PS3 Losing More Money Than PS2 Made

[The 1 2 P]

The loses of the PS3(so far) have been more than the PS2 made in all it's "glory" years: http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/news/ps3-has-lost-more-money-than-ps2-generated-at-peak/

Glory years means "peak years" and not "all years". As always, console makers know that new hardware gets put into the marketplace as a loss-leader. So PS3 losing money in it's first two years isn't a surprise to anyone. But what is surprising is how much it's lost so far: 3.3 billion and counting...

[chrisbid]

not a surprise at all, the sony business model only works if they enjoy a majority of market share.

even if the numbers improve for sony, they will not reach the heights of market share the ps1 or ps2 had.

[digitalpress]

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.

[Sudo]

It's not really that surprising, when you think about it. The system launched at a price point that was too high for many people, and the costs of developing the Cell and pushing Blu-ray were significant as well. Now that Blu-ray has won the format war, however, there will be more people who buy the system for it like they did with the PS2 initially for its DVD playback.

[Icarus Moonsight]

It's a double edge sword, really. If no BR then the system would have been cheaper at launch. Perhaps selling better. Then you have those that buy it because it's a BR player. Besides, I doubt the HD format war is over. There is much buzz about challengers on the horizon. If BR falls aside to one of them then that scenario may not actually pan out. Sony needs an Ace and if they have one they're not talking about it. And I can hardly fault them for that. If they are silent because they have nothing, then they are in trouble.

[Graham Mitchell]

Can't say I'm too surprised. It's a modern 3DO, really. Only difference is that people are actually starting to BUY this one.

As Joe suggested, I really hope Sony doesn't "fail". Of course, that's probably because I just bought one of these newfangled contraptions. They need to strengthen PSN and, primarily, get more decent exclusive titles. Ports of 360 games just look identical to their counterparts, but a game developed from the ground up to run on the PS3 does show off the system's edge. Maybe after Little Big Planet and a few others hit stores, things will pick up.

Do we have any sales data indicating any improvement in console sales since the release of MGS4? I personally bought a machine just to get that game, and Game Informer lists it as the best-selling game in the US this month. A couple more games like that and maybe they'll recoup their losses.

[chrisbid]

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.


i dont want sony to fail, but i do not want $600 consoles with $60 games to be the norm either.

i want the business model to fail, not the company

[Gentlegamer]

I think gamers want to see Sony humbled, not fail. A humbled game company has been shown to "innovate" and bring greater value/entertainment later, such as Nintendo.

[Fuyukaze]

Though not many will see it, there is a difference between wanting Sony to fail and wanting the PS3 to fail. Unless the PS3 is Sony in which they do deserve to fail for putting all their eggs in the same basket.

[slip81]

What I really don't understand is why the thing is still so much. I know the blu-ray is exspensive and they're already taking a major loss on each console. But I mean, we all know that these companies set up their pricing structure to intentionally loose money on the hardware, so they can make the software mosre exspensive to recoup their loss.

So to me (at least) it seems like it would be smarter for Sony to lower the system to say $250, so they can then literally sell a crapload of systems and regain the top market spot and then just sit back and wait to regain their profits in the software area. I mean games are 60 and BR are at about 30. I'm sure they'd sell tens of thousands of systems in just a short while at that price point ( I mean really, at that price it'd probably outsell the Wii), and then all these people would need media for their new black boxes, so they run out and pay full price for games/movies.

[megasdkirby]

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.

I don't want Sony to fail. But I do want for them to learn a lesson. They have become too arrogant and needs a reality check. They think that because is has the "Playstation" logo, they think they are all mighty. A little slap in the face will help them regain some of their humility and lose some of their arrogance.

Nintendo had the same problem. Sony is to follow suit. And if Microsoft ever gets that way (most probably), they should learn the same lesson as well.


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.

Exactly! This is the best way to go. No company on top. Awesome games everywhere.

Now if we can reprogram a fanboy's brain...that would be priceless. :)

[mailman187666]

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.

thats the way that I think as well. I the big 3 and the portable 2 and I switch between them (when my 360 isn't broken). Its like having two shoe stores across the street from each other. They will always fight to match each others prices until its the best that they can do without losing money per sale. If Sony and Nintendo died, then Microsoft would be like "oh, well nobody else is making games now, so just slap something together and pay off reviewers to give it high scores." They'd have no reason to make anything insanely good because they wouldn't have any Marios, Zeldas, God of Wars, or anything to contend against. I hope all three companies go on to make bigger and better games than one another.

[TheDomesticInstitution]

The loses of the PS3(so far) have been more than the PS2 made in all it's "glory" years: http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/news/ps3-has-lost-more-money-than-ps2-generated-at-peak/

Glory years means "peak years" and not "all years". As always, console makers know that new hardware gets put into the marketplace as a loss-leader. So PS3 losing money in it's first two years isn't a surprise to anyone. But what is surprising is how much it's lost so far: 3.3 billion and counting...



So that means Sony, is in the "Glory" Hole right now?

[garagesaleking!!]

ps3 was way too much money, and also their online service is inferior to xbox live. People really want a good online service. I think that has a big effect.

[Trebuken]

This is silly. Systems have lost money initially for awhile now. Sony new this, they new they would lose tons, and that is why they declared a ten year cycle for the system. The article states they made a profit last quarter (thanks to MGS4 likely) so they may not see a profit this quarter it's likely they will soon start to make a consistent profit. They are holding the price of the console for now to stem their losses.

Everything is going the way Sony predicted I suspect. They need more big games (they are coming). They need to gear up online, they seem to be procrastinating -- they need to give us something more, though good games are tantamount.

[megasdkirby]

Everything is going the way Sony predicted I suspect. They need more big games (they are coming). They need to gear up online, they seem to be procrastinating -- they need to give us something more, though good games are tantamount.

I don't think so. I bet Sony expected their system to sell due to the "Playstation" logo. To sell mass amounts. To dominate.

It has sold decently, but only because of the brand name. If it was any other company who released the same, exact console, it would have bombed. Also, I bet if the Wii was made by Sony and they named it the "Playstation Wii", it would sell like crazy.

[Oobgarm]

I don't think so. I bet Sony expected their system to sell due to the "Playstation" logo. To sell mass amounts. To dominate.

It has sold decently, but only because of the brand name. If it was any other company who released the same, exact console, it would have bombed. Also, I bet if the Wii was made by Sony and they named it the "Playstation Wii", it would sell like crazy.

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.

[swlovinist]

I want each company to duke it out and in return, we get better products. Like others have said, Sony failing as a company is bad for everyone. Sony learning from mistakes, is good for everyone. With that being said, the PS3 continues to just stun me how they handle things. I hear that the "new" 80GB PS3 on the horizon will not be compatible with PS2 games(like the 40GB) and still cost $100 more than its competitor. While I know that the PS3 is mostly bought for the BR player, Sony needs to realize that the system that they have made and what the customers are requesting are two different things.

I for one, am looking forward to the day that Sony "gets it"

[megasdkirby]

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.

I'll give you that.

But who is to say that if Sony marketed the Wii, what would occur? If they called it "Playstation Wii" it WILL sell only because of the brand name. I can bet that it will sell, and by the millions.

Also, many are simply buying it for the Bluray player, as you said. I know many customers who don't even buy games for it... I know customers who purchase the consoles just because "it's Sony". Same goes for digital cameras and camcorders. Even if it's the worst product ever, many will still favor Sony, only because of the brand.

[garagesaleking!!]

i bought a sony vaio laptop with a blu ray player. Pretty much because it was a sony. Every movie always has vaio laptops in them. I think the quality realy is better with their laptops, but their laptop prices are also higher.

Lol i a gonna have nightmares about that giant kirby head!

[megasdkirby]

Lol i a gonna have nightmares about that giant kirby head!

:)

But yeah, in all seriousness, I've had many customers like those I mentioned previously. Since I have direct customer feedback because of my job (sales in Sears), I can pretty much say that most simply purchase for brand name. I can demonstrate three cameras in particular (Canon, Nikon, and Sony) and show each strengths and weaknesses, and many customers will choose Sony "just because and since it's Sony it has to be better". Another customer purcahsed the 80GB MGS Bundle PS3 and told me "Hey, I know the 360 has more games and such, but if it's not Sony, then I won't buy."

It's sad, I know. But alas, it's customer preference and I can't refute them...besides, it's a sale I'm making. :)

[Oobgarm]

But who is to say that if Sony marketed the Wii, what would occur? If they called it "Playstation Wii" it WILL sell only because of the brand name. I can bet that it will sell, and by the millions.

The exact same product would have sold very well. It's tough to compare them to Nintendo based on name branding, as Nintendo's name resonates back some 20 years in the videogame industry and is practically synonymous with gaming for youngsters.

Though, it's all second fiddle to the control setup and implementation. I'm constantly amazed at the number of potential Wii buyers I talk to who have no idea who makes the system.

[megasdkirby]

Though, it's all second fiddle to the control setup and implementation. I'm constantly amazed at the number of potential Wii buyers I talk to who have no idea who makes the system.

Yeah. Also, I know plenty of people who purchased it solely for the hype and demand...I was one of them.

My Wii is gathering dust in a corner. Just not my thing.

[Sergeant Sega]

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.
`
I don't want them to fail, but they don't need me to "want" that, they're doing a hell of a god job themselves. With arrogant management, who think they're still the biggest player in the industry, half-assed "motionsensor controls" and a terrible online solution. They have no really big exclusives that I really can't wait to play, and I feel right now that Microsoft does has the real shiznit. It's not a matter of brand loyalty, as I've bought every PS model out there, but the PS3 have quite a legacy to live up to. Even Nintendo could'nt be marked leader for more than two generations.

I also think that Sony at E3 lately has been the biggest joke of the expo, this year was no different. Bringing out the PS2 and the 130 games for it during E3, when no one cares about it, shows they're running thin on really good things to show.

The arrogance shown by Kaz Hirai in almost every thing that he spits out of his mouth rivals the arrogance that made Nintendo fall from the throne.

I no way doubt that the PS3 will sell good, because people are idiots and always buy what they think is going to be the best thing ever (Dreamcast vs. PS2) and because they know that the last console was the ballz.

Right now, I have no love left for Sony, they have to earn it goddammit.

[swlovinist]

The truth of the matter Sony keeping the PS2 active was not only the smartest thing they could have done, but it really has cut their losses. While many of us here would like them to duplicate their success they had with the PS2 to the PS3, I dont see it happening. I do give Sony credit for keeping the PS2 around for another year.

[Kid Ice]

Can't say I'm too surprised. It's a modern 3DO, really. Only difference is that people are actually starting to BUY this one.

I've never cared for this analogy. Is the thinking the 3DO was 699, the PS3 was 699, therefore the PS3 is a "modern 3DO"? 3DO was a gaming platform created by a consortium of game developers....the PS3 a follow up console to the massively successful PS2. It's like comparing David to Goliath. Not to mention that PS3, in spite of its "failure", has sold in massive quantities (just perhaps not relative to its competitors, although I'm sure exponentially more than the 3DO).

[Sudo]

I've never cared for this analogy. Is the thinking the 3DO was 699, the PS3 was 699, therefore the PS3 is a "modern 3DO"? 3DO was a gaming platform created by a consortium of game developers....the PS3 a follow up console to the massively successful PS2. It's like comparing David to Goliath. Not to mention that PS3, in spite of its "failure", has sold in massive quantities (just perhaps not relative to its competitors, although I'm sure exponentially more than the 3DO).

PS3 was never $699. $599 for the 60GB model at launch was the highest it's ever been.

[geneshifter]

PS3 was never $699. $599 for the 60GB model at launch was the highest it's ever been.

Yup, this is correct. Now, I've been seeing the original 60GB launch model sell for over $600 lately but that just because it's the best out of all of them and it's in high demand.

[The 1 2 P]

So that means Sony, is in the "Glory" Hole right now?

Yeah, I'd say they are taking it up the ass with with their PS3 losses at the moment. But they can always turn that luck around. It's going to take awhile, but it's possible. They're probably going to lose atleast another billion, but it's possible they can recoup some of that back. They are going to be in third place for atleast the rest of this year, but it's possible they will cetch up to Microsoft in 2009 or 2010. They are light years behind the Wii, but it's possi......actually, they have no chance in hell of cetching up to the Wii. Even if it's a 10 year cycle, no one is going to cetch the Wii.

Personally, I don't care if the PS3(not Sony)fails. Like many others have said, Sony was getting too damn cocky for their own good(a lesson that Nintendo also had to learn the hard way). One day I may start a thread with all their pre-launch and post-launch PS3 infamous quotes, but for now I'm only going to mention one: "the next gen of video games doesn't start until we say it does." If thats true then why are they still in last place nearly 2 years later? I guess all the 360 and Wii owners never got that memo about the delayed start of the next gen:p

[Kid Ice]

PS3 was never $699. $599 for the 60GB model at launch was the highest it's ever been.

Ahh....then the comparison is even less apt....see? ;-)

[digitalpress]

i dont want sony to fail, but i do not want $600 consoles with $60 games to be the norm either.

i want the business model to fail, not the company

Whoa... I wouldn't buy a $600 console either!

Oh wait, I bought a 3DO on launch day. For much more than that even. So... scratch that.

You're off a bit on the price of the system, however. PS3 systems are $400 for the 40gb system, which is all you really need to play their $60 games and that's not Sony's fault necessarily - XBox 360 games cost the same as PS3.

I "get" that you don't want to pay $60 for a game. I don't want to pay $4 a gallon for gas. We can protest and hopefully we can make a difference. Ultimately we'll pay what it costs because that's what it costs. And by the way, we were paying $60 for games in the 90's as well. All of the major Genesis and SNES releases cost that much ten years ago. Given the cost of living, PS3 and 360 games are *cheaper* now than games were ten years ago.

Anyway, my point was that no major company should fail, as that will destroy the balance of power and create monopolies like EA has with Madden, for example. Does anyone here really think things will get better with quality OR price if one company has a stranglehold on the market?

[josekortez]

I "get" that you don't want to pay $60 for a game. I don't want to pay $4 a gallon for gas. We can protest and hopefully we can make a difference. Ultimately we'll pay what it costs because that's what it costs.

No one "has" to pay $60 for a PS3 or 360 game. In most cases, unless it's an extremely popular game or an RPG with a small print run which we haven't seen for either of those systems yet, it's possible to find many games for those systems for under $20 new. Patience is the key.

[The 1 2 P]

Does anyone here really think things will get better with quality OR price if one company has a stranglehold on the market?

And thats why I'm glad that Sony has lost this generation. I have a PS1 and PS2 and loved both systems, but Sony took that love in the wrong way. But Nintendo did the same thing after they won the 8 and 16 bit console wars. And don't think for a second that Microsoft wouldn't do the same if they won two in a row.

So my point is, by Sony losing this generation they will learn several valuable lessons. First, regardless of new technology, you can't expect the masses to go out and get a second job(another of their infamous quotes) just to afford a $600(the launch price of the 60gb sku)console. And second, even if you won two previous generations, that doesn't give you the right to act like you are the king of the world with blatantly cocky ass statements like "the next gen starts when we say it does".

The good news for Sony is that I think they will learn their lesson, especially if they never cetch up to Microsoft and finish in last place. However, had they of won this generation(and thank Paul they won't), not only would that monopoly be bad for business but it would have also lessoned the growth of the industry(which the Wii has done a great job of expanding, despite all the shovelware).

[digitalpress]

No one "has" to pay $60 for a PS3 or 360 game. In most cases, unless it's an extremely popular game or an RPG with a small print run which we haven't seen for either of those systems yet, it's possible to find many games for those systems for under $20 new. Patience is the key.

No one "has" to pay $1 for a PS3 or 360 game. You can wait 5 years for it to be given to you for free at a NAVA meeting if you want. The original point was that $60 is the NEW price of many games, and since it seems to need explanation my retort was that this is what the industry has deemed standard for a new (not just factory sealed... NEW, as in fairly recent) game.

[Graham Mitchell]

I've never cared for this analogy. Is the thinking the 3DO was 699, the PS3 was 699, therefore the PS3 is a "modern 3DO"? 3DO was a gaming platform created by a consortium of game developers....the PS3 a follow up console to the massively successful PS2. It's like comparing David to Goliath. Not to mention that PS3, in spite of its "failure", has sold in massive quantities (just perhaps not relative to its competitors, although I'm sure exponentially more than the 3DO).

Both the 3DO and the PS3, regardless of whether EA, Sony, or Jesus Christ was behind it, were signficantly more expensive than their competitors, offered little that the competition didn't (I'd say 90% of the people I know don't know what Blue Ray is and could care less about it. They are fine with standard DVD.) and had no decent software until a couple of years after release.

Now, of course, the PS3 is rising above that stigma with some stellar exclusive releases that are rather important contributions to gaming as a whole. I don't think the 3DO ever really had anything that you'd consider an essential classic that you couldn't get elsewhere for cheaper. Most of what I remember for that machine being worth trying is Return Fire and a bunch of ports. (The only thing I'd really like to check out for it is Star Control II.)

Look, I'm not hating on the PS3. I own one. I like it. But I think the analogy makes sense on a basic level. If you're going to get into how much money Sony's got backing it and their power in the industry, of course it's a different situation.

In fact, with the success of the PS2 on Sony's resume, it has been pretty surprising at how similar this situation has been to the 3DO's, and I can't figure out why they didn't pull themselves out of this sooner.

[Raedon]

The ps3 was not just built for gamers. It was a device to put Blu-Ray into the market with enough force to kill HD-DVD. By doing so Sony will make far more then the PS2 and PS3 machines ever saw just threw Blu-Ray licenses.

[Raedon]

I "get" that you don't want to pay $60 for a game. I don't want to pay $4 a gallon for gas.

Ohh if only there was a 2nd hand used Gas market out there. :(

[Nature Boy]

What I really don't understand is why the thing is still so much.

Take a marketing course.

I find the numbers interesting, but what it fails to address is how much Sony has gained by winning the format wars. If we're going to look at the business side of the industry, let's look at their whole business, not just the one branch that we're most interested in. Without the whole picture you can't really say anything one way or the other.

Don't get me wrong, I'm with those who think the price of the PS3 is way too high. That's why I bought a 360. Unlike some people, though, I don't hold that against Sony or think a price drop is something they owe me. I'll simply wait until the price is something I find reasonable and then I'll dive right in.

[megasdkirby]

Whoa... I wouldn't buy a $600 console either!

Oh wait, I bought a 3DO on launch day. For much more than that even. So... scratch that.

You're off a bit on the price of the system, however. PS3 systems are $400 for the 40gb system, which is all you really need to play their $60 games and that's not Sony's fault necessarily - XBox 360 games cost the same as PS3.

That's the thing. You can because you want to. Most won't. If everyone saw the price as acceptable, it would have outsold all the other consoles. The "Playstation" brand is a very powerful brand, but consumers do know that there is a limit. I have customers who say the following with regards of the PS3:

"That's ****ing expensive!"
"How the hell can people waste so much money on something so unnecessary!?"
"With that money, I can get a Wii/Xbox360 with many games."

You, as well as many, could, or want to purchase it because of the love of video games. I bet you would have also purchased it for $999. But the majority won't. $600/$500/$400 is just too much money for a console. Ok, it has a BluRay player...cool. But still, it's a video game console at heart. It can make toast and predict the future, and it's still too expensive.

It's not that I want to go against you, but the price is a VERY powerful point that Sony should consider. It might have a whole mess of things, but the price is still not justifiable.


I "get" that you don't want to pay $60 for a game. I don't want to pay $4 a gallon for gas. We can protest and hopefully we can make a difference. Ultimately we'll pay what it costs because that's what it costs. And by the way, we were paying $60 for games in the 90's as well. All of the major Genesis and SNES releases cost that much ten years ago. Given the cost of living, PS3 and 360 games are *cheaper* now than games were ten years ago.

Agreed. I hope this eventually does not become the norm. But even if it does, I'll wait. Most of the time, if I wait at least 6 months, I can get the same game for half or even less. Hey, at that reduction, I can wait... :)


Anyway, my point was that no major company should fail, as that will destroy the balance of power and create monopolies like EA has with Madden, for example. Does anyone here really think things will get better with quality OR price if one company has a stranglehold on the market?

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.

[esquire]

I no way doubt that the PS3 will sell good, because people are idiots and always buy what they think is going to be the best thing ever (Dreamcast vs. PS2) and because they know that the last console was the ballz.

Nice of you to alienate all the PS3 owners here in the forum.

Anyways, considering the price I paid for my 60GB PS3 ($600), I can honestly say that I have gotten more of my money's worth out of it than the $250 I spent on my Wii. This isn't meant to bash the Wii (it has some good titles), but merely meant to demonstrate that everything is relative.

For the people complaining about the PSN, keep in mind that it is free, whereas XBL Gold costs money. It's easier to support a network when you have a cash flow to back it up. Again, everything is relative. You get what you pay for.

I am very happy with my PS3, it's like having 4 consoles in one - PS1, PS2, PS3 and BD player with built in HDMI and WiFi. Go ahead and add those two items to your 360, and your costs are going to increase by at least another $130-150, unless you buy the Elite then its only another $80-$100 for the WiFi, and that puts you at $530-550. So you get the BD player for an additional $50-70. I am not complaining.

[Sudo]

I don't get why people are complaining about $60 games, as if Sony started it. Does no one else remember paying $60-80 for SNES and Genesis RPGs? N64 games routinely sold for that much as well. As far as this console gen goes, the 360 was out before the PS3 and its games are $60 as well.

[megasdkirby]

Anyways, considering the price I paid for my 60GB PS3 ($600), I can honestly say that I have gotten more of my money's worth out of it than the $250 I spent on my Wii. This isn't meant to bash the Wii (it has some good titles), but merely meant to demonstrate that everything is relative.

I agree. I still don't know why the Wii is selling like it has...I barely touch mine, and when I do, it's for web browsing.

Problem is, many are purchasing it simply because of one factor: the BluRay player. I believe, and this is opinion, that if the PS3 did not have a BluRay player (and thus, cost alot less), it would have sold more. MUCH more. Space for games is a factor, but that is what the HDD is for. But at the same time, if the BluRay player was not part of the console and Sony decided to still market it at the original MSRP of $599...I doubt most of the consoles that have been purchased would have been purchased.


I am very happy with my PS3, it's like having 4 consoles in one - PS1, PS2, PS3 and BD player with built in HDMI and WiFi. Go ahead and add those two items to your 360, and your costs are going to increase by at least another $130-150, unless you buy the Elite then its only another $80-$100 for the WiFi, and that puts you at $530-550. So you get the BD player for an additional $50-70. I am not complaining.

Problem is, those are extras that are really not necessary to enjoy the console. True, it's a nice extra but those don't deter from gameplay. Some people simply don't like to play online (me included). Also they might not need a WiFi card/adapter. HDMI is also relative. It all depends on the person and their need.

[Graham Mitchell]

For the people complaining about the PSN, keep in mind that it is free, whereas XBL Gold costs money. It's easier to support a network when you have a cash flow to back it up. Again, everything is relative. You get what you pay for.



But see, lots of people, myself included, would pay for a better service. But as it currently stands we don't even have the option to get a package comparable to Xbox Live.

[Lothars]

Don't get me wrong, I'm with those who think the price of the PS3 is way too high. That's why I bought a 360. Unlike some people, though, I don't hold that against Sony or think a price drop is something they owe me. I'll simply wait until the price is something I find reasonable and then I'll dive right in.

The Price of the PS3 is the same as the 360, so how is it way to high?

[Lothars]

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.

Sony does need to learn thier lesson but so does microsoft because I bet you that when microsoft is ready for the next generation they will drop the 360 like a bad habit just like they did for the xbox.

do you think they will learn? no

All three companies need to learn a lesson.

[chrisbid]

I don't get why people are complaining about $60 games, as if Sony started it. Does no one else remember paying $60-80 for SNES and Genesis RPGs? N64 games routinely sold for that much as well. As far as this console gen goes, the 360 was out before the PS3 and its games are $60 as well.


when you paid 60-80 for a cartridge in the old days, you were paying mostly for hardware and manufacturing of cartridges and memory. pressing a DVD or BluRay disc costs very little in comparison. with the current 60 dollar price tag you are essentially only paying for the development costs and the licensing cut... which was drastically increased this generation to make up for losses in console sales.

and dont get me wrong, i also think the 360 is overpriced.

its also a crime that the PS2 is still at 129 dollars 8 years after it was released. the ps1 was at 50 dollars 8 years into its life.

[Press_Start]

The ps3 was not just built for gamers. It was a device to put Blu-Ray into the market with enough force to kill HD-DVD. By doing so Sony will make far more then the PS2 and PS3 machines ever saw just threw Blu-Ray licenses.

You're half right.

It was Sony's ignorance in high standards that conceived the PS3 as being more than a gamer's machine. However, Blu-Ray Player contributes to, at best, half the cost.

The Playstation 3 was the product of the collaborative efforts by Sony, Toshiba, and IBM. It's IBM's Cell microprocessor that's the driving force behind the machine. Cell is a heterogeneous, multi-core architecture capable in utilizing efficient parallelization with the processing power of a PowerPC element and eight synergistic processing elements built into the chip. In layman's terms, it's a piece of cutting edge technology and it's not cheap. Last I checked, a Cell-embedded blade cost $25,000.

High price of games and lack of exclusives are attributed to the programming difficulties as the technology is new and many developers have not adjusted to it yet. (Trust me, I've built programs for it. Not an easy task. X_x)

Fun fact: The PS3 has peaked interest in the scientific community and research groups. Thousands of units are bought by these groups to study Cell's performance and capabilities. Go to the ACM Digital Library, search "Cell Architecture". You'll find thousands of papers on the subject alone. Check it out.

[swlovinist]

You're half right.

It was Sony's ignorance in high standards that conceived the PS3 as being more than a gamer's machine. However, Blu-Ray Player contributes to, at best, half the cost.

The Playstation 3 was the product of the collaborative efforts by Sony, Toshiba, and IBM. It's IBM's Cell microprocessor that's the driving force behind the machine. Cell is a heterogeneous, multi-core architecture capable in utilizing efficient parallelization with the processing power of a PowerPC element and eight synergistic processing elements built into the chip. In layman's terms, it's a piece of cutting edge technology and it's not cheap. Last I checked, a Cell-embedded blade cost $25,000.

High price of games and lack of exclusives are attributed to the programming difficulties as the technology is new and many developers have not adjusted to it yet. (Trust me, I've built programs for it. Not an easy task. X_x)

Fun fact: The PS3 has peaked interest in the scientific community and research groups. Thousands of units are bought by these groups to study Cell's performance and capabilities. Go to the ACM Digital Library, search "Cell Architecture". You'll find thousands of papers on the subject alone. Check it out.

You forgot to mention that it can do 4-d gaming





Sorry..had to add that :)

[Nature Boy]

It's not that I want to go against you, but the price is a VERY powerful point that Sony should consider.

Don't you think it's kind of arrogant to think that Sony hasn't thought about it's pricing and that you've got all the answers?

[Rob2600]

You forgot to mention that it can do 4-d gaming

Yes, but can it launch missiles?


Don't you think it's kind of arrogant to think that Sony hasn't thought about it's pricing and that you've got all the answers?

This is what Ken Kutaragi, former chief executive officer of Sony Computer Entertainment, had to say regarding the PlayStation 3's price, among other things:

"As with the PS and PS2, we believe people who like games will, without question, purchase it."

"If you can have an amazing experience, we believe price is not a problem."

"If you consider the PlayStation 3 a toy, then yes, it is an expensive toy."

"PS3 is for consumers to think to themselves, 'I will work more hours to buy one.' We want people to feel that they want it, irrespective of anything else."

"I believe we made the most beautiful thing in the world."

"We're not going to equip PS3 with a hard drive by default, because no matter how much we put in it, it won't be enough. We've added a 2.5-inch hard drive bay so that users can equip hard drives, such as 80GB or 120GB, even though that's still not enough."

Again, regarding the PlayStation 3's price, Ken Kutaragi told Japan's IT Media "It's probably too cheap" in May 2006.


Regarding Xbox 360:

"Xbox 360 is more of an Xbox 1.5 than a next generation console."


Regarding the PSP:

"This is the design that we came up with. There may be people that complain about its usability, but that's something which users and game software developers will have to adapt to."


Now that's arrogance.

[megasdkirby]

Sony does need to learn thier lesson but so does microsoft because I bet you that when microsoft is ready for the next generation they will drop the 360 like a bad habit just like they did for the xbox.

do you think they will learn? no

All three companies need to learn a lesson.

Nah, they won't learn. They will probably be a bit more humble at first, but later on regain their arrogance.

Happened with Nintendo and now, its Sony's turn.

And Microsoft is pretty arrogrant as well, but not to the degree Sony has become. But it's definitely reaching there.

For me, and this is solely MY OPINION, the Ps3 is suffering the same dilemma and fate as another console: the Nintendo 64. For example, NES was popular...SNES was popular but had competition...N64 was thought to dominate but it did not. Pretty similar to Sony if you think about it...

[Sudo]

Nah, they won't learn. They will probably be a bit more humble at first, but later on regain their arrogance.

Happened with Nintendo and now, its Sony's turn.

And Microsoft is pretty arrogrant as well, but not to the degree Sony has become. But it's definitely reaching there.

For me, and this is solely MY OPINION, the Ps3 is suffering the same dilemma and fate as another console: the Nintendo 64. For example, NES was popular...SNES was popular but had competition...N64 was thought to dominate but it did not. Pretty similar to Sony if you think about it...

The N64 had an outdated storage format that was extremely unfriendly to what third party developers wanted to do with their games, which is why the system had such piss-poor support. The PS3's storage format actually allows for MORE space, which is the exact opposite of the N64's problem. Nintendo makes game systems that revolve around what sort of games THEY want to make, not third parties. This is why all of their systems since the N64 have had such shitty third party support.

[megasdkirby]

The N64 had an outdated storage format that was extremely unfriendly to what third party developers wanted to do with their games, which is why the system had such piss-poor support. The PS3's storage format actually allows for MORE space, which is the exact opposite of the N64's problem. Nintendo makes game systems that revolve around what sort of games THEY want to make, not third parties. This is why all of their systems since the N64 have had such shitty third party support.

Yes, but I'm comparing in sales.

PSOne = Great Sales, dominated 32bit era.
NES = Great Sales, dominated 8bit era.

PSTwo = FANTASTIC Sales, but had a strong contender: the Xbox
SNES = FANTASTIC Sales, but had a strong contender: the Genesis

PS3 = Suffering in Sales, may be dethroned by another company.
N64 = Suffered in Sales, dethroned by Sony.

I know the analogy is skeptical and silly, but I just see it this way. I remember telling my friends "Hey, I see Sony following in Nintendo's shoes...meaning that the PS3 won't sell as much as they hope, just like the N64." They all laugh. Now they don't laugh.

[neuropolitique]

PS3 sucks.

Also, the Xbox was a strong contender to the PS2? On what planet?

[The 1 2 P]

Also, the Xbox was a strong contender to the PS2? On what planet?

The Xbox was a much more powerful system than the PS2, had much better online support thru a fully functional online service and got many AAA exclusives for the simple fact that the PS2 couldn't handle them(Chronicles of Riddick, Farcry, Doom 3, Half-Life 2 and several others). Finally, it was alot easier to develope for because of it's similarity to pc hardware.

[Nature Boy]

The Price of the PS3 is the same as the 360, so how is it way to high?

To be fair maybe I should have mentioned I made my 360 purchase in Feb of 2007, when the prices were not the same.

[Nature Boy]

Now that's arrogance.

To me that's salesmenship. You don't talk up the competition and you try to sell your position in the marketplace no matter how difficult that position is to sell. No matter what the press tries to goad you into admitting.

It's all a game.

(For the record I don't disagree that it comes across as arrogant, I just think the arrogance comes hand in hand with the position and doesn't necessarily reflect how they approach problems behind closed doors)

[megasdkirby]

PS3 sucks.

Also, the Xbox was a strong contender to the PS2? On what planet?

It was a contender. Hundreds of Xbox games were released and it helped Microsoft plant themselves as a video game company (consoles). If it wasn't a strong contender, then there would have been no Xbox 360. Also, at least according to online sites, many multi-platform games sell more on the X360 than the PS3.

So thus, it was a contender.

[Richter Belmount]

As I recall the xbox originally reached the height of its popularity was upon halo 2 until before and after release. Xbox didn't use to have big titles till late in its short life span. Everyone used to joke and refer to xbox as the halo machine or something along those lines.Xbox became a system that established itself from first person shooters and racers it wasn't known for its wide variety of games like the playstation 2.

[Therealqtip]

I really like Sony, Nintendo is good, Microsoft come on..you need more money? Damn halo to hell...quick Kojima make some more Metal Gear, don't give in to Microsoft!!

[Ed Oscuro]

THINK, gamers.
Thinking takes energy I could be using grinding out Achievements! :S

p.s. Joe would've made a decent diplomat as this is the balance of power in industry, as opposed to in international relations.

[Sergeant Sega]

Now that's arrogance.

Kaz also said he would rather eat a bullet, than letting any MS Exclusive onto the PS3. As he said that the PS3 did not need the likes of Gears or Halo... Now that's more of that arrogance.

No wonder he's so confident, the PS3 exclusives so far has been so f***ing great... :roll:

(With exeption of a few games ofc, MGS4, Uncharted and Ratchet)

[neuropolitique]

It was a contender. Hundreds of Xbox games were released and it helped Microsoft plant themselves as a video game company (consoles). If it wasn't a strong contender, then there would have been no Xbox 360. Also, at least according to online sites, many multi-platform games sell more on the X360 than the PS3.

So thus, it was a contender.

That's dumb. Software sales on this gen have no impact on anything that happened with the last generation. Toss that right out.

PS2 - 140 million unit sold.
Xbox - 24 million units sold

Not really much of a contender for anything, except for 2nd place. Gamecube managed 21 million units sold.

Software sales match up with hardware as well. PS2's top 5 games sold about 52 million copies combined. Xbox - about 20 million.

Don't get me wrong, I had an xbox and enjoyed it. Some of my favorite games or on it. But it was blown out of the water by the PS2.

Lastly, I heard Putin likes the PS3. That should tell you something.

[MeTmKnice]

I have not read EVERY post.. so sorry if I am repeating the conversation. But, it is a load of crap claiming they are "losing" money. I understand that it costes X amount of dollars to R&D and whatnot, but they arent making the profit they see that they should from the product. Becuase if any company were truely LOSING that much money, they would not continue selling their particular product.

Microshit claimed the same thing.. that they were "losing" money on their 360s. They just weren't making enough (yet) on a particular piece of equipment inside the system. Bah!

[Ed Oscuro]

They actually ARE losing money. They're betting on the systems making a profit over the long run (the original Xbox never made an overall profit for Microsoft; it was just meant to make inroads into the market). The current period, for both, is one of trying to establish themselves in the market - create a situation where nobody could imagine gaming without them around. You're right though; at some point they will have to turn a profit.

Nintendo has a different approach, and I'm not sure it's entirely vindicated yet. We'll see.

Sony is following their announced but often-forgotten ten-year plan for the PS3 - they want it to still be around in 2016 (close to 2017), and the PS2 actually has accomplished that, more or less.

You're right in that if Sony and Microsoft didn't have cash outside of their gaming business they'd need to shutter their gaming divisions. But they both had cash reserves, and instead of letting the money rot by inflation they decided to use it to fund their entries into the gaming market. They both realized that video gaming was a critical future entertainment business, and entertainment is very important to both businesses. If they don't jump into it, they'll lose out in the future. There's been consistent calls from shareholders for both companies to abandon the markets, especially during times when grim financial news was announced. I will remind everybody that shareholders don't always understand what the company has planned for the future, might disagree with it, or might just want to have the stock higher at the present so they can sell it at a higher price (i.e. stock owners don't have any reason to have the company's best interests in mind; they just want to get the most money out of the company).

Walt Disney had a vaguely similar situation when he ignored advice from people to make cheap films and animation to make quick money - instead he invested in extremely expensive films like The Seven Dwarfs. It was probably not until long after he was dead that it made a profit, but it keeps making free money for Disney and will continue doing so until the end of time.

Gaming consoles are different because there's a pressure to eventually start making money. All Microsoft and Sony have done is establish themselves as players in an expensive industry; they can't just rest on their laurels and re-release consoles like Disney can films.

[megasdkirby]

That's dumb. Software sales on this gen have no impact on anything that happened with the last generation. Toss that right out.

PS2 - 140 million unit sold.
Xbox - 24 million units sold

Not really much of a contender for anything, except for 2nd place. Gamecube managed 21 million units sold.

Software sales match up with hardware as well. PS2's top 5 games sold about 52 million copies combined. Xbox - about 20 million.

Don't get me wrong, I had an xbox and enjoyed it. Some of my favorite games or on it. But it was blown out of the water by the PS2.

Lastly, I heard Putin likes the PS3. That should tell you something.

Did you count the amount of defective units the PS2 had? For instance, there is a store in Canton Mall (where I live) that had what I call "the wall of dead PS2's". Why? There were around 500 CONSOLES that were damaged and waiting for repair! Also, if it was like that on that store, what about other locations? Yeah, they store had plenty of Xbox units, but I would say like 40 or so, not the monstrosity of PS2 units.

Also, how many were sold only because people upgraded to the slim model? Buying replacement units?

And you are only concentrating on hardware instead of software. While it is true that the PS2 has one awesome and massive collection that is still growing, the Xbox had one massive collection as well. How can you consider that not a contender? Even the GameCube did not have so many games.

While it wasn't in the same league, it did eat at Sony's profit and remained alive, something that other companies could not achieve in the past. And they did pretty good for themselves.

[Ed Oscuro]

How many people did that store serve? Canton has ~74K people (and it's not one of those crappy Cantons ;) and in any case you have to consider that 500 malfunctioning PS2s is out of a population of we don't know how many units.

I rather doubt that the ratio of defective - and of those, traded in - PS2s can really overcome the lopsided nature of the last round of the console warz.

And hey, if your PS2 dies but you got some games for it, Sony's happy.

[megasdkirby]

How many people did that store serve? Canton has ~74K people (and it's not one of those crappy Cantons ;) and in any case you have to consider that 500 malfunctioning PS2s is out of a population of we don't know how many units.

I rather doubt that the ratio of defective - and of those, traded in - PS2s can really overcome the lopsided nature of the last round of the console warz.

And hey, if your PS2 dies but you got some games for it, Sony's happy.

It's GameBox in Canton Mall, Bayamon PR. I go there every so often, but the prices are horrid so I don't purchase alot from them.

I remember going a few years back and behind the main counter was a plethora of consoles. And I mean a PLETHORA. Columns of dead consoles stacked up in the wall. I know they were defective because I remember a customer comming in for a repair and they told him "Well, we can repair it for you, but it will take months because of the backlog you can see here...*points behind him to the DEATH WALL*. You would see a few GameCubes, SNES, Genesis, Xbox consoles around, but nothing to that degree. It was insane.

And I keep getting PSTwo returns at Sears for the same thing: it does not read games. I know how to repair it, but if this happens quite frequently, it's definitely not a good sign. And I know it does "help" increase the overall system sales.

[Mattiekrome]

Had Sony's customer service not sucked, and replaced my PS2 faulty laser (they said it was not a known issue) I would probably own a PS3 now. Oh well, too bad so sad...

[sirhansirhan]

Walt Disney had a vaguely similar situation when he ignored advice from people to make cheap films and animation to make quick money - instead he invested in extremely expensive films like The Seven Dwarfs. It was probably not until long after he was dead that it made a profit, but it keeps making free money for Disney and will continue doing so until the end of time.

Not to nitpick or intentionally derail the thread, but Snow White & the Seven Dwarfs cost about $1.5 million to produce and brought in over $8 million in its initial run alone (this is in 1937 money).

Regardless, the point you're making is basically sound. I'm just a hardcore film wiener and thought I'd clear that up.

[TheDomesticInstitution]

I'm just a hardcore film wiener and thought I'd clear that up.

Quoted for truth.

[megasdkirby]

Hehehehe...NASTY!

[chrisbid]

The N64 had an outdated storage format that was extremely unfriendly to what third party developers wanted to do with their games, which is why the system had such piss-poor support. The PS3's storage format actually allows for MORE space, which is the exact opposite of the N64's problem. Nintendo makes game systems that revolve around what sort of games THEY want to make, not third parties. This is why all of their systems since the N64 have had such shitty third party support.

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

[chrisbid]

Walt Disney had a vaguely similar situation when he ignored advice from people to make cheap films and animation to make quick money - instead he invested in extremely expensive films like The Seven Dwarfs. It was probably not until long after he was dead that it made a profit, but it keeps making free money for Disney and will continue doing so until the end of time.




only because disney keeps getting the copyright laws changed to extend the expiration of their 'work'... that they used from the public domain

[Ed Oscuro]

Not to nitpick or intentionally derail the thread, but Snow White & the Seven Dwarfs cost about $1.5 million to produce and brought in over $8 million in its initial run alone (this is in 1937 money).

Regardless, the point you're making is basically sound. I'm just a hardcore film wiener and thought I'd clear that up.
I don't mind at all, as you know I love nitpicking! :) Hmm; my source was someone on NPR a while back, did a biography of Disney. Thanks for the info - I'll double check it if I get the chance, hate being wrong though.


only because disney keeps getting the copyright laws changed to extend the expiration of their 'work'... that they used from the public domain
I don't think there's a chance that copyrights will be extended again. And, of course, Disney's characters are still trademarked, so it's not the end of the world for Disney if some of their older works (like Steamboat Willie) fall into the public domain (as they were meant to in 2003...sheesh, seems like yesterday).