Sega mistakes? I as a consumer would be really weary if a company offered hardware "no up to par" in the past.

Sorry Terr, but I don't think many agree with you. I admire and respect your opinion, though.

[Ed Oscuro]

I admire and respect your opinion, though.
I was 100% with you up to this point. Nobody wants this mindless manufacturer-bashing besides the fanboys, and let's not pretend otherwise.

I'll respect people who boycott companies who they think hurt the market, but putting pressure on Nintendo is just business as usual. This just reeks of fanboyism and stale salami, I says.

There is more to White Knight's reasoning than is seen in this post, but I still don't buy it. From an old 2007 post:


The reason Sony doesn't have a known mascot is the same reason Microsoft doesn't have one (at least a well-known one): because both are not true video game companies. They have never been known to have made highly successful arcade and home software titles before they got into the hardware business. Nintendo, Sega, and Atari were well known for their arcade hits before they started making hardware. Sony and MS just jumped in, having next to no experience at all making well known games. Remember, mascots must be first-party (not third or even second), and Sony and MS are not known for their first-party games.
Fuckin' hell, I don't want a cuddly Sonic doll. I just want some games, damnit!

Is Geometry Wars 2 not a real game because it doesn't have anything that could be used as a mascot? Are Alex Kidd games better just because Alex Kidd also is a mascot? Is Pac-Man more fun as a game (as opposed to a *licensing phenomenon,* which the blight of 80s Pac-Merch was, all while being strictly unrelated to the arcade game origins) because Pac-Man is also a mascot?

[megasdkirby]

I was 100% with you up to this point. Nobody wants this mindless manufacturer-bashing besides the fanboys, and let's not pretend otherwise.

I'll respect people who boycott companies who they think hurt the market, but putting pressure on Nintendo is just business as usual. This just reeks of fanboyism and stale salami, I says.

I know, but there is not much I, or anyone, can do. It's his opinion and I have no right to criticize or demean it. He has a right to speak his mind as well the rest of us.

I admit, I don't agree with what he said but that doesn't mean I don't respect his views.

[Ed Oscuro]

What's that? I can write a counterpoint to prevent this offensive fanboyish nonsense clogging up any more bandwidth. If it's an opinion based on spurious logic, it's a candidate for deconstruction.

Reminds me of what a professor always liked to say: "To tolerate something, you have to disagree with it." Surely not the most pertinent quote, but damn I'm tired (guess it shows; then again, I don't respect folks antagonizing people and also the limits of common sense without at least putting a little bit of work and thought into it).

[megasdkirby]

What's that? I can write a counterpoint to prevent this offensive fanboyish nonsense clogging up any more bandwidth. If it's an opinion based on spurious logic, it's a candidate for deconstruction.

Reminds me of what a professor always liked to say: "To tolerate something, you have to disagree with it." Surely not the most pertinent quote, but damn I'm tired (guess it shows; then again, I don't respect folks antagonizing people and also the limits of common sense without at least putting a little bit of work and thought into it).

You can counter to your liking. That way we always have something to talk about and it makes discussions more vivid and interesting.

But there is a difference between disagreeing (is that how it's spelled?) and respect. And like I mentioned before about his post, I don't agree with what he said, but I still respect his opinion.

[Rob2600]

Well, there are those of us longtime (70's on) gamers who despise Sony simply because they entered the video game race as a non video game company (unlike Nintendo, Sega, and SNK, who were seasoned arcade companies before introducing their systems).

White Knight, I understand where you're coming from, but to be fair, Magnavox, Mattel, and Coleco used to make video game consoles too, and those companies never made arcade games.

[Nature Boy]

I'm sick of hearing that Sony killed Sega from fanboys. Sega killed Sega. They had a name consumers trusted and they threw it away with poor decisions, regardless of what you think of the Dreamcast, Saturn, and everything else.

Definitely count me amongst those who love the 3 company market we've got today. I love choices, and at the end of the day I don't care who offers them to me - they all get my ear at some point.

[Sudo]

the N64 had a storage medium that was prohibitively expensive for the end user
the PS3 storage medium is more expensive than the standard DVD for the end user

id say the analogy works

360 games are on DVDs as well, so why are they more expensive then? The analogy does not work in that respect.

[megasdkirby]

360 games are on DVDs as well, so why are they more expensive then? The analogy does not work in that respect.

My analogy was originally referring to several aspects, not the medium used, but aspects like divertisty, propagation, "stubbornness", comparative sales, etc.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

As a universal console/company supporter, I wonder why I even read threads like this.

I agree with Joe's (Digitalpress) sentiment.

Whether Sony comes out of this console generation with the LEAST or BEST sales, I could care less. I support all past, present and future companies that want to get involved in this hobby/industry, and over the past 15 years or so Sony has MORE than proven to be a positive contributer.

I look at it this way, single console/company supporters aren't people I fully understand. Just because you make an investment in one console or company ... why do you feel the need to "hate" all the others? It's really tantamount to "digital bigotry" or "electonic racism".

People who gauge their "respect" for a company on things like "TOTAL GLOBAL SALES REVENUE" are people that are more likely to participate in a penis-measuring contest than an orgy.

Those are people that don't have as much fun with everything that the world has to offer, and I'm certainly not one of those people.

I support Sony in whatever venture they take, as long as they are compelled to produce excellent first party software and high-end technology with broad multimedia capabilities in the same way that I supported Nintendo (because they made kick-ass 1st party software) when they were trailing all competitors.

Wishing a company out of the market because you "don't like them" is silly. EVEN COMPETITION spurs great innovation. Let everybody play, there's plenty of room and a near ENDLESS amount of money to be made for all involved.

I sincerely doubt that we'd even HAVE the Wii and it's "innovations" if Nintendo wasn't FORCED to re-think the way they did things due to being on the bottom of the heap for so many years.

[megasdkirby]

I agree with Joe's post, in part, but not all.

When a company thinks they are "all that" and thinks they are invincible (or just being extremely cocky and arrogant) they think they can do whatever they want and the customer will just accept it, no matter what.

If Sony at least learns a little lesson in humility, things will be better for everyone. They will focus on what they were supposed to originally: the customer. And if they focus on the customer, we get better deals and games.

[Rob2600]

As a universal console/company supporter, I wonder why I even read threads like this.

I agree with Joe's (Digitalpress) sentiment.

Whether Sony comes out of this console generation with the LEAST or BEST sales, I could care less. I support all past, present and future companies that want to get involved in this hobby/industry, and over the past 15 years or so Sony has MORE than proven to be a positive contributer.

Frankie and Joe, I understand your points and somewhat agree with you. Competition is great. However, there's a reason why I'm a Nintendo guy. Yes, the NES gave my friends and me many blinking screens back in the day, but the Game Boy, SNES, N64, Game Boy Color, Game Boy Advance, GameCube, DS, and Wii are all solid, reliable machines that always worked perfectly for me.

Even Sega and Atari usually built reliable hardware.

In contrast, Sony ripped people off with cheap, shoddy hardware for two generations. I worked at EB in the late 1990s and early 2000s and dealt with a great deal of customers during that time who were buying their second, third, and sometimes fourth PlayStation console because their previous ones stopped working. It had gotten so bad, at least where I worked at the Willowbrook Mall and the Livingston Mall in northern NJ, that the PlayStation was jokingly referred to as a disposable console.

Many of my customers went through a few PlayStation 2 consoles, as well. Either it would get disc read errors, gouge rings into their discs, or stop working entirely. I know that extended warranties are usually a waste, but in the case of the PlayStation and PlayStation 2, I strongly urged my customers to buy them. Some refused and were burned months later.

Now, Microsoft is pulling the same high-failure-rate nonsense with the Xbox 360. I really don't care if there are 5,000 AAA games available for it and the online store is amazing. If the console keeps breaking and I have to keep wasting time shipping it back to Microsoft, I don't support it.

That's why I have an overall bad attitude toward Sony and Microsoft's video game consoles. If the PlayStation, PlayStation 2, and Xbox 360 were built better, I'd be perfectly fine with them. I just can't stand companies that knowingly release electronics that are prone to failure. That's unacceptable and a rip-off.

[megasdkirby]

In contrast, Sony ripped people off with cheap, shoddy hardware for two generations. I worked at EB in the late 1990s and early 2000s and dealt with a great deal of customers during that time who were buying their second, third, and sometimes fourth PlayStation console because their previous ones stopped working. It had gotten so bad, at least where I worked at the Willowbrook Mall and the Livingston Mall in northern NJ, that the PlayStation was jokingly referred to as a disposable console.

So very true. At Sears, the number of returned PS2 Slims are incredible and ALWAYS for the same thing: cannot read discs. It was so much the hassle that MRA warranties (Merchandise Replacement Agreement) were eliminated and now instead of giving 90 days we now give 14 days (it was always 14 for video games in general, but we were nice over here and gave 90 days). It was really nasty.

And don't go that far...although the level of returns for PS3 consoles isn't as high as the Xbox 360, consoles have been returned for the same thing: cannot read discs. But no where near as close as the PS2.


Many of my customers went through a few PlayStation 2 consoles, as well. Either it would get disc read errors, gouge rings into their discs, or stop working entirely. I know that extended warranties are usually a waste, but in the case of the PlayStation and PlayStation 2, I strongly urged my customers to buy them. Some refused and were burned months later.

I got that too. And when I told them (during the time MRA warranties were in effect) they had the choice to buy it during the original sale, they started giving me the "speech" about how they are loyal to Sears for 666 years, blah...blah. When they finish, I simply replied "There is nothing we can do. Go to Sony for repair"


Now, Microsoft is pulling the same high-failure-rate nonsense with the Xbox 360. I really don't care if there are 5,000 AAA games available for it and the online store is amazing. If the console keeps breaking and I have to keep wasting time shipping it back to Microsoft, I don't support it.

Agreed. Lousy commissions ($3.50 per system) and high return rate. I rather not bother selling 360's because I constantly fear a return.


That's why I have an overall bad attitude toward Sony and Microsoft's video game consoles. If the PlayStation, PlayStation 2, and Xbox 360 were built better, I'd be perfectly fine with them. I just can't stand companies that knowingly release electronics that are prone to failure. That's unacceptable and a rip-off.

Even with all that, I still love all three companies. But they should really test their consoles further before releasing them...

[TonyTheTiger]

This "not on my turf" mentality always puts a bad taste in my mouth. Calling out Sony or Microsoft for jumping into an industry (a barely 35 year old one at that) is foolish. The idea that these new kids on the block are coming in at the expense of so-called "old timers" is just...I'm sorry to say...dumb. If you want to extend that same logic to other industries then I guess General Electric should be one and only maker of refrigerators and I guess Ford should be one of the only car manufacturers. God forbid Honda start producing cars, right? That certainly wouldn't be healthy for the automotive industry. :roll: Imagine what would have happened if Nintendo had not jumped in on someone else's turf?

I think it's the difference between whether you're a glass half full or glass half empty kind of person. If something isn't going your way, the glass half empty guy hopes for the destruction of the competition. The glass half full guy hopes the extra competition encourages improvement. The people who blame everybody else for Sega's hardships are all glass half empty guys. Whereas glass half full guys say that Sega just failed to fight it's own battle well enough.

The PS1 and PS2 were both fragile systems. Too fragile, in fact. But, what do you know? The PS3 seems to be quite the sturdy piece of hardware. And after all the heat MS took for the 360, I doubt the next outing will see the same problems. The market works. Someone releases faulty hardware, they pay for it and learn from it. If they don't learn from it, they pay more. Nobody has to actively hope for their destruction for there to be improvement all around.

[Ed Oscuro]

Tony T. Tiger here has a good point; with all the complaining about console reliability, people have been pretty quiet about the PS3 (I have seen some posts about PS3s dying, but it seems to be a relatively limited phenomenon).

When times are good, people don't say boo...but they will complain when times are bad.

[megasdkirby]

The reliability of the PS3 console is pretty good. A coworker once left his on the entire night playing MGS4 and nothing happened.

I'm actually surprised and relieved that the system is confiable. So is the PSP, and I use that console like crazy!

[theChad]

One thing that I think needs pointed out that goes a little against what Joe said, is that game companies want the consumers to pick a side. I don't see them all as a team just filling up the market with goodness for us gamers, they are competing with each other and they want you to root for them. I think it's just as important to appreciate what all of them do for the market as it is to have a company that you place above the rest. That's what the company is out to do and that's what you pay them for.

[Rob2600]

Tony T. Tiger here has a good point; with all the complaining about console reliability, people have been pretty quiet about the PS3...

When times are good, people don't say boo...but they will complain when times are bad.

I know what you mean, but after witnessing two generations of Sony consoles breaking, I'm not about to embrace its new one with open arms. There's a saying: once bitten, twice shy.

Anyway, are times really that good now? Yes, Sony finally managed to make a reliable piece of hardware (the PlayStation 3), but still ruined any chances of me buying one with its $600 price tag. Sony fixed one problem, but created another.

[Sudo]

I know what you mean, but after witnessing two generations of Sony consoles breaking, I'm not about to embrace its new one with open arms. There's a saying: once bitten, twice shy.

Anyway, are times really that good now? Yes, Sony finally managed to make a reliable piece of hardware (the PlayStation 3), but still ruined any chances of me buying one with its $600 price tag. Sony fixed one problem, but created another.

You do realize you can buy a PS3 for $399, right?

[The 1 2 P]

I am so proud of the ongoing discussion in this thread. And as much as people seem to disagree with White Knights post, atleast it kept things interesting. Plus, like the rest of us, he was just being honest because thats how he feels. I think a one-console video game future would be depressing as hell, but again--thats what he wants, not what I want.

[Rob2600]

You do realize you can buy a PS3 for $399, right?

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but $399 is still a lot of money for a video game console, especially one that doesn't even come with a game. Besides, isn't that the 80 GB model, which has crippled backwards-compatibility?

[TheDomesticInstitution]

Yes, Sony finally managed to make a reliable piece of hardware (the PlayStation 3), but still ruined any chances of me buying one with its $600 price tag. Sony fixed one problem, but created another.

You mean a $400 price tag.

Of course initially I realize it was $600... but on the same token my girlfriend had trouble finding a Wii (like many did) and paid $450 for one off of ebay. That being said we still paid $50 more for our Wii than our PS3 (which we bought for $400). Although now you can find a Wii for $250-$300- our PS3 gave us a Blu-Ray player which was an excellent investment for our 46 inch 1080p LCD TV.

While you and a lot of other people aren't into HD content, the current $150 premium over the Wii is well justified for all those who currently enjoy Blu-Rays and regular DVDs. The combination of the Blu-ray player and video game system that the PS3 offers has translated into more use of the PS3 over our Wii (which currently doesn't even have DVD playback).

While I understand that the Wii is a perfect system for you, as someone who uses their game system to only play games... it isn't that big of a deal to pay only an extra $150 for the excellent Blu-ray and DVD playback capability the PS3 offers. It's actually a pretty good value, considering that the PS3 library caters more to our households gaming sensibilities than the Wii.

[Rob2600]

You mean a $400 price tag.

Of course initially I realize it was $600... but on the same token my girlfriend had trouble finding a Wii (like many did) and paid $450 for one off of ebay. That being said we still paid $50 more for our Wii than our PS3 (which we bought for $400). Although now you can find a Wii for $250-$300- our PS3 gave us a Blu-Ray player which was an excellent investment for our 46 inch 1080p LCD TV.

While you and a lot of other people aren't into HD content, the current $150 premium over the Wii is well justified for all those who currently enjoy Blu-Rays and regular DVDs. The combination of the Blu-ray player and video game system that the PS3 offers has translated into more use of the PS3 over our Wii (which currently doesn't even have DVD playback).

While I understand that the Wii is a perfect system for you, as someone who uses their game system to only play games... it isn't that big of a deal to pay only an extra $150 for the excellent Blu-ray and DVD playback capability the PS3 offers. It's actually a pretty good value, considering that the PS3 library caters more to our households gaming sensibilities than the Wii.

Excellent points. You're absolutely right, the PlayStation 3 is a good value for some people and the Wii is a good value for others.

However, my point was in response to Frankie:


Whether Sony comes out of this console generation with the LEAST or BEST sales, I could care less. I support all past, present and future companies that want to get involved in this hobby/industry

Is blindly embracing every company on the market a good idea? I am more selective than that, for reasons I explained in my previous posts.

[TonyTheTiger]

Arguing about price always goes nowhere fast.

This is an expensive hobby. It always has been and probably always will be. Nobody is trying to downplay that. Whether a console/game/accessory/etc. is worth the price is left up to each consumer. Each consumer has to ask him or herself "Is this within my budget?" and "If this is within my budget, do I value the product more than I value the money in my wallet?" Personally, as of right now, I do not value the PS3 more than I value the money in my wallet. Therefore, I have yet to purchase one.

But just because the price of the machine is too rich for my blood at the moment, it doesn't mean that Sony is somehow screwing me over and deserves to crash and burn. If some more games come out that interest me *hopes for Jak and Daxter* and I start to want a PS3, then all it means is I have to ask myself again whether or not I value the console more than I value the money. It doesn't mean that Sony is somehow backing me into a corner and forcing me to empty my pockets for their unfairly priced video games. This isn't food or shelter. I can do without.

Sony doesn't owe me or anyone else an affordable price tag. Sony wants, however, to appeal to the widest possible audience and allow for brisk sales which mitigates the possibility of a $3,000 console. Just because the final price turned out to be higher than some (many?) people were willing to pay, it doesn't mean that Sony is being unconscionable. All it means is I can't afford it, I choose not to buy it, or I value it enough to make a purchase. Nobody is being wronged. We don't need video games.

The idea of the begrudging buyer...the guy who says "Fine, dammit! I'll pay for that ripoff PS3!" isn't getting screwed. He might act like he is but in reality he's getting what he wants; a PS3. Just because the price is more than he would have felt comfortable paying, he still obviously felt driven to pay it regardless. How is that Sony's fault?

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

Is blindly embracing every company on the market a good idea? I am more selective than that, for reasons I explained in my previous posts.

BLINDLY?

Yes, I admit to being "open-minded" about supporting ANY company willing to throw their hat into the world of video games regardless of any pre-conceived notions people may have about them and what they do OUTSIDE of gaming. (Which sometimes leaves with with console and/or portable system ownership of "dead" systems ala Dreamcast, Neo Geo Pocket Color, Virtual Boy, etc. etc.)

But if you're assuming, or much worse INSINUATING that I make my investments BLINDLY, then you are very sadly mistaken.

While I'll never use the terms "hardcore" or even "gamer" when describing myself, know that I've been gaming since around 1982, and I've enjoyed taking ANY opportunity to do the research on this grand hobby/investment I do so enjoy, prior to the internet it meant subscribing to every computing and gaming magazine under the sun ... and now it means tracking a multitude of blogs, podcasts, and most importantly being as HANDS-ON as possible with everything out there.

While an occasional software purchase is made on a wild impulse, there is VERY little I do that I would consider to be BLIND.

In fact, I believe that people who don't do the legwork to spend a significant amount of time with all systems/exclusive software on the market are the only ones that end up "blind".

Sure, one can make an "educated" decision on what system best SUITS them, but once that purchase is made, and 100% of their time and money is invested in their singular system ... I find it VERY hard to believe that they are the most "ENLIGHTENED" people out there.

Now, does this mean that I have some kind of animosity for people who only own one system? No! Of course not! If it's by choice, or by financial restraint/restriction that people can only own one (or two) systems per console cycle, I have absolutely no bone to pick with them ... as long as they don't use that choice as an excuse to turn that state-of-singular-console-ownership into some type of "solidarity and/or blood-oath" to be hyper-critical of everything else on the market in order to psychologically support the decision that they ultimately made for themselves and/or were limited to.

It grinds my gears when I'm browsing a GameStop and I need to listen to consumers looking for genuine professional guidance be lead astray by "digitally-bigoted" employees. You know you've heard it before :

Customer : What game system should I buy? A Wii, a PS3, or a 360?

Employee: Dude, PS3 sucks, it has no good games, Wii only has stuff for kids, get a 360, "it's the best".

I managed a Funcoland for close to five years from around 97 to the end of 2001, through some of the most turbulent "mainstream-growth-years" ... and not ONCE did I EVER provide a consumer looking for advice on a console purchase an answer that was designed to make ME feel like I was adding another brick to the wall of my favorite console manufacturer. In fact, I made it a point to take the time to present the most positive aspects of every console I had to offer and let THEM make a decision. Simple as that.

Not only am I not "blind" in my decision making process, I make a point to CONSTANTLY ATTEMPT TO EDUCATE those around me about things they might not already know about games and consoles ... and if you pay attention to the posts I do start, they're usually pointing out some obscure feature of something like a PSP for example, that others might not have previously known and hopefully will elevate their opinion of said product.

Being a universal console/portable owner sure as shit doesn't make me "better" than anybody ... but it's undeniable that I've got a better baseline knowledge of all products on the market than somebody who only owns only one or two things, and even if my decision making WAS for arguments sake "blind" going in, I would hope that it's not after owning all three systems and both portables for the past 3-4 years and investing countless amounts of time and money in both.

As far as letting hardware failure rate severely sway my opinion on a console/game manufacturer ...

... shit breaks. Everything breaks. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING electronic is "perpetual".

Atari 2600s broke
Atari 5200s broke
Atari 7800s broke
Intellivisions broke
Vectrexes broke
Colecovisions broke
Gameboys broke
Saturns broke
PS1s broke
PS2s broke
NESs broke
Lynxs broke
Neo Geos broke
360s break a lot
PS3s break a little

SHIT BREAKS DOWN, sometimes due to poor craftsmanship, and sometimes and more importantly due to USER HANDLING.

But you know what, companies also FIX SHIT. And history will show that even in the case of notoriously flaky and poorly built systems, that companies USUALLY rise to the occasion and offer up some type of help be it for free or for cash.

Anybody who thinks that Sony and/or Microsoft is giving consumers the shit end of the stick on repairs should ask Nintendo how much money they made over the years with their "official" Nintendo repair centers. I don't have an exact figure ... but I would venture to guess it's a buttload.

Yeah, it pisses me off when shit breaks down ... but I also accept it and move on, I'm very zen like that. I can't and I WON'T let that kind of thing keep me from really enjoying the world of video gaming, even if it means I have to spend $75 and wait two weeks to get my Wii back, or send my 360 in after a RROD. I'm not "swearing off" my ability to enjoy the next Mario or God of War game just because a lot of people had flashing NESes or I had a motor die in a PS1.

That's just me.

[theChad]

You probably should have just said that in the first place rather than saying you'd support any company that wanted in. Probably.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

You probably should have just said that in the first place rather than saying you'd support any company that wanted in. Probably.

I think that making the assumption that universal support is (or should be practiced in a fashion that is) uneducated or ignorant is the mistake that was made.

[Rob2600]

Frankie, I didn't mean to imply that you are uneducated. I was genuinely asking a question: Is blindly embracing every company on the market a good idea?

By "blindly," I mean supporting every company and playing every game, despite their (sometimes major) flaws.

To me, blindly embracing every company on the market isn't a good idea. Why should I support a company that I feel is unreliable? It's the same reason I don't support, for example, Michael Jackson. I admit, I like some of his songs, but I won't buy any of his CDs because of what he does to children. Likewise, I'm sure I'd enjoy some PlayStation and Xbox 360 games, but I don't support companies that knowingly sell shoddy products to its customers.

I know you're an artist, so maybe you value art above all else. To you, great art is worth putting up with red rings of death and disc read errors. That's fine. We just have two different philosophies regarding video games, the state of the industry, art, and electronics in general.

I meant to broaden the discussion, not upset you. Sorry about that. Friends?

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

Frankie, I didn't mean to imply that you are uneducated. I was genuinely asking a question: Is blindly embracing every company on the market a good idea?

By "blindly," I mean supporting every company and playing every game, despite their (sometimes major) flaws.

To me, blindly embracing every company on the market isn't a good idea. Why should I support a company that I feel is unreliable? It's the same reason I don't support, for example, Michael Jackson. I admit, I like some of his songs, but I won't buy any of his CDs because of what he does to children. Likewise, I'm sure I'd enjoy some PlayStation and Xbox 360 games, but I don't support companies that knowingly sell shoddy products to its customers.

I know you're an artist, so maybe you value art above all else. To you, great art is worth putting up with red rings of death and disc read errors. That's fine. We just have two different philosophies regarding video games, the state of the industry, art, and electronics in general.

I meant to broaden the discussion, not upset you. Sorry about that. Friends?

No way Rob.

I'm not upset at all, just running off at the mouth as per usual.

I've got no hate in me for members of this community.

[megasdkirby]

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but $399 is still a lot of money for a video game console, especially one that doesn't even come with a game. Besides, isn't that the 80 GB model, which has crippled backwards-compatibility?

You are not the only one. If the price wasn't a factor, the console would have sold infinitely more as consumers would think that the price is reasonable. Alas, many consumers still don't pick it up solely because of the price. Many are picking it up because of the BluRay player only, and never actually play games on it.

And there is an aura of desperation in Sony's part if they continue releasing different models to entice consumers to buy their product.


While you and a lot of other people aren't into HD content, the current $150 premium over the Wii is well justified for all those who currently enjoy Blu-Rays and regular DVDs. The combination of the Blu-ray player and video game system that the PS3 offers has translated into more use of the PS3 over our Wii (which currently doesn't even have DVD playback).

While I understand that the Wii is a perfect system for you, as someone who uses their game system to only play games... it isn't that big of a deal to pay only an extra $150 for the excellent Blu-ray and DVD playback capability the PS3 offers. It's actually a pretty good value, considering that the PS3 library caters more to our households gaming sensibilities than the Wii.

Perfectly said. If one doesn't care for the extras the PS3 has, and only wants it as a gaming console, the Wii is the ideal console. But if you want a BluRay player and don't want to fork over $400 ($300 depeding where the person lives), $150 is a steal for the extra functionality. But that all depends if the person needs it.

And I will agree that the PS3 has games that cater the actual gamer instead of the casual gamer. But this is IMO.


To me, blindly embracing every company on the market isn't a good idea. Why should I support a company that I feel is unreliable? It's the same reason I don't support, for example, Michael Jackson. I admit, I like some of his songs, but I won't buy any of his CDs because of what he does to children. Likewise, I'm sure I'd enjoy some PlayStation and Xbox 360 games, but I don't support companies that knowingly sell shoddy products to its customers.

But that's the thing, you are simply judging without reason. Let me explain: you use the "Michael Jackson" analogy and explain that even though you like his music, you won't purchase any of the CD's because of what he does to children. Now let me ask you one thing: what proof do you have that he actually did what he did? Any concrete proof that proves, beyong a shadow of a doubt, that is a pedophile? I don't think you do. You are simply basing yourself on the fact about what others say or think, not actual facts or situations you have seen for yourself. Same applies to video games. There might be a company you don't support only because of what you read and see, yet there is no actual experience you've had with them. If you never dealt with something in particular, you can't give an honest comment about them. So I agree with Frankie about embracing any console company, because they give was any gamer wants....games!

[Nature Boy]

If Sony at least learns a little lesson in humility

This is *such* a crock of nonsense. Will companies learn from their mistakes? Absolutely, if they want to continue surviving. Does that mean they will be humble when they are back on top of the file? No. Freaking. Way.

I'll use Nintendo as an example. Should they be humble? After all, they were king of the hill and lost it due to arrogance as some would say. Now that they're back, shouldn't they think they're the best there is?

Thinking otherwise is a *sure* way to ensure you sink back to the bottom. If you don't believe in what your company is doing you *will* fail.

(And when I say "your company" I mean the company that you work for, not the company you happen to be a massive fanboy of. That won't get you anywhere except maybe mocked).


Is blindly embracing every company on the market a good idea? I am more selective than that, for reasons I explained in my previous posts.

I think it's a personal choice on everyone's part. You can be selective if you want, but that doesn't mean everybody has to be. I think questioning someone's lack of selection is as bad as questioning their choices.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

I think it's a personal choice on everyone's part. You can be selective if you want, but that doesn't mean everybody has to be. I think questioning someone's lack of selection is as bad as questioning their choices.

I agree, and to reiterate, I don't have a problem with people who make a choice to select one system from any generation and make it the singular focus of their collection.

The practice amongst gamers that makes me upset is when that singluar console / portable ownership becomes some type of arbitrary "I own console A, so I MUST hate consoles B, C, X, Y, and Z aggressively and in all public forums."

In all my years as an enthusast and a collector, I've run into far more of those types than I'd care to admit.

[Nature Boy]

The practice amongst gamers that makes me upset is when that singluar console / portable ownership becomes some type of arbitrary "I own console A, so I MUST hate consoles B, C, X, Y, and Z aggressively and in all public forums."

To be fair, not everybody falls into that category. The problem is that those that don't hate aren't remembered as much. It's the whack-jobs that constantly rant that you remember. Sadly...

[megasdkirby]

This is *such* a crock of nonsense. Will companies learn from their mistakes? Absolutely, if they want to continue surviving. Does that mean they will be humble when they are back on top of the file? No. Freaking. Way.

How is it a crock? Many companies, when confronted with failure, look bad at their mistakes and realize what NOT to do and HOW to do it. They stop with their "all mighty" attitude and refocus themselves as before. I'm not saying they should act like a saint, but to stop their stubborn, cocky attitude. And if they go back to the top and begin with their arrogant attitude, they deserve to get slapped once again. Even if it's an endless cycle.


I'll use Nintendo as an example. Should they be humble? After all, they were king of the hill and lost it due to arrogance as some would say. Now that they're back, shouldn't they think they're the best there is?

No, and if they do, they deserve another slap in the face. Any company that acts like that should deserve to learn a hard lesson.


(And when I say "your company" I mean the company that you work for, not the company you happen to be a massive fanboy of. That won't get you anywhere except maybe mocked).

Fanboy's suck. :)


I think it's a personal choice on everyone's part. You can be selective if you want, but that doesn't mean everybody has to be. I think questioning someone's lack of selection is as bad as questioning their choices.

Agreed. I like all companies, but I do prefer some more than others. I like Capcom over EA, but I still think EA makes awesome games and I keep looking foward to them. To have a preference is ok. To be stubborn about it is NOT ok.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

To be fair, not everybody falls into that category. The problem is that those that don't hate aren't remembered as much. It's the whack-jobs that constantly rant that you remember. Sadly...

You're absolutely right, and of course it's never as cut-and-dry as I'd like it to be.

I generally cut people slack once I get to know them, even if they do hate Nintendo, Sony, Sega, MS, or any other company for some ridiculous reason ... because, at the end of the day, it's just video games.

But, the unfortunate thing is that I usually encounter those types of "public opinions" from people as a "first impression" type conversation.

Them : Oh, you're a gamer? What do you have? What is your favorite game?

Me : I've been playing a lot of Warhawk lately ... the new expansion is coming out soon so I want to make sure I get some practice in.

Them : Really? You have a PS3? I HATE Sony.

Me : Why?

Them : They suck! They don't have any good games on the PS3. (Or some other arbitrary/mainstream popular opinion/reasoning.)

And of course you can swap out my response and/or the negative sentiment from "them" with Wii, or 360 in ANY COMBINATION.

It's that kind of aggressive "showing me their colors" that makes me feel that this kind of thing, in a way mirrors racism, sexism, or bigotry much closer than I'm comfortable with ... though it's probably more like "picking your favorite sports team" or your "favorite music genre" ... there's really no logic behind any of that kind of stuff.

[Nature Boy]

How is it a crock? Many companies, when confronted with failure, look bad at their mistakes and realize what NOT to do and HOW to do it. They stop with their "all mighty" attitude and refocus themselves as before.

I think it's a crock to assume that Sony has been confronted with failure. We don't know what their long term plans have been.

I think it's a crock to think that an 'all mighty attitude' in the press is a mistake and needs to be fixed. It's freaking spin.

I think it's a crock to force a gamers ideals onto a multi-national like Sony. Sure we care only about the games. But using a games machine to win a movie format war is *not* a bad idea, especially when you win.

If BluRay fails or we were talking about bad 3rd party relationships that's different.

I don't see companies bailing from PS3 because of 3rd party relationships like Square left Nintendo for Sony with FF7, and I don't see too many HD DVD players or movies being offered anymore, so I don't see Sony's spin changing much, if at all.

[Xian042]

Microsoft follows. Nintendo follows. Sony counters. Microsoft counters. Nintendo counters.

Sega counters and dominates? :D

oh sorry, was I sleeping?

[Sudo]

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but $399 is still a lot of money for a video game console, especially one that doesn't even come with a game. Besides, isn't that the 80 GB model, which has crippled backwards-compatibility?

I don't see it as a lot of money these days. $399 for the most powerful console in history that also has the best Blu-ray player on the market, built in wi-fi, an HDD, etc. Other consoles have been more expensive and offered far less.

[TonyTheTiger]

I'm a Devil fan so I'm going to try to extend this to something I think is relevant.

Anyone here ever watch a recent Devils/Rangers hockey game? Not too long ago Scott Gomez went from being a Devil to being a Ranger and now whenever he touches the puck Devil fans boo. Other than the fact that there's a kind of dedication to that practice that humbles me, it does reflect a kind of "fanboyism" all it's own.

For Gomez, he got more money from the Rangers so it was in his best interests to make the move. For Devil fans, however, it was a slap in the face. The Devils brought him up. The Devils made him a name. So the fans hoped Gomez would show some loyalty to the organization. Hence the feeling of betrayal and the booing.

The exact same thing happened the day Final Fantasy XIII was revealed for the Xbox 360. A lot of PS3 owners felt betrayed.

The rationale behind that feeling might be dubious but they feel what they feel and they lash out because of it. The thing is, there's always a counter argument. Someone freaks out because Square is sending FF to Microsoft? What do they say when you mention the similar (and even more extreme) instance of Square moving from Nintendo to Sony? Someone freaks out because Microsoft doesn't "belong" in the video game industry? What do they say when you mention a toy manufacturer like Nintendo moving in? People get mad when a player leaves their favorite team for more money elsewhere? What do they say when they get players from other teams?

The point is, this is all relative to the immediacy of the situation. The rationale doesn't spread evenly across all like situations. It's just "What do I feel at this very moment."

I'm not even absolving myself of all guilt. I sometimes have gut emotional responses to situations that probably aren't entirely rational. I'm happy to say they are relatively rare and not all that significant but it happens. What's important is to be able to recognize personal biases.

Look at any random EA related thread on a gaming website. There is bound to be someone who posts random "EA sucks" comments without any relevance to the topic at hand. It doesn't necessarily have to make sense but the people who hold those sentiments feel justified in doing so.

The point is that this behavior isn't restricted to video games and nor is video game fanboyism the most extreme example. And we're all probably guilty of it in some way or another. The important thing is to recognize it for what it is.

[megasdkirby]

I think it's a crock to assume that Sony has been confronted with failure. We don't know what their long term plans have been.

So far, it's not a failure but it's not a winner either. Time will tell, but if the trend continues, they won't be able to dominate this generation. That is, IF the trend continues. But only time will tell.


I think it's a crock to think that an 'all mighty attitude' in the press is a mistake and needs to be fixed. It's freaking spin.

One thing is to promote. Another thing is to think that they can always win people over. It's obvious that they released the console at a high price and thought that because they had a massive success with the PS2, the PS3 will sell like hot cakes. That wasn't the case, was it? If it was, it would have surpassed all other consoles in the market. The system is expensive, no matter how much they try to hide it. If the console was much lower, the probability of it surpassing and winning all other consoles would have been high. But since they thought they were "all mighty" (or simply they thought they were invincible) they thought people would fork over the high amount. Not quite so.


I think it's a crock to force a gamers ideals onto a multi-national like Sony. Sure we care only about the games. But using a games machine to win a movie format war is *not* a bad idea, especially when you win.

Then why are they in the business? Sure, all they care for is money and not the gamers. But still, in order to gain that money, they must cater to the gamers. Give them what they want, they win people over. Give them what they DONT want, they loose people.

And yes, it's not a bad idea, but was it really necessary? And right now, BluRay isn't exactly dominating the war. The players are still expensive and so are the movies. Price it lower, and it would sell even more and eventually outplace DVD's. And not always is this practice successful. Just look at the PSP with UMD's.


If BluRay fails or we were talking about bad 3rd party relationships that's different.

Exactly.


I don't see companies bailing from PS3 because of 3rd party relationships like Square left Nintendo for Sony with FF7, and I don't see too many HD DVD players or movies being offered anymore, so I don't see Sony's spin changing much, if at all.

Not abandoning, but loosing exclusivity. And they are loosing the "big guns" like GTA and Final Fantasy. And what's even more ironic is the fact that when a game is released on different consoles, the Xbox 360 is the one that sells more. And who is to say that MGS4 won't be coming to another console? It just might do a MGS2 Substance. Or maybe not.

But the case is, if they continue loosing the big name titles, they will be suffering more and more. And I bet everything will be different if they do just one little thing: a massive price drop. Make it affordable to everyone and you will see how the system will pick up steam. Otherwise, it will remain in the same position it is now.

[megasdkirby]

I don't see it as a lot of money these days. $399 for the most powerful console in history that also has the best Blu-ray player on the market, built in wi-fi, an HDD, etc. Other consoles have been more expensive and offered far less.

It could do a million things, to predict the future, toast bread, and bake cookies, and it's still just that, a console. A video game console at heart, and nothing changes that.

And people will see it a just that: a video game console.

[esquire]

I don't see it as a lot of money these days. $399 for the most powerful console in history that also has the best Blu-ray player on the market, built in wi-fi, an HDD, etc. Other consoles have been more expensive and offered far less.

Agreed. And if you are going to take the prior poster's approach, you could reverse it in this manner: Is $250 really worth an update to an existing console (that you could've previously purchased for $100) that merely adds motion control, a slight graphics upgrade and downloadable retro games to a limited non-upgradeable propietary storage device?

I think, dollar for dollar the PS3 is a great bargain considering all the bells and whistles that come with it.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

...we're all probably guilty of it in some way or another. The important thing is to recognize it for what it is.

Yeah.

I always thought that the MicroVision sucked, and I resigned myself to never buy another one of Milton Bradley's portable cartridge game systems after that one.

Thankfully, they never made any more after that, so I got out of that one guilt-free. :D

[Nature Boy]

The exact same thing happened the day Final Fantasy XIII was revealed for the Xbox 360. A lot of PS3 owners felt betrayed.

There's a huge difference between fandom in sports and video games IMO. In sports the product is the league, in your case hockey. And while it's okay to be totally agnostic when it comes to sports, you get a lot more enjoyment out of it if you have a rooting interest (either due to geography or gambling, your choice).

The same thing when it comes to a physical product is a bit dodgy. The most important thing in the gaming industry should be the games themselves. You become a fan of a company because they make games you like.

Where it falls apart is with rivalries. The Devils and Rangers compete for the Stanley Cup. What do Nintendo, Sony, and MS fight for? Or EA, Activision, and Ubisoft for that matter?

Rooting against the Rangers make sense, because they'll stop the Devils from winning a Stanley Cup. Rooting against EA or Sony doesn't make sense, because what do you have to gain or lose from it? The games you like are still going to be made for you to purchase, regardless of what other companies are doing. In fact, as has already been argued, you're likely *worse* off if too much of the competition goes away, as your favourite games maker might decide to charge more because they can get away from it.

The only people who should feel out of sorts about the FFXIII thing should be people who *wanted* an Xbox because of the games it has for it (Halo and Mass Effect say), but wanted FFXIII *more* and based their decision on that.

Besides, they were betrayed (bad word IMO) by Square Enix, not Sony.

[Nature Boy]

So far, it's not a failure but it's not a winner either. Time will tell, but if the trend continues, they won't be able to dominate this generation. That is, IF the trend continues. But only time will tell.

I totally agree. Although at the end of the day, only the fanboys care about who dominates. The publishers care about profit.


It's obvious that they released the console at a high price and thought that because they had a massive success with the PS2, the PS3 will sell like hot cakes.

To me it's obvious they used the massive success of the PS2 to sell BluRay, and while yes that meant charging more than they might have liked, they got BluRay over as *the* HD format.

I think it's shortsighted to forget they were competing on two fronts with the PS3. It has nothing to do with ego, it has everything to do with a market strategy that leveraged the success of the video game console into selling the BluRay format.



Then why are they in the business? Sure, all they care for is money and not the gamers. But still, in order to gain that money, they must cater to the gamers. Give them what they want, they win people over. Give them what they DONT want, they loose people.

Obviously everyone is in business to make money. And I think they've already started focusing more on the gamers now that BluRay is over. MGS4 certainly sold a lot of units.



And yes, it's not a bad idea, but was it really necessary? And right now, BluRay isn't exactly dominating the war. The players are still expensive and so are the movies. Price it lower, and it would sell even more and eventually outplace DVD's. And not always is this practice successful. Just look at the PSP with UMD's.

Ahh, but the war was with HD-DVD, not DVDs. And no new technology launches at the same price of the old technology - it takes time.

Eventually it will be priced lower, and eventually it will overtake DVDs. But they're in no rush.


Not abandoning, but loosing exclusivity. And they are loosing the "big guns" like GTA and Final Fantasy. And what's even more ironic is the fact that when a game is released on different consoles, the Xbox 360 is the one that sells more. And who is to say that MGS4 won't be coming to another console? It just might do a MGS2 Substance. Or maybe not.

I'm guessing that wasn't due to Sony's ego, though, but due instead to a lack of desire to *pay* for those exclusives. With games costing what they do these days, multi-platform offerings are going to become more commonplace. It just makes sense to expose your product to as many people as possible.


But the case is, if they continue loosing the big name titles, they will be suffering more and more. And I bet everything will be different if they do just one little thing: a massive price drop. Make it affordable to everyone and you will see how the system will pick up steam. Otherwise, it will remain in the same position it is now.

All I've been trying to say is that you *can* drop something in price too far and too fast. It's about perceived value and keeping your hardcore consumer happy amongst other things. As was mentioned earlier, you can get a PS3 for the same price as a 360 these days, so it's not like they're all alone.

(You watch - MS will announce price drops 10 minutes after I post this :) )

[Nature Boy]

I think, dollar for dollar the PS3 is a great bargain considering all the bells and whistles that come with it.

I think the extra things that the PS3 and 360 do as well get overshadowed by gamers who keep saying "I only want a games console!"

So did I. And I made my purchase based on that. But that hasn't stopped me from appreciating the fact I can watch DivX or put photos up on my TV without having to burn them to a disc first. There should be nothing wrong with appreciating the gravy for what it is!

[TonyTheTiger]

There's a huge difference between fandom in sports and video games IMO. In sports the product is the league, in your case hockey. And while it's okay to be totally agnostic when it comes to sports, you get a lot more enjoyment out of it if you have a rooting interest (either due to geography or gambling, your choice).

Well, with sports the competition is much more obvious. While Sony and Nintendo might be actively competing in a business sense, Kaz Hirai and Reggie Fils-Aime don't box at E3. Rooting for a sports team is "normal" in that sense. While rooting for a company comes off as, if anything, kind of boring. I'm less inclined to be excited over a headline like "Sony loses $3,000,000 while Nintendo earns billions" than I am over "Devils defeat Rangers 4-3 in overtime."


The same thing when it comes to a physical product is a bit dodgy. The most important thing in the gaming industry should be the games themselves. You become a fan of a company because they make games you like.

The same thing can sort of be said about sports teams though, right? I need to like hockey before I can be a Devil fan. I personally don't have any interest in tennis so not only do I not watch it, even if I did I'd have no preference as to the result of the match. So, yeah, while the most important thing in the gaming industry should be the games, the most important thing in the NHL should be hockey itself and tends to be as I and others often watch playoff games that don't even involve the Devils.


Where it falls apart is with rivalries. The Devils and Rangers compete for the Stanley Cup. What do Nintendo, Sony, and MS fight for? Or EA, Activision, and Ubisoft for that matter?

$$$, I guess. Like I said above, it just comes off as boring and mundane to root over business. But I suppose the idea of winning exclusives or stealing exclusives is similar to a professional sports team making good or bad trades. When the Yankees got Alex Rodriguez fans were stoked. The same gut response is probably in effect when Microsoft fans gloat over FFXIII.


Rooting against the Rangers make sense, because they'll stop the Devils from winning a Stanley Cup. Rooting against EA or Sony doesn't make sense, because what do you have to gain or lose from it? The games you like are still going to be made for you to purchase, regardless of what other companies are doing. In fact, as has already been argued, you're likely *worse* off if too much of the competition goes away, as your favourite games maker might decide to charge more because they can get away from it.

I'm not trying to justify the behavior, just trying to explain it. In the end, people just like to be competitive. I've made dollar bets with my friends on games of Smash Bros. Melee where we'd pick characters and let the CPU duke it out. If you asked a few diehard Devil fans whether or not they'd be happy if the Rangers disappeared, they might say yes. Would that be healthy for the NHL? Hell no. Some people take the competitive feeling further than others. Devil fans can be brutal and I'm saying this as a Devil fan. You go to a Devil/Ranger game and listen to the things that get said. They do it to little kids even.


The only people who should feel out of sorts about the FFXIII thing should be people who *wanted* an Xbox because of the games it has for it (Halo and Mass Effect say), but wanted FFXIII *more* and based their decision on that.

Besides, they were betrayed (bad word IMO) by Square Enix, not Sony.

I think we're all in the same boat. We make console purchases based on a perceived value. The value may change later but that's the risk we all take when we buy a console before it dies off. It's just something we have to be ready to eat if it happens.

[MrSparkle]

As I mentioned also, I don't want Sony to loose. But they need to learn their lesson because they have become too arrogant. A slap in the face is all they need. Perhaps that way, things will improve for all of us.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it was a slap in the face that angered sony, the proverbial sleeping giant to create the original playstation in the first place. Then again that was a slap in the face from nintendo and phillips this is a slap in the face from the consumers themselves.

Comparing the 3d0 and the ps3 seems a bit unfair. The ps3 as previously mentioned is the third in a line of hugely successful game systems. The 3d0 was a gamble by a consortium of huge name manufacturers. It relied heavily on the technical hype of a new storage format (i know new storage formats sell me on the systems they're used in). The equal price tag argument doesnt really work, if you account for the cost of inflation the 3d0 is considerably more expensive than the ps3 ever was (not counting the insane launch-time resell prices). Not to mention the fact that the 3d0 was manufactured by a variety of manufacturers, and their respective units had compatibility issues between themselves.

That being said the ps3 did launch at a pretty high price but as previously stated i believe that sony understood that it would take awhile to ramp up production and reduce system cost before it started to sell in high numbers. With a stated shelf-life of 10 years you can probably expect it to outlast both of the competitions systems so they will have to incur this process of selling consoles at a loss twice. As production cost decreases and sony is able to drop the price the sales will pickup.

Lack of "killer-apps" namely exclusive must have games on the console has been a sticking point in moving units. Then again developers by and large go where the money is. The Nintendo Wii with the largest install base is the easy choice for development platform these days. As mentioned above it will take some time for the install base of ps3's to grow to a truely competitive size. The cell processor is a new architecture for most programmers however and dealing with its multi-core design means a steep learning curve. With any system you can expect developers to get better as they go but i believe that this system will have an unusually high learning curve. As developers get more familiar with the system i hope to see titles that blow away its current offerings (graphically weaker than my pc does not impress me). Once again the name of the game when it comes to software is patience. I guess were still waiting for them to tell us the next gen has begun.

As for nintendo falling off the top slot after the 8 and 16 bit wars. I'd point out that even though many people don't look back fondly on the n64 for whatever reason, it was far from a commercial failure. Nintendo made a pretty good buck selling these things with all its first party (great first party) software. If nintendo had a flop generation in recent memory it was most certainly the gamecube which just wasn't in the same league as the xbox or ps2 in terms of sales. Now sony just doesn't have the first party game studios nintendo does so it will never be up to sony to pull its own weight in the software side of things.

Now for the last point lets take a look at build quality. The ps1 was built fairly well, but thats not to say it didn't have its share of problems (overheating requiring being played upside down). But overall it was a pretty scrappy little unit that could take quite a beating. Unfortunatly in the next gen the ps2 suffered from some really big quality issues, I personally have gone through about 7 ps'2 in the systems lifetime (and my current one is dying!). I don't throw them down stairs, or knock them over or spill drinks in them, The things just stop working. The lack of consumer confidence when it comes to build quality is sure to hurt the hardware sales of its future products (ps3). If its already kind of harsh buying a $600 console think about how you'd feel buying the same item knowing that it was bound to repeatedly break. Sony seems to have gotten their head screwed on straight this time as the ps3 once again is a fairly rugged unit. Not to say that its problem free but its certainly no xbox 360. Despite the 360s hardware failings it is still outselling the ps3 month to month. But then again the ps2 outsold the xbox month to month despite its similar failings.

[TonyTheTiger]

The question is whether or not corporate entities can have emotions.

A sports team is made up of a handful of individuals. Those individuals feel anger, joy, relief, frustration, etc. Fans latch onto that.

But Nintendo saying no to Sony with the CD add-on is "just business." Square-Enix sending FFXIII to the 360 is "just business." Is that kind of behavior enough to make Sony as a company angry? Can Sony as a company feel betrayal? And if so, in what ways would that manifest itself? If a pitcher has a score to settle with another team's player he drills him. If hockey players get heated they throw down their gloves. What does Sony as a corporation do if it feels betrayed? I can't imagine it doing anything that it normally wouldn't do; namely, what's in the company's best interests.

[Nature Boy]

The question is whether or not corporate entities can have emotions.

I totally disagree, but I'd like to point out that hockey players are employees of their team, just like Sony and Nintendo have employees.

I've talked to people who work for Coke who get quite emotional about the Pepsi rivalry. But they had a stake in the business. I do not work in the industry, and although I do prefer Coke I could really care less who is first in market share or how many Litres of product they've sold each year.

I am a fan of video games so I do find the numbers interesting. They are big numbers, but there is context to them we don't see (that's what I enjoy debating about).

[SegaAges]

I totally disagree, but I'd like to point out that hockey players are employees of their team, just like Sony and Nintendo have employees.

I've talked to people who work for Coke who get quite emotional about the Pepsi rivalry. But they had a stake in the business. I do not work in the industry, and although I do prefer Coke I could really care less who is first in market share or how many Litres of product they've sold each year.

I am a fan of video games so I do find the numbers interesting. They are big numbers, but there is context to them we don't see (that's what I enjoy debating about).

I work for a telecommunications company and don't care about cable telephones or cell phones. Some people take their jobs too seriously.

As a gamer, I enjoy healthy competition. TonytheTiger explains it without knowing it. All of the decisions each company makes, it does for competition. We want these guys to compete. We want the shoddy business practices to try and get a one up on its rival. We want Square taking a game to m$ instead of Sony.

As long as they are competing like this, us gamers get the good end of the stick (that sounded wrong, but even still). We get it good when companies compete for our business, which is what they are doing right now. There is not a monopoly going on. There is not 1 company completely dominating all of the others.

Wii is still a top seller and sold out everywhere, 360 and Sony game sales are looking quite nice. The competition is getting good. They are not done yet either.

Seriously, when they compete, we get better prices and better quality games. Not every company will throw shovelware in our direction (some will no matter what, but not as much). We will get many more games of higher quality coming out. More blockbuster games. More cult classics. More of everything that you like about games.

Sony is losing money on consoles. I say good. Why? it is going to make them try harder to push game sales, which we all know, is how the big amount of the income on these consoles happens. The more money they lose on consoles, the more money they will need to gain from game sales, and they are not a dumb company, and know that you can't make back millions off of shovelware.

I say sit back and enjoy the show, because it is not over yet, and the show is only going to get better. Games are hitting very high points where the programmers are utilizing more of the system to make better looking games, faster running games (framerate-wise), more complicated games (programming-wise, not gameplay-wise), and the list goes on and on. They are getting better making these games with time.

Enjoy the games to come, because the competition is now heated up and already throwing their good punches

[TonyTheTiger]

I totally disagree, but I'd like to point out that hockey players are employees of their team, just like Sony and Nintendo have employees.

I've talked to people who work for Coke who get quite emotional about the Pepsi rivalry. But they had a stake in the business. I do not work in the industry, and although I do prefer Coke I could really care less who is first in market share or how many Litres of product they've sold each year.

I am a fan of video games so I do find the numbers interesting. They are big numbers, but there is context to them we don't see (that's what I enjoy debating about).

The thing is, when we watch the post game coverage of the Stanley Cup Playoffs, we see the players who were there on the ice celebrating or walking away in defeat. The players/coaches/managers/etc. are the "face" of the team. When a decision is made on the ice (to drop gloves and start fighting, to crosscheck, to make a good or bad pass, etc.) the audience can identify the decision maker or at least trace it back as far as the other players, coach, or manager.

You don't get that with companies like Sony or Microsoft. When Sony makes a decision, it isn't Kaz Hirai saying "I am going to do this." Kaz might be the delivery boy but the source of the decisions can't be so easily identified. And even if it can, it's hard to put a face on that source.

If you are a Devil fan watching a playoff game and you see one of the opposing players crosscheck one of your guys, you have a response to that. There's something more personal in it. And you see that from the other players. There might be "revenge penalties" and the like even if it's not in the best interests of the team.

If Nintendo decides to cut short its deal with Sony to produce a CD add-on for the SNES, the "audience" (if you'd call us that) are further removed from the event. It's "just business" so to speak. That's why I think the fans (or fanboys, if you will) get more riled up than even the company does. Some Sony employees might be miffed at Nintendo but how the company as a whole responds is probably just to do what's in its best interests. I can't see Sony taking an action because they have "a score to settle" with Nintendo. The employees might be pissed but the ultimate direction the company takes seems very emotionless to me. As a company, Sony isn't going to burn a bridge with Square-Enix over FFXIII just to "get even" even if many PS3 fanboys (and I dislike that word) would.

[Rob2600]

I totally disagree, but I'd like to point out that hockey players are employees of their team, just like Sony and Nintendo have employees.

I've talked to people who work for Coke who get quite emotional about the Pepsi rivalry. But they had a stake in the business. I do not work in the industry, and although I do prefer Coke I could really care less who is first in market share or how many Litres of product they've sold each year.

I am a fan of video games so I do find the numbers interesting. They are big numbers, but there is context to them we don't see (that's what I enjoy debating about).


If you are a Devil fan watching a playoff game and you see one of the opposing players crosscheck one of your guys, you have a response to that. There's something more personal in it. And you see that from the other players. There might be "revenge penalties" and the like even if it's not in the best interests of the team.

If Nintendo decides to cut short its deal with Sony to produce a CD add-on for the SNES, the "audience" (if you'd call us that) are further removed from the event. It's "just business" so to speak.

To video game fans, it isn't "just business." Even though video game fans don't work in the industry, it still matters which company is the most successful. In a way, I do have a stake in Nintendo's business. If Nintendo goes bankrupt, I'm done playing video games. That's why I follow its sales data and announcements so closely.

Nintendo fans want Nintendo to outdo the competition. Why? Because the more successful Nintendo is, the higher the chances are of it continuing to release more games that Nintendo fans like.

Similarly, PlayStation fans want Sony to outdo the competition. Why? Because the more successful the PlayStation brand is, the higher the chances are of Sony continuing to license and release more games that PlayStation fans like.

[Nature Boy]

Nintendo fans want Nintendo do outdo the competition. Similarly, PlayStation fans want Sony to outdo the competition.


the higher the chances are of it continuing to release more games that they like

Almost like a BluRay vs HD-DVD owner. If you threw your money down on one of those formats, you were hoping like *hell* that yours didn't go away, or you'd've wasted a tonne of money.

Or, say, a Dreamcast vs PS2? Mind you I think the Dreamcast could have survived regardless of Sony if they had approached things differently.

I kind of get that, although I really don't think one company will fall down and collapse simply because they aren't on the top of the market share pile. Nintendo was dead last in terms of market share with the Gamecube, and they still turned a tidy profit. Sony could certainly fall down flat on their face with the PS3, but I still insist they were fighting the BluRay war as much as the gamer war, and it's too early to suggest they'll fade away.

What I'm really interested in hearing/observing is whether or not Sony would do it again. Let's say a future era coincides with yet another advancement in HD graphics and a BluRay2 format is competing against HD-DVD2 or something. Would they make the same gamble and take the same losses? If it were PS4's generation, I highly doubt it. But PS5? 6? If it worked with the PS3 I'd guess yes. But we'll never know!

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

Nintendo fans want Nintendo do outdo the competition. Why? Because the more successful Nintendo is, the higher the chances are of it continuing to release more games that Nintendo fans like.

Similarly, PlayStation fans want Sony to outdo the competition. Why? Because the more successful the PlayStation brand is, the higher the chances are of Sony continuing to license and release more games that PlayStation fans like.

I'm a huge huge Nintendo fan.

I'm also a huge huge Sony fan.

I don't want to see either "outdo" anybody (but themselves of course).

I want them to continue to focus on the most important thing(s) - making great first party games, innovating/producing quality in their respective hardware offerings, and providing 3rd party companies with opportunities to bring great gaming experiences to each company, be it exclusive or cross-platform.

Being a "fan" of a hardware developer does not mean that one arbitrarily has animosity towards other developers. And nothing could possibly depress me more than the mere thought of either (or any) company bowing out of the industry due to another other causing some type of massive financial shift/collapse.

I'm aware that I'm beating a dead horse here, but, I know that while I'm in the minority, that I can't possibly be alone in my thinking.

[Sudo]

I'm a huge huge Nintendo fan.

I'm also a huge huge Sony fan.

I don't want to see either "outdo" anybody (but themselves of course).

I want them to continue to focus on the most important thing(s) - making great first party games, innovating/producing quality in their respective hardware offerings, and providing 3rd party companies with opportunities to bring great gaming experiences to each company, be it exclusive or cross-platform.

Being a "fan" of a hardware developer does not mean that one arbitrarily has animosity towards other developers. And nothing could possibly depress me more than the mere thought of either (or any) company bowing out of the industry due to another other causing some type of massive financial shift/collapse.

I'm aware that I'm beating a dead horse here, but, I know that while I'm in the minority, that I can't possibly be alone in my thinking.
You're certainly not alone. You've made the most sensible posts in this thread. Competition is very healthy for the industry, and we should want all of the consoles to do well.

[megasdkirby]

I think it's shortsighted to forget they were competing on two fronts with the PS3. It has nothing to do with ego, it has everything to do with a market strategy that leveraged the success of the video game console into selling the BluRay format.

You are right, but at the same time, I bet that deep down inside, Sony though it would sell due to reputation. Even if it's just a wee bit.


Obviously everyone is in business to make money. And I think they've already started focusing more on the gamers now that BluRay is over. MGS4 certainly sold a lot of units.

Have to agree. The MGS4 is selling really well at both GameStop and Sears (near the area I work). It's always out of stock, so that is definitely a plus.


Ahh, but the war was with HD-DVD, not DVDs. And no new technology launches at the same price of the old technology - it takes time.

Eventually it will be priced lower, and eventually it will overtake DVDs. But they're in no rush.

But also, many consumers don't want to take the plunge. I've seen bluray in action (have to sell the damn things) and I will admit it's great and many customers agree. But when it comes to money, they don't buy it and continue buying DVDs. Why? Because either:

-"Wow, these movies are expensive! $35 for a movie I can get on DVD for $20!?"
-"I have plenty of DVD movies! I don't want to get these movies all over again!"
-"Why get this if DVD players are cheap, like $20 or so?"

So even though it killed it's competitor, now there is a big hurdle, DVD's themselves. If they can't entice the customer to switch, it could end up being a Beta all over again. It might win the Hidef battle, but the war only begun.


I'm guessing that wasn't due to Sony's ego, though, but due instead to a lack of desire to *pay* for those exclusives. With games costing what they do these days, multi-platform offerings are going to become more commonplace. It just makes sense to expose your product to as many people as possible.

Very good point.


All I've been trying to say is that you *can* drop something in price too far and too fast. It's about perceived value and keeping your hardcore consumer happy amongst other things. As was mentioned earlier, you can get a PS3 for the same price as a 360 these days, so it's not like they're all alone.

(You watch - MS will announce price drops 10 minutes after I post this :) )

Also a valid point. If they drop the price too fast, it seems that they are desperate and those who paid more will get pissed.

And I think MS just lowered the system even more...and included a free twix bar with every purchase! ^_^ j/k


I think the extra things that the PS3 and 360 do as well get overshadowed by gamers who keep saying "I only want a games console!"

So did I. And I made my purchase based on that. But that hasn't stopped me from appreciating the fact I can watch DivX or put photos up on my TV without having to burn them to a disc first. There should be nothing wrong with appreciating the gravy for what it is!

Oh yeah! If the system comes with it, superb! Having more stuff always makes things better!

But at the same time, those things are really not needed and won't deter from gameplay. It's a nice addon, but that's it. It can also help the game, but it is still not a necessity. Still nice to have, though.


Correct me if I'm wrong but it was a slap in the face that angered sony, the proverbial sleeping giant to create the original playstation in the first place. Then again that was a slap in the face from nintendo and phillips this is a slap in the face from the consumers themselves.

True! And they had all right, and Nintendo deserved it. But fast foward to now, and there has been a transition from before to after. Sony did not start out arrogant (ok, maybe just a little) but now...it's totally different. I just want Sony to go back to how they were before.


With a stated shelf-life of 10 years you can probably expect it to outlast both of the competitions systems so they will have to incur this process of selling consoles at a loss twice. As production cost decreases and sony is able to drop the price the sales will pickup.

Thing is, that is what Sony says. Heck, that would be awesome if it's like they said. But the moment that the competition releases something that is much superior to the PS3, expect to see a PS4.

[TheDomesticInstitution]

http://www.myanusisbleeding.com/anus.jpg


My anus is bleeding!

[megasdkirby]

I told you not to eat that many spicy foods!

[MeTmKnice]

If they truely were LOSING money, then why woudl they continue to make stuff? They make X amount of $ on their systems or they wouldnt sell them. They may not in the green as far as profit and overhead, but if they truely were LOSING money, they would stop. End of story.

[chrisbid]

If they truely were LOSING money, then why woudl they continue to make stuff? They make X amount of $ on their systems or they wouldnt sell them. They may not in the green as far as profit and overhead, but if they truely were LOSING money, they would stop. End of story.


no, they hope to sell enough hardware to generate more software sales, which is where the profit is in the sony business plan

[Press_Start]

Competition is very healthy for the industry, and we should want all of the consoles to do well.

Compitition is good. Current generation of consoles has shown what happens when companies aren't in synch with what the consumers want.

Wii:
:D - New interface with motion sensor, Triple A first-party titles, Virtual Console.
:( - Lack of 3rd party support, tons of shovelware

Xbox360:
:D - XBLA, Excellent online support, successful 3rd-party games.
:( - Frequent breakdowns, Constant need for repairs.

PS3:
:D - Powerful Cell microprocessor, Blu-Ray Player
:( - Lack of exclusives, high price tag.

Hard to call our current generation great while all consoles each holds a serious flaw that contributed to the demise of previous failed systems.

Turbo Grafx: Lack of 3rd-party support
Atari 5200: Controller constantly breakdown.
3DO: Expensive price tag.

The gaming companies should get their act together and refocus on what WE want and not what THEY THINK we want.


To video game fans, it isn't "just business." Even though video game fans don't work in the industry, it still matters which company is the most successful. In a way, I do have a stake in Nintendo's business.

I disagree. The only people who have a stake in the Nintendo business are those employed for Nintendo. They're the ones getting up 5 AM and work long hours in idea conception, designing, product testing, advertisement planning, etc. All in order to convince you to buy their product. What does the consumer get? The system and the games that come with it. Nothing more. There are two ways to have a stake in Nintendo: Buy stock or get a job over there.


If Nintendo goes bankrupt, I'm done playing video games. That's why I follow its sales data and announcements so closely.

That contradicts your previous statement. Metaphorically, it's like a die-hard baseball fan quitting baseball for their favorite team didn't win the World Series.

What happened to buying games for fun? Instead we get fanboys who buy them so they can chant "ME PWN ALL CAUSE ME GOT (insert console name here)! LOL!". Feeding their self-obsessed egos.


Nintendo fans want Nintendo do outdo the competition. Why? Because the more successful Nintendo is, the higher the chances are of it continuing to release more games that Nintendo fans like.

No, what Nintendo gets is arrogance. They thought they can't do no wrong with the SNES's success. Later on, it was that way of thinking that lead to the mismanagement of the N64 and began their spiral downfall.


Similarly, PlayStation fans want Sony to outdo the competition. Why? Because the more successful the PlayStation brand is, the higher the chances are of Sony continuing to license and release more games that PlayStation fans like.

See previous comment, except replace all underlined words with Sony, PS2, and PS3.

[smokehouse]

NO sir.

The PS3 is selling based on the Blu-Ray player in it. The PS logo is giving it a bit of brand recognition, but it is in no way a driving force in sales.

Sony expected it to sell based on the specs. Which, in turn, dictated a high price point, the system's major flaw.


BINGO, you hit the nail on the head. The PS3 is not picking up steam because of it's vast game library...it's because of it's decent Blu Ray playback capabilities. I've been on many home theater forums where guys are picking them up simply based on their performance and price as a Blu Ray player, they couldn't care less about what games it plays. I'd love to see some study on how many PS3 users actually use their system to game...or for movies.

This is the catch-22 here, Sony knows why their systems are selling and there's no way in hell they're going to sell a fully functional, upgradable BD player for $250...that would really step on the toes of the other companies in their Blu Ray "conglomerate".

For the time being, if Sony were to remove the BD content of the machine somehow...it wouldn't sell...there's just not enough games to make most buyers want to pick it up.


I think they're planning on recouping their losses in Blu Ray movie sales and licensing...not in the video game aspect. I think they view the gaming aspect as a bonus, not a headliner.

[Nature Boy]

You are right, but at the same time, I bet that deep down inside, Sony though it would sell due to reputation. Even if it's just a wee bit.

They would've been like me thinking about the Blue Jays. Deep down you hope they have a chance of making the playoffs, and the possibility does still exist, but logically you know it just isn't going to happen :)



But also, many consumers don't want to take the plunge. I've seen bluray in action (have to sell the damn things) and I will admit it's great and many customers agree. But when it comes to money, they don't buy it and continue buying DVDs.

No need to explain the whys of that really. It's a new technology that hasn't penetrated the market yet, like DVDs and cell phones before it to name but two examples.

But it's not a war IMO anymore than the release of the PS3/360/Wii was a war with the PS2/Xbox/Gamecube generation. It's product life cycle.


Also a valid point. If they drop the price too fast, it seems that they are desperate and those who paid more will get pissed.

And I think MS just lowered the system even more...and included a free twix bar with every purchase! ^_^ j/k

Well put!

MS being a year older can get away with it for sure. And that really does open the door for Sony to do something to without seeming desperate. Price matching is a necessity, not desperation.

(It's the one big advantage a company has when they release early. By the time they drop prices they can probably afford to, and their competition, who likely matches them, suffers a little for dropping too early).

[megasdkirby]

If they truely were LOSING money, then why woudl they continue to make stuff? They make X amount of $ on their systems or they wouldnt sell them. They may not in the green as far as profit and overhead, but if they truely were LOSING money, they would stop. End of story.

They aren't loosing money (dunno about this one, but it's my guess). But they sure aren't getting what they hoped.


No, what Nintendo gets is arrogance. They thought they can't do no wrong with the SNES's success. Later on, it was that way of thinking that lead to the mismanagement of the N64 and began their spiral downfall.

But isn't that what is currently happening to Sony? That is why I gave the previous analogy concerning the N64 and PS3.


BINGO, you hit the nail on the head. The PS3 is not picking up steam because of it's vast game library...it's because of it's decent Blu Ray playback capabilities. I've been on many home theater forums where guys are picking them up simply based on their performance and price as a Blu Ray player, they couldn't care less about what games it plays. I'd love to see some study on how many PS3 users actually use their system to game...or for movies.

Exactly.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

While I don't have any type of professional qualifications (business/sales analyst) to support my opinion on the matter ...

I don't believe that the high-def movie format has really done anything AS significant as people are now eluding to in this thread for overall sales of the PS3, especially POST HD-DVD dropping out of the quote-unquote "war".

Yes, there are numbers that show that consumers who were in the market for a high-def movie player, and more specifically a Blu-Ray player made a decision, it was often a PS3, but there are also numbers that show that DVD is still by-in-large the over-all driving force in the home video market.

Sony did a great job of adding a "Trojan Horse" to the PS3 in the form of an inexpensive and easily updatable Blu-Ray player, that did help win them the "format war" ... but as far as the current console war is concerned, amongst gamers, which, lets face it - are the KEY demographic in keeping any console "alive" via sales I don't think that Blu-Ray was the overwhelming reason why (a majority of them) they bought a PS3.

I still think games are where it's at, and as PS3 gathers more strong 1st party titles, it'll ramp up sales just like the PS1 and PS2 did over their lifespan with a traditional MASSIVE sprint in it's twilight years once the price takes some serious cuts (and when they discontinue production on PS2 units and add that functionality back to PS3 skus).

[Rob2600]

Metaphorically, it's like a die-hard baseball fan quitting baseball for their favorite team didn't win the World Series.

No, it's like a die-hard baseball fan quitting baseball because his or her favorite baseball team ceased to exist.

What would a Mets fan of twenty years do if the Mets disbanded and ceased to exist tomorrow? Instantly start rooting for another team? I don't think so, especially not the other NY team, the Yankees.

[Nature Boy]

Compitition is good. Current generation of consoles has shown what happens when companies aren't in synch with what the consumers want.

Yeah, right.... A combined 65 Million Wii/PS3/360s have been sold so far this generation worldwide.

The consumers have spoken. and they're saying "gimme gimme gimme!!!"

(Source: http://www.vgchartz.com/)

[smokehouse]

While I don't have any type of professional qualifications (business/sales analyst) to support my opinion on the matter ...

I don't believe that the high-def movie format has really done anything AS significant as people are now eluding to in this thread for overall sales of the PS3, especially POST HD-DVD dropping out of the quote-unquote "war".

Yes, there are numbers that show that consumers who were in the market for a high-def movie player, and more specifically a Blu-Ray player made a decision, it was often a PS3, but there are also numbers that show that DVD is still by-in-large the over-all driving force in the home video market.

Sony did a great job of adding a "Trojan Horse" to the PS3 in the form of an inexpensive and easily updatable Blu-Ray player, that did help win them the "format war" ... but as far as the current console war is concerned, amongst gamers, which, lets face it - are the KEY demographic in keeping any console "alive" via sales I don't think that Blu-Ray was the overwhelming reason why (a majority of them) they bought a PS3.

I still think games are where it's at, and as PS3 gathers more strong 1st party titles, it'll ramp up sales just like the PS1 and PS2 did over their lifespan with a traditional MASSIVE sprint in it's twilight years once the price takes some serious cuts (and when they discontinue production on PS2 units and add that functionality back to PS3 skus).


I'm telling you man...do some searching on some home theater forums...there are tons of people who picked up PS3's only for it's BD playback. These are people with no other gaming consoles. In the world I normally live in, I don't have any "gamer" friends, of the two other guys I know that have PS3's...neither owns a single game. Both have BD films though.

I can list 20+ Blu Ray movies worth buying right now and they retail for well over $20 a pop (some over $30). There isn't even 20 good PS3 titles worth owning.

Comparing Blu Ray sales to DVD is like going back to 1998 and comparing DVD to VHS. HD media will catch on, BD has only been on the market just over 2 years...give it 8 more years before you start comparing it to DVD....DVD has a decade worth of sales to brag about.















Like I said, the PS3 is a gaming console and Sony is fully aware of it...they are also aware of the "other" buyers and what they're getting as well. The PS3 is destined to be the first true split personality console on the market.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

I can list 20+ Blu Ray movies worth buying right now and they retail for well over $20 a pop (some over $30). There isn't even 20 good PS3 titles worth owning.

Well, I don't know about being the ONLY "split personality"

The Wii seem to have an equal identity crisis.

Is it for casual gamers or "hardcore" Nintendo enthusiasts/gaming fans?

Decent online play but AWFUL friend code management issues!

Downloadable content galore, but NO SPACE to put it on!

And, not 20 PS3 titles worth owning? Sorry but, that's totally subjective, I can think of 20 off the top of my head.

Resistance
Ridge Racer 7
Warhawk
Assassin's Creed
Metal Gear Solid 4
SingStar
Rock Band
Guitar Hero 3
Uncharted
MotorStorm
Condemned 2
Heavenly Sword
GTA4
Calling All Cars
flOw
Pixel Junk Monsters
Pixel Junk Eded
Bionic Commando Re-Armed
1942 Dual Strike
High Velocity Bowling
High Stakes Poker on the Vegas Strip