Hilarious new Sony PS3 article, "shortages will be completely eased by May" Huh?

[jajaja]

So to recap- you CANNOT just apply the rate of inflation to video games (or any product or service) and claim to know how much something from 15 years ago is "worth" in today's money without knowing the actual rate of inflation for at LEAST the appropriate sector of the economy if you can't get any more specific than that.

As i said 50 times now hehe, i know all this. I really dont know how this discussion started, all i did was to compare the value from today and back then, leaving every other factor aside. I know that the marked changes and theres alot of factors thats involved when it comes to prices now and back then. Now im just repeating what i've already said several of times.



That's why you can't say a PS3 would have cost half as much back then, anymore than you can say a VCS would have cost twice as much now. Smart companies wouldn't have done that. It would have been financial suicide. You can adjust the prices about $100 - that's it. And that's only b/c people have slowly become more acceptable of paying that much more. But when a company like 3DO has jumped in and doubled that price, it's been disastrous (for them). And that's exactly what Sony is attempting to do now.

Again i can only repeat myself, i know all this, i even said it myself. Taking the increase in income as the only consideration, nothing else, it would mean that you would have to spit out $1000 of todays money to get a CD-i back in 1991. And the comment about the bigger picture was directed to Evan_G's comment, which was a general thing, not just about video games. You can ask yourself why we make more money today than for 20 years ago. Why not just stay at the same rate? But as you said yourself, the coffee example, the reason why 1 cup of coffee is more expencive today is because we make more, so you understood my point there :) And i said there was expections like games so dont miss that comment.

Again, i dont know how this discussion actually started. Either i'm expressing my points badly or people really dont read what i'm saying. It seems that people got so hung up because i compared the price only and totaly ignored the other things i said, but as i mentioned several of times, i know you cant (read people, read). So i think there is no need to contunie this situation. All thats been said, i know that. All i did was to compare the price back then to now, leaving all other factors aside, since i know prices in the marked changes by other factors too. I cant make it clearer than that.

[scorch56]

Eluding to the statement I made earlier in the thread about "fair trade items"..

Today I was in our local Circuit City with my friend. He was along for the ride.. but I was pricing LCD HDTVs and he was over in the games section.

I rounded the corner of an aisle, and almost tripped over two PS3 boxes just setting on the floor stacked. There was a hand-written sign taped to the top of them that said:

"TODAY ONLY SPECIAL!

Buy an HDTV and get a PS3 for a $100 discount!"

Being a little curious.. I walked up to a sales clerk and asked him, "Can you guys do that? Sell a PS3 for $499?"

The kid looked at me and winked and said, "No we can't.. but we CAN take $100 of the price of the HDTV."

.. looks like it's already beginning.

When we got back to my friend's house I told him with amusement what I saw. He replied, "That's nothing.. I saw six boxed PS3s sitting on the shelf over in the games section."

[cyberfluxor]

The reason a cup of coffee is more is due to basic economic inflation on a market place. When it comes to technology, it always falls and the high-end goods usually enter around the same price, unless the company sinks more research and better "current" technology into it. The hardware in your NES is really worth a few bucks tops today, but it's the function that's worth the dollars. Back when it was released that manufacturing, production and research costs reached the few hundred a unit cost.

In addition though, the real reason these game systems are costing too damn much is because they're making them into something they weren't supposed to be for. When you pack all these new options like WiFi, browsers, hard drives, USB ports, ect then of course their cost goes up. Truely for all the junk they've packed into it $600 isn't too bad, but for a general gamer who just wants to play a game it's overdone.

[RPG_Fanatic]

As a working adult i buy all the systems so i don't really care who wins or loses (i like my 360 the best right now though) it seems funny that every one wants Sony to lose because they've been on top for so long. Every one says their so cocky but remember Nintendo was the same way back with the NES and SNES when they were on top, people started to hate Nintendo with their cocky attitude and censorship of games alot of people started chanting SEGA!!! and wanting Sega to win the console war back in the day.

[heybtbm]

Nintendo was the same way back with the NES and SNES when they were on top, people started to hate Nintendo with their cocky attitude and censorship of games alot of people started chanting SEGA!!!

And the result of Nintendo's arrogance was the worst mainstream console in history...the Nintendo 64. You would think Sony would have used this example as a lesson to be learned...

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

Even in the video game business.

[jajaja]

I think it was the price and the selection games that "killed" N64. Games here was like $100 - $150.

[gepeto]

I think it was the price and the selection games that "killed" N64. Games here was like $100 - $150.

It was the format and nintendos unwillingness to lower the royalty fees. That killed the n64.

Sony went for the juggular when the psx was released by If I recalled the royalty fees was like 3.00 per game.

Now that I think about it many companies were destoyed by nintendos fees during the snes it was like 25.00 per game and I believe it was to be paid upfront whether it sold or not. Talk about karma.

[jajaja]

Ye, that might be a big factor too. You know how much it was for each N64 game? $25 for each SNES game? Damn hehe.

[Griking]

Eluding to the statement I made earlier in the thread about "fair trade items"..

Today I was in our local Circuit City with my friend. He was along for the ride.. but I was pricing LCD HDTVs and he was over in the games section.

I rounded the corner of an aisle, and almost tripped over two PS3 boxes just setting on the floor stacked. There was a hand-written sign taped to the top of them that said:

"TODAY ONLY SPECIAL!

Buy an HDTV and get a PS3 for a $100 discount!"

Being a little curious.. I walked up to a sales clerk and asked him, "Can you guys do that? Sell a PS3 for $499?"

The kid looked at me and winked and said, "No we can't.. but we CAN take $100 of the price of the HDTV."

.. looks like it's already beginning.

When we got back to my friend's house I told him with amusement what I saw. He replied, "That's nothing.. I saw six boxed PS3s sitting on the shelf over in the games section."

What exactly is "Fair trade" and how does to relate to Sony and PS3s? A search about "fair trade" on Google talks about fair wages for employees in poor nations and refers to products such as coffee. I know that Sony's stock has taken a beating lately but I don't think that it makes Japan a poor nation.

[petewhitley]

Face it - the DS is kicking the PSP's ass, and both the Wii and 360 are kicking PS3's ass. (And a bunch of other unsubstantiated bullshit, that is completely without anything for evidence save for some message board posts by a couple of dudes in Indiana or somewhere ...)

Whatever man. You can't provide any data to back up what you've said, and I've given you a TON of hard and fast numbers that back up my point. To your credit, you've completely ignored them, refused to bring numbers of your own, and stuck by your initial biased assumptions. You're a true testament to blind devotion (I hear Scientology has some openings, btw). Keep on fighting the good fight chief. Just try to stay out of arguments with anyone who brings factual analysis to the table, and you'll avoid coming off as uneducated and ignorant of the gaming industry, as you've repeatedly done in this thread. Oh yeah, pop back in when you can post some ACTUAL DATA which supports your claim that "the DS is kicking the PSP's ass" (try to keep it relevant to North America, and no, an isolated week of sales in Japan isn't relevant). Don't worry, I won't hold my breath.

[petewhitley]

..."just the facts, ma'am, just the facts...

If lovin' the facts is wrong, I don't wanna be right.

[esquire]

The problem, pete, is that the amount of anecdotal evidence creates a strong presumption in favor of lackluster PS3 demand & sales.

If you want to rebut that presumption, YOU are the one who needs to provide some numbers.

No, not really. Anecdotal "evidence" is merely opinion based upon what the storyteller has seen. For instance, I may go to a local Best Buy and see 12 PS3s sitting there and think to myself, man the PS3 is not selling. What I may not know or not have seen is that they were just delivered and placed on the shelf, which was at the time empty. Furthermore, I will not see them get sold. They could all sell within days of my observation, but I will not know that.

Take another example. I see the same 12 PS3s but no Wiis on the shelf. Does that mean that the Wii is outselling the PS3? Perhaps, but if we do not have hard numbers, we may never know. What if that same Best Buy only received 6 Wii consoles and sold out in hours of their arrival, and 12 PS3s sold out over the course of a few days? Clearly you could not make the same conclusion. Again, anecdotal "evidence" does not prove anything. You are merely drawing conclusions based upon incomplete information.

[esquire]

Great! I'm all for Sony selling me on gaming. It's when they start pushing Blu-Ray on me that I get upset...and no doubt (no evidence either) that has ALOT to do with the insane pricing.

First, I never thought I'd hear people complain about "pushing" advanced technology on a game console. Sheez, I recall when Microsoft released the two 360 versions and people complained about having to upgrade their Core systems (Premiums were in short supply at release) with the hard drive to save content. Why release an inferior version of the same console, they asked. Furthermore there were the people who complained that the 360 should've had HD-DVD built into the system so that it could be implemented for gaming as opposed just as a novelty, i.e. a cheap HD-DVD player. It just goes to show you that you can't please everyone.

As for the insane pricing comment, I will say it again as I have said many times over in all of the other Sony bashing threads - you get more for your money with the 60GB PS3 than buying a Premium 360 and having to upgrade it. The 360 Premium costs $400, plus another $200 for an HD-DVD player that does not run games, and another $100 for an insanely over-priced wireless adapter that should have been included to begin with. Now you have spent $100 more than the PS3 60 GB, and you still don't have HDMI support; you have 40 GB less in HD space; you have no SD/Memory Stick compatibility; you do not have 100% backwards compatibility on prior gen games; and you have to pay for XBOX Live.

Don't get me wrong, I love the 360, but it is no bargain by any means over the PS3.

[Griking]

Whatever man. You can't provide any data to back up what you've said, and I've given you a TON of hard and fast numbers that back up my point.

Yeah, but you really haven't linked to any sources for your data or your claims. the only real documented fact that I've really seen you post lately has been the one about Monster Rancher 2 being #1 selling game in Japan last week. No offense but you're really looked at as the local Sony PR rep and you really need to post sources for your claims if you're going to be taken seriously.

[Griking]

No, not really. Anecdotal "evidence" is merely opinion based upon what the storyteller has seen. For instance, I may go to a local Best Buy and see 12 PS3s sitting there and think to myself, man the PS3 is not selling. What I may not know or not have seen is that they were just delivered and placed on the shelf, which was at the time empty. Furthermore, I will not see them get sold. They could all sell within days of my observation, but I will not know that.

Or you may work in a retail store and know for a fact that the stack of PS3s that you have sitting in back have been there for weeks while at the same time you can't keep a Wii in stock for a full day. I tend to trust my friends who work in retail.


As for the insane pricing comment, I will say it again as I have said many times over in all of the other Sony bashing threads - you get more for your money with the 60GB PS3 than buying a Premium 360 and having to upgrade it.

And if you go to a Sam's Club you'll get more for your money by buying a 10 gallon bucket of mayonnaise over the quart size. The problem is that most people don't need or want to pay for 10 gallons when then only want to make a sandwich. Yeah it's a weird example but I'm in the same boat as many of the others who don't want to have to pay for a Blu-Ray player when I have no interest in watching movies on my console and only want to play video games. Regardless what they're giving us, there's absolutely no value in paying for something that you'll never use.

[jajaja]

And if you go to a Sam's Club you'll get more for your money by buying a 10 gallon bucket of mayonnaise over the quart size. The problem is that most people don't need or want to pay for 10 gallons when then only want to make a sandwich. Yeah it's a weird example but I'm in the same boat as many of the others who don't want to have to pay for a Blu-Ray player when I have no interest in watching movies on my console and only want to play video games. Regardless what they're giving us, there's absolutely no value in paying for something that you'll never use.

Everytime you put in a PS3 game and starts to play you use the Bluray player :) I know many people think only of movies when they hear BR, but its also used for the games. So without it, its impossible to play the games for PS3.

The situation with PS3 isnt really anything difference from any other consoles. Nintendo chose carts for N64, Sega chose GD-ROM for Dreamcast, MS chose DVD-ROM for 360 and Sony chose BR for PS3. Its just a matter of choices. MS chose DVD-ROM because it was cheap and they thought it was enough storage for this generation. Sony chose BR because they wanted something nextgen and a media with more storage.

Of course, it comes for its price, but its because its fairly new. They could have gone for DVD which is old tech and therefor much cheaper, but they wanted something newer instead and they hope that this will be a factor that people want PS3 more. So far its going ok, but how it will work out in the long run, only time knows.

[scorch56]

What exactly is "Fair trade" and how does to relate to Sony and PS3s? A search about "fair trade" on Google talks about fair wages for employees in poor nations and refers to products such as coffee. I know that Sony's stock has taken a beating lately but I don't think that it makes Japan a poor nation.

"Fair trade" is a term that meant something different back in the 70's than it does now (in a more literal sense). Like I said.. when I was growing up "fair trade" items were things like Levi jeans, game consoles (back then) and many high-dollar colognes and perfumes.. some name-brand cookware, etc.

These were items that cost the same no matter where you went.. a K-Mart or a Macy's, a Wal-Mart.. or an Emporium-Capwells or Nordstrom. Take Levis for example.. there was a time when you paid $25 for a pair of Levis.. anywhere.. no matter what store you got them from; they NEVER went on sale.. and if they did.. it was the same price nationwide. Somewhere in the early 80's Levi Strauss lifted that on their clothing and then.. stores were allowed to sell them at whatever price they.. and their profit margin.. could afford (just like 95% of the goods today). Most parfums are still that way today. Consoles are too.

The whole concept of "fair trade" stemmed from the fact that if every seller of a particular item was sold everywhere at the same price (dictated by the manufacturer).. then the "trade" of that item would be "fair" to everyone (et al.. the retailers.. not the public). It works to an extent for dealers.. but of course another added side benefit of this was that a manufacturer could simply fix a price. People either wanted your stuff.. or didn't.. but had to pay the price.

Most of you "young-un's" may not even remember this.. but it was commonly practiced.. especially in every category of goods but usually with top-end high-tier goods (Mercedes as compared to Ford Fiestas) (Bose equipment as compared to Symphonic) (Amana as compared to Lucky Goldstar [at the time.. LG tron is now highly thought of]).

The practice was for the most part dropped in the 80's due to laws passed and the mere fact that it was beginning to work in the opposite direction for most. It's the reason I grew up in Wranglers and JC Penney jeans as opposed to Levis.. no matter how much I asked my mom for them. We weren't the richest people in the world when I was growing up.. but even in the 70's.. in high school.. the label on your jeans meant more than the person inside them.

Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo consoles can still be considered "fair trade" in the sense that when a retailer is considering carrying their items.. they are bound by the manufacturers dictates as to whether they can discount them or not (I'm talking about the consoles themselves.. not games or accessories). It's still practiced in a round about.. legal sort of way. As to how it relates to this discussion.. when people start talking of retail outlets dropping the prices on a console.. it's WHY I explained they can't (until Sony let's them).. and WHY the clerk told me yesterday they COULDN'T discount the PS3.. but COULD knock $100 off the HDTV.

I myself remember at 16 years old walking into a clothing store and asking a clerk, "How come Levis are so expensive?" "They're "fair trade" items.", he replied to me and then went on to explain what it meant. The term has stuck in my mind ever since. You may not find that term even used by Googling (ah.. the younger gen ;)) in that sense anymore because all of this is pretty much forgotten.. but that WAS the term used for what I AM describing LONG before it was used to describe trade practices between nations.

Hope this clears up your confusion. ;)

[FantasiaWHT]

No, not really. Anecdotal "evidence" is merely opinion based upon what the storyteller has seen. For instance, I may go to a local Best Buy and see 12 PS3s sitting there and think to myself, man the PS3 is not selling. What I may not know or not have seen is that they were just delivered and placed on the shelf, which was at the time empty. Furthermore, I will not see them get sold. They could all sell within days of my observation, but I will not know that.


Actually, no. The evidence is the FACT that there were 12 PS3s sitting on that shelf. The evidence is not the OPINION (really, conclusion) drawn from that fact. And you are correct. The fact that there are 12 PS3s sitting on a shelf in one store doesn't prove much of anything. However, the more anecdotal evidence that is received (facts, such as: 10 PS3s at this store, 4 at that, this store hasn't sold a PS3 in two weeks, that store hasn't had a shipment of new PS3s in a month, etc.) the stronger the inference you can draw from those facts.

Do you trust ratings and polls? Those are purely anecdotal. The pollsters haven't asked all 300 million Americans what they think, they have merely asked a representative sample. The more people they ask, and the more scientific of a process is used, the stronger the inference/conclusion that can be drawn from that anecdotal evidence.

The more anecdotal evidence about the PS3 comes in, the closer to a representative sample that evidence becomes and the stronger the opinion that can be rationally drawn from it.

[Nick Goracke]

Not taking into the (in)significance of random gamers finding PlayStation 3 hardware in stock at local stores...

Don't you chuckle a bit hearing that, to some, having product on the shelves, available for gamers to purchase is seen as a sign of weakness?

[FantasiaWHT]

Don't you chuckle a bit hearing that, to some, having product on the shelves, available for gamers to purchase is seen as a sign of weakness?

Only when maker of said product is trying to tell us that there's a shortage. Which was the original point of this post :P

[heybtbm]

Don't you chuckle a bit hearing that, to some, having product on the shelves, available for gamers to purchase is seen as a sign of weakness?

I don't think Sony is chuckling about this at all.

[jajaja]

Not taking into the (in)significance of random gamers finding PlayStation 3 hardware in stock at local stores...

Don't you chuckle a bit hearing that, to some, having product on the shelves, available for gamers to purchase is seen as a sign of weakness?

In the long run it means nothing really. Take football for example. If a team loses the 4-5 first matches it doesnt automaticly mean that this team cant win the serie. Things does change.

And as FantasiaWHT says, its only funny when they say like its damn hard to get and it isnt. Otherwise i dont see why i would laugh at others "missfortune".

[Nick Goracke]

Only when maker of said product is trying to tell us that there's a shortage. Which was the original point of this post :P

Did we read the same story?

April or May is when we feel like we're going to catch up to demand and have product fully in stock across North America and stay there,"

Tretton told Reuters in an interview that the console was still out of stock in some areas three months after its November launch.

"Our goal is to fill shelves across the United States. Our goal is not to have empty shelves, it's to have full shelves.

He didn't say you simply can't find them on shelves, just that it's not fully in stock around the country. What followed (in this thread) was a lot of people misinterpreting the article and others claiming that 'units on shelves' = 'disaster'.

[Hardcore]

Tretton's nuts anyway. Everyone remembers the EGM interview when he said that he would pay anyone $1200 if they brought him evidence of a PS3 in stock in a store. He would have lost all of Sony's profits had he been called on that bluff. It's things like this, Sony's arrogance to the consumer, that will cause me to buy a used PS3 and used PS3 games. Sony won't be seeing my money.

[petewhitley]

:above me:

Don't worry bub, you're not.

*Zing!*

Ouch, I guess in lieu of any factual data to back up your assumptions, "witty" one-liners will have to suffice. You showed me.

[petewhitley]

Do you trust ratings and polls? Those are purely anecdotal. The pollsters haven't asked all 300 million Americans what they think, they have merely asked a representative sample. The more people they ask, and the more scientific of a process is used, the stronger the inference/conclusion that can be drawn from that anecdotal evidence.

Actually no, I don't trust ratings and/or polls. And NOT ONE statistician trusts them as FACT either. You probably think I'm being a smart-ass, but in all seriousness, you really should read some elementary statistical theory. It will do you a wonder of good in a variety of areas throughout your life.

[FantasiaWHT]

Actually no, I don't trust ratings and/or polls. And NOT ONE statistician trusts them as FACT either. You probably think I'm being a smart-ass, but in all seriousness, you really should read some elementary statistical theory. It will do you a wonder of good in a variety of areas throughout your life.

Did I ever claim that it created a fact? No, I claim that they create presumptions. I don't think you are being a smart-ass, but I understand perfectly how statistics work. Just because these kind of statistics don't create fact doesn't mean the conclusions they reach a) are wrong, b) have no usefulness, or c) have no validity.

Like I said, the large amounts of anecdotal evidence of PS3s sitting unsold on store shelves creates a presumption that I will treat as valid and correct until I see factual evidence to the contrary. At the moment, there is none, so the most valid belief is one that is based on the presumption.

Fact is not the only truth.

[Mattiekrome]

Stumbled onto this earlier, and it reminded me of this thread... From these numbers, it looks like the Wii is outselling the PS3 by nearly 2-1.

http://blogs.pcworld.com/gameon/archives/004176.html



The only game system that might give you tennis elbow turns out to also be the one ruling the next-gen roost according to NPD's March sales numbers (http://investing.reuters.co.uk/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=consumerProducts&storyID=2007-04-20T050349Z_01_N4J275939_RTRIDST_0_SP_PAGE_016-N4J275939-OISCP.XML), which show Nintendo's Wii outselling its peers (Xbox 360, Playstation 3) by a healthy 60k-129k margin. NPD March 2007 unit sales:

Hardware
508k Nintendo DS
280k PlayStation 2
259k Nintendo Wii
199k Xbox 360
180k PlayStation Portable
148k Game Boy Advance
130k PlayStation 3
22k GameCube

At $250, Nintendo's the only one actually making money (http://dpad.gotfrag.com/wii/story/35848/) on its hardware out of the gate, dubbing it the most profitable next-gen system as well. Who'd 'a thunk?

Of course NPD's Wii sales expectations were actually 400k, so even Nintendo's trailing a bit, though NPD reports overall industry sales were up 33% to $1.1 billion thanks to strong software performance bolstered by SCE's God of War 2 (http://www.us.playstation.com/GodofWar2/) and Sony's indefatigable 38 million strong Playstation 2. NPD 2007 software sales:

Software
833k God of War 2 (PS2)
394k Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter 2 (Xbox 360)
291k Guitar Hero 2 (Xbox 360)
273k Wii Play (Nintendo Wii)
199k Motorstorm (PS3)
189k Diddy Kong Racing (DS)
165k Spectrobes (DS)
165k Major League Baseball 2007 (Xbox 360)
164k MLB '07: The Show (PS2)
148k Def Jam Icon (Xbox 360)

In fact the real news is almost Sony's venerable PS2, something of a miracle machine at nearly seven years old and still outselling all the next-gen systems (unless we factor in Nintendo's DS Lite, which continues to prove the handheld biz may be the safest bet in video gaming, period).


Also found this on the PC World site... Interesting read...

http://blogs.pcworld.com/gameon/archives/004173.html



Will they or won't they? Price cutting's a spectator sport, to be sure, so speculate all you want, but in the meantime, here's a quick overview of performance data released since the PS3 shipped in November 2006.

11/17/06 - The Sony Playstation 3 launches in North America. It comes in two configurations: Basic ($499) and Premium ($599). IGN estimates (http://ps3.ign.com/articles/746/746482p1.html) Sony is losing $306.85 for each 20GB (Basic) system sold, and $241.35 for every 60GB (Premium) system.

12/18/06 - Sony sells 195,000 units (off from 400,000 projected) in the PS3's first 13 days, according to CNN Money (http://money.cnn.com/2006/12/08/technology/personaltech/ps3sales/index.htm?postversion=2006120810), citing data released from sales tracker NPD Group (http://www.npd.com/).

01/08/07 - Sony claims the PS3 beats the PS2's record (http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=22051) of one million units shipped across North America in the six weeks following its launch.

01/12/07 - Gameindustry.biz cites (http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=22181)January NPD data pegging Sony at only 687,000 PS3's sold of its announced one million units shipped, suggesting that over 300,000 PS3's are in fact sitting on (or moving much more slowly than expected off of) store shelves.

04/11/07 - Sony drops (http://blogs.pcworld.com/gameon/archives/004082.html) its $499 20GB Basic model, claiming it's being outsold by the 60GB Premium version at a 10-to-1 ratio.

04/19/07 - Though Sony CEO Howard Stringer calls the European PS3 launch a success, citing 800,000 sold, UK sales fall 82 percent over the following week. In response, UK retailers drop (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=6978) the PS3's sale price by as much as $74 below suggested retail.

- According to the Washington Post, Sony stands to benefit (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/19/AR2007041900852.html) from cheaper manufacturing costs due to a chip production size shrink.

- The Financial Times reports (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0211e938-ee13-11db-8584-000b5df10621.html) that Ryoji Chubachi, Sony's president, said yesterday: "We are re-examining our [PS3] budgeting process in terms of pricing and volume. Sales assumptions change and the market is competitive. We are in the midst of revisiting our strategy for the PS3." The FT also notes Goldman Sachs analyst Yuji Fujimori is increasing his operating loss forecast for Sony's games division to just over $590 million for Sony's fiscal year, which ends March 2008.

- Next Generation reports (http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5283&Itemid=2) that despite Chubachi's statements, the company "currently doesn't have any specific plan to cut the PlayStation 3's price."

- March 2007 NPD game system sales numbers released:

508k Nintendo DS
280k PlayStation 2
259k Nintendo Wii
199k Xbox 360
180k PlayStation Portable
148k Game Boy Advance
130k PlayStation 3
22k GameCube

Mid-May 2007... Sony releases its fiscal year financial results, along with console shipment figures.

My prediction: Sony won't make its launch estimate of 6 million shipped worldwide by the end of March, and they'll drop the price of their 60GB model by at least $100 in the U.S. in time for the holidays

[FantasiaWHT]

How come UK retailers can drop system prices?

[jajaja]

How come UK retailers can drop system prices?

I think every store can drop the price if they want to. I think they still make some money even with the price reduction or they hope that people will buy more games/controllers/cables to make up for it.

Be completely honest, are anyone suprised that Wii is outselling PS3? Its like Toyota is outselling Ferrari 100 to 1, is it a suprise? If PS3 was price competetive, had like MGS4 or FF13 avalible at launch (like Wii had Zelda) and games wasnt so delayed, the sale numbers would be complete different.

Another thing that suprises me alittle is that Wii and PS3 are so often compared. Like, why arent there any fuzz over that PS2, a near 7 year old console outsold Wii. I wonder when these "PS3 is doomed!" predictions will end. Maybe in a year or 2. We'll see then ;)

[heybtbm]

Since I started this thread, I have bought a PS3. While I hate to give $600 to such an idiotic and delusional company...the gamer in me had to get one of these. I think a lot of the PS3 holdouts will follow suit by the end of the year.

Sony hate aside, facts are facts: the PS3 is one nice machine.

[FantasiaWHT]

I think every store can drop the price if they want to. I think they still make some money even with the price reduction or they hope that people will buy more games/controllers/cables to make up for it.

Every company is "allowed to", but the manufacturers will stop sending you systems (or send you fewer) if you do. Actually, I think I read about a supreme court case challenging this practice in a different industry... now I want to go look that up, haha.



Be completely honest, are anyone suprised that Wii is outselling PS3? Its like Toyota is outselling Ferrari 100 to 1, is it a suprise? If PS3 was price competetive, had like MGS4 or FF13 avalible at launch (like Wii had Zelda) and games wasnt so delayed, the sale numbers would be complete different.


Yeah, but Ferrari doesn't lose money selling each car and make it back by selling a special type of gas that a) only works in Ferraris, and b) is the only type of gas a Ferrari can use.



Another thing that suprises me alittle is that Wii and PS3 are so often compared. Like, why arent there any fuzz over that PS2, a near 7 year old console outsold Wii. I wonder when these "PS3 is doomed!" predictions will end. Maybe in a year or 2. We'll see then ;)

I agree with you there, sorta. Your first two sentences just don't match up - of course Wii and PS3 should be compared! But it is important to note that PS2 is outselling Wii and that isn't being commented on as much.

[jajaja]

Every company is "allowed to", but the manufacturers will stop sending you systems (or send you fewer) if you do. Actually, I think I read about a supreme court case challenging this practice in a different industry... now I want to go look that up, haha.

Actually i have no idea how the deals with the suppliers are, but i assume that the stores can take whatever price they take as long as the buy-in price stays the same.


Yeah, but Ferrari doesn't lose money selling each car and make it back by selling a special type of gas that a) only works in Ferraris, and b) is the only type of gas a Ferrari can use.

True that, but i was mostly thinking about price only :) $600 is still $600 for the consumer even if the manufactorer lose or make money.



I agree with you there, sorta. Your first two sentences just don't match up - of course Wii and PS3 should be compared! But it is important to note that PS2 is outselling Wii and that isn't being commented on as much.

I dont say that the Wii and PS3 shouldnt be compared, but when it comes to console sales its like always those 2 thats being compared. The others, especially 360, are hardly mentioned at all (atleast on forums and after my experience). Its like theres a internal war between Wii and PS3 hehe.

[TheTrench]

Xbox 360 is hardly mentioned because they are so far in front, people want to see who wins between the Wii and the PS3 in the first year... then compare that year to the first year of the Xbox 360.

[jajaja]

Xbox 360 is hardly mentioned because they are so far in front, people want to see who wins between the Wii and the PS3 in the first year... then compare that year to the first year of the Xbox 360.

Ye, that might be a reason why. Wii will win the first year tho. Of course, with all the great games thats going to be released within the first year and a much cheaper price. Not really any competition there, yet.

[Andred]

It's a month-old thread but it looks like others have already dumped some fuel on the smoldering ashes so I'll join the cause.

First, let's get this outta the way. I like Nintendo more than Sony for sentimental reasons. With that said, I'm going to try to be objective about this.

The reason I don't want the PS3 to succeed is because of the examle it sets in the industry. At $600 the PS3 can be considered a bargain when you look at it's features. But a lot of those features have nothing to do with playing games and are, therefore, useless to me. If I don't want to use it for movies/music/jet skiing, I'm better off buying a 360 or, better yet, a Wii. But if the PS3 is as successful as the PS2 then the next generation of consoles will follow the trend of stuffing more worthless (for me) features into the box and making them mandatory.

[jajaja]

At $600 the PS3 can be considered a bargain when you look at it's features. But a lot of those features have nothing to do with playing games and are, therefore, useless to me. If I don't want to use it for movies/music/jet skiing, I'm better off buying a 360 or, better yet, a Wii. But if the PS3 is as successful as the PS2 then the next generation of consoles will follow the trend of stuffing more worthless (for me) features into the box and making them mandatory.

Dont forget as a grill! LOL
What features do you mean?

[Andred]

What features do you mean?

I'm mostly referring to Blue-Ray since that's the major cost factor. I could also do without the capability to display my images or videos and WiFi but since those are most likely insignificant to the cost of the unit I don't have a problem with them.

[Buyatari]

I don't think anyone can say that Sony has the upper hand at this point. I can see people playing devils advocate only so far. You will have a hard time telling people Sony has the lead they did with PS1 or PS2. Sony has to realize this and they MUST be working on the problem. Its very early in the race and I suspect to see some great thiongs down the road.

This is a different era than SNES vs Sega. Its not uncommon for what we might consider a "non-gammer" household to have more than one console. Conversely, its rare to find what we consider a "gamer" without every single console available. So there really is room to be the last and still stay alive.

Most people who play games more just a little bit have reason to buy these 2.

Nintendo has the fun kiddie games and with the new remote a great party system for all your non-gaming friends to still play and have fun.

Microsoft has the older crowd with shooter after shooter and Live is just awesome. They have a new gimmick all their own with the achievement points.

Is there a reason someone with both of these systems should buy a PS3? In my experience the only people I've net with a PS3 are the snobs who feel they have to buy the most expensive items to have the best they can. Its still very early in game but I would expect to see some HUGE new exclusives from Sony along with a pricedrop.

[Rob2600]

I'm mostly referring to Blue-Ray since that's the major cost factor. I could also do without the capability to display my images or videos and WiFi...

I agree. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I buy a video game console to play video games.

My whole take on the Sony situation:

Nintendo revived the entire U.S. home video game industry in the mid 1980s. They were unstoppable for several years and became arrogant. Because of their arrogance, they were almost beaten by Sega and then were eventually beaten by Sony. However, throughout the years, Nintendo has always made well-built, well-designed, affordable machines and innovative, highly-rated games.

Then, like Nintendo, Sony became unstoppable for several years and has now become arrogant. The difference is, Sony has always made poorly-built, poorly-designed, expensive machines and decently-rated games.

So now comes the part where, like Nintendo, a company comes along to beat Sony, the arrogant company. It just so happens the company to beat them is none other than Nintendo. I guess in the end, innovation, affordability, and quality prevails.

[jajaja]

I'm mostly referring to Blue-Ray since that's the major cost factor.

I agree. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I buy a video game console to play video games.

Bluray has something to do with playing games. PS3 games are on BR discs so without a BR player, how are you going to play them? :)

Every console got a media and so far no console have let you choose which media you want to use. When N64 chose cart, you were stuck with carts, when PSX chose CD your were stuck with CD even if you liked it or not. I dont see why the BR situation is any different than these.

I know many say its not needed, but why? Games have always been increasing in size. So what will happend in 2-3 years?

[FantasiaWHT]

I don't think anyone can say that Sony has the upper hand at this point.

Actually, there's a very good argument to be made at this point that Sony still has the upper hand because the PS2 is still outselling every other console.

[Andred]

Every console got a media and so far no console have let you choose which media you want to use. When N64 chose cart, you were stuck with carts, when PSX chose CD your were stuck with CD even if you liked it or not. I dont see why the BR situation is any different than these.

No, there hasn't been a console that lets you choose the media but most consoles don't use the cutting edge media because it's too expensive. In my opinion, replacing the Blue-Ray drive with a standard DVD drive would be better for the majority of gamers. Yes, we may have to swap a disc every so often but nobody (that I know of) decided the PS1 was unplayable for that reason.

[ShenmueFan]

BluRay isn't going anywhere - the PS3 was made AROUND that friggin' blue laser.

I didn't even know there were shortages! I can find a PS3 easily in Best Buy, Walmart, Sam's Club, etc.

[Eteric Rice]

BluRay isn't going anywhere - the PS3 was made AROUND that friggin' blue laser.

I didn't even know there were shortages! I can find a PS3 easily in Best Buy, Walmart, Sam's Club, etc.

There aren't shortages. They're blatantly lying. LOL

[jajaja]

No, there hasn't been a console that lets you choose the media but most consoles don't use the cutting edge media because it's too expensive.

NES, SNES, N64 and not to speak of Neo Geo used very expencive media. I remember back in the days when the NES/SNES games was like 80-100 dollars (atleast where i live) and N64 games were as high as 100 - 150 dollars. This is also a long time ago and we made less money back then compared to now.


In my opinion, replacing the Blue-Ray drive with a standard DVD drive would be better for the majority of gamers. Yes, we may have to swap a disc every so often but nobody (that I know of) decided the PS1 was unplayable for that reason.

It would be better right now when it comes to price, that is true. But price drops will come of course, all technoligy gets old and cheaper. So in 1-3 years its totaly different. BR is actually 1 year old already. You can then look back and see if it was a smart move or not. There were only a very small precentage of PSX games that were on multiply discs so it was no problem, but if 80% - 90% of all the games requiered swapping people would be annoyed with it.

[Austin]

No, there hasn't been a console that lets you choose the media but most consoles don't use the cutting edge media because it's too expensive. In my opinion, replacing the Blue-Ray drive with a standard DVD drive would be better for the majority of gamers. Yes, we may have to swap a disc every so often but nobody (that I know of) decided the PS1 was unplayable for that reason.

I almost kinda miss the disc-swapping. Takes me right back to middle school.

[FantasiaWHT]

NES, SNES, N64 and not to speak of Neo Geo used very expencive media. I remember back in the days when the NES/SNES games was like 80-100 dollars (atleast where i live) and N64 games were as high as 100 - 150 dollars.

Where do you live? I know SNES RPG's were around the $70-80 mark, but the highest cartridge I ever knew of (not including Neo Geo games) was Phantasy Star IV at $100.

[jajaja]

North in Europe. Back in the NES/SNES days we didnt know about anything else so the prices were normal. Looking back, the prices were damn expencive. I got like 1-3 new games each year, else it was rental or borrow from friends. Great times actually, was so nice to get a new game back then :)

[Nature Boy]

But apparently there are a good # of PS3's sitting on shelves, based on the penny arcade comic that S1lence posted earlier. Isn't it ironic that another gaming website totally seperate from DP is making the same inference as most people in this thread?

This is the funniest thing I've ever read. An online comic cited as a legitimate reference. I really have seen it all...

"Sure there's a glut of PS3's sitting out there - I read about it in a comic strip!"

FYI: That's not irony. There would need to be a gap between what is discussed and what is perceived by the communities - with no gap, there's no irony.

[Andred]

Agreed, cartridges were not the ideal media. But you make a good point when you say that we didn't know any better back then. That's the difference. I was a kid then and my parents were buying my games. They didn't understand why a certain type of media would make any difference. Now that I'm (mostly) all grown up and buying my own games I don't want to pay for expensive media when there are much cheaper options.

But you're also right when you say that the price will come down. It just seems like they could have used the media that has already come down in price for one more generation. Then again, Sony has said they want the PS3 to have a 10-year life cycle so from that perspective it makes sense to use Blue-Ray. I just don't expect it to last 10 years.

[Hep038]

I agree. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I buy a video game console to play video games.

My whole take on the Sony situation:

Nintendo revived the entire U.S. home video game industry in the mid 1980s. They were unstoppable for several years and became arrogant. Because of their arrogance, they were almost beaten by Sega and then were eventually beaten by Sony. However, throughout the years, Nintendo has always made well-built, well-designed, affordable machines and innovative, highly-rated games.

Then, like Nintendo, Sony became unstoppable for several years and has now become arrogant. The difference is, Sony has always made poorly-built, poorly-designed, expensive machines and decently-rated games.

So now comes the part where, like Nintendo, a company comes along to beat Sony, the arrogant company. It just so happens the company to beat them is none other than Nintendo. I guess in the end, innovation, affordability, and quality prevails.


I think a million blinking nes owners might disagree with you on that and it seems you have left Microsoft out of the entire picture. I would think they would be the company to over take sony WAY before Nintendo.


And is sony still losing money selling ps2's? I have not heard if the redesign makes them a profit or not.

[jajaja]

If they released it like 2 years ago i'm sure it would have a DVD player instead. PSX and PS2 also used the best media (for storage that is), but the timing was better. CD and DVD was already years old when these consoles got out so the technoligy was rather old and cheap at the time. If BR was 4-5 years old when PS3 was launched, i'm sure we would see a 300 - 400 dollar price range.

Ye, true that, they say it should last for 10 years, but PS4 (or whatever it will be called) will come out before that, im sure of it. Support for PS3 will most likely last around 10 years tho. But we'll see, right now the price and timing (because of fairly new technoligy) is hurting the consumers, but in some years the sales might start to go sky high. So much that can happend, new Xbox is probly on the way too. We can only wait and see :)

[Rob2600]

I think a million blinking nes owners might disagree with you on that and it seems you have left Microsoft out of the entire picture. I would think they would be the company to over take sony WAY before Nintendo.

My NES blinks too, when I don't clean my games. After I clean them, they work fine. Is the NES perfect? No, but I don't have to turn it upside down to get it to work and it doesn't scratch rings into the games.

I view Microsoft as another Sega. They'll make a few consoles that are pretty good, but I think eventually they'll make some bad decisions, have weak sales, and leave the hardware business. Microsoft is also like Sony in that they're not a dedicated video game company. Microsoft and Sony have many different divisions and focus on many different products and technologies. Nintendo is currently the only company who is solely focused on video gaming. For that reason, I get the impression that Nintendo cares more about video games as an art form and is the most innovative out of the three companies.

Based on sales so far, Nintendo is on track to easily beat Sony *and* Microsoft this generation:

Xbox 360
released: 17 months ago
units sold: 10.5 million
average units sold per month: 617,647

Wii
released: 5 months ago
units sold: 6.6 million
average units sold per month: 1,320,000

PlayStation 3
released: 5 months ago
units sold: 3.3 million
average units sold per month: 660,000

As you can see, statistically the Wii is outselling the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3 combined. I realize PlayStation 2 sales are still strong and this generation is still in its infancy, but Nintendo is definitely off to a great start and *could* surpass the Xbox 360 in total sales by Christmas.

Even though the Xbox 360 is technically more powerful than the Wii, I feel like the Wii brand has more personality. It's like an iPod vs. a Zen...the Zen has more features, but people are attracted to the personality surrounding the iPod, it's software, and it's branding.

P.S. Why are people so shocked and offended by the notion that the PlayStation 3 could be a flop? The NES and SNES were very popular, but the Nintendo 64 and Game Cube weren't as popular. The Genesis was very popular, but the Saturn and Dreamcast were borderline flops. The 2600 was very popular, but the 5200 and 7800 were flops. Why can't the same thing happen to Sony this time around?

[Andred]

We can only wait and see :)

It always comes down to that, doesn't it? :)

[7th lutz]

In January there was shortages of ps 3, where my brother worked. I think the shortages was false or exaggered by sony.

As far as the ps 3 goes I think sony has problem with its sales. Here is the proof I present: My brother works at retail store and back in Feb, his store was given a memo by sony. The momo said your store will not being getting any more ps 2's in. I am thinking that was due to stopping production of the system or the store not paying sony. I think it is the first due to the fact the store after the memo was still getting ps 2 systems.The retail store that my brother works at still get in ps 2's. It appears like sony hasn't stopped production of the system.

Why Sony would send the store memo otherwise and decided to ship more ps 2 if the ps 3 is meeting sonys expections in hardware sales?

[FantasiaWHT]

Yeah, NES's didn't start blinking within a month after they shipped, did they?

More on topic, the more I think about it, the less of a lie I think this was.

The shortages were eased in January (being generous) and if something occurs in January, it is done "by May", wouldn't you say? If I say I'll get a job done by Friday and I get it done Wednesday, that meets the criteria.

[poloplayr]

hey, should you ever (yeah right) sell out of PS3s in the US, just let me know because there are tons of unsold ones in most shops here in the UK! Hey, PAL versions might become collectors items! ;)

[jajaja]

P.S. Why are people so shocked and offended by the notion that the PlayStation 3 could be a flop? The NES and SNES were very popular, but the Nintendo 64 and Game Cube weren't as popular. The Genesis was very popular, but the Saturn and Dreamcast were borderline flops. The 2600 was very popular, but the 5200 and 7800 were flops. Why can't the same thing happen to Sony this time around?

I dont think that is the issue, i think its more because of the rather lousy and early predictions. People were screaming that PS3 was a flop only after 3-4 weeks just because it wasnt pulled out of the shelfs everywhere.

Then, what exactly is a flop? Is a 600 dollar console that sells over 3 million in 5 months really a flop? Every console can flop indeed, but i dont quite understand why people are talking about PS3 flop now. Its been 5 months, way to early to say anything. Afaik PSX only sold about 1 million consoles the first year, totaly they sold over 100 million.

Its like NHL, afaik 82 games are played in a season. If one team loses the 10 first games, doesnt this team have any chance to win? If one team wins the 10 first games, does this mean that this team will win the season? Its too early to say anything about it. In 2-3 years we can say if PS3 (or 360 and Wii for that matter) was a huge success or not.



It always comes down to that, doesn't it? :)

Hehe ye, true that ;)

[gepeto]

I dont think that is the issue, i think its more because of the rather lousy and early predictions. People were screaming that PS3 was a flop only after 3-4 weeks just because it wasnt pulled out of the shelfs everywhere.

Then, what exactly is a flop? Is a 600 dollar console that sells over 3 million in 5 months really a flop? Every console can flop indeed, but i dont quite understand why people are talking about PS3 flop now. Its been 5 months, way to early to say anything. Afaik PSX only sold about 1 million consoles the first year, totaly they sold over 100 million.

Its like NHL, afaik 82 games are played in a season. If one team loses the 10 first games, doesnt this team have any chance to win? If one team wins the 10 first games, does this mean that this team will win the season? Its too early to say anything about it. In 2-3 years we can say if PS3 (or 360 and Wii for that matter) was a huge success or not.




Hehe ye, true that ;)

I am still tryiing to figure out how the dreamcast was tab a flop so early out the gate with its outstanding launch day numbers. Great system unfairly treated. Is the ps3 the dreamcast with 3do and neo geo prices?

[chrisbid]

Then, what exactly is a flop? Is a 600 dollar console that sells over 3 million in 5 months really a flop? Every console can flop indeed, but i dont quite understand why people are talking about PS3 flop now. Its been 5 months, way to early to say anything. Afaik PSX only sold about 1 million consoles the first year, totaly they sold over 100 million.





sonys business model assumes large losses on consoles assuming they will make up the difference with software sales, both first and third party. it worked out quite well for them with the PSX and PS2, but when sega tried this model with the dreamcast, it failed to get a big enough install base to get more third parties on board and software sales never got to the level to make a profit for sega. microsoft uses the same strategy, but they have enough cash to take a loss.

market share is critical in sonys business model. if they do not get a commanding percentage of units sold, the third party software will dry up (like it did with the gamecube) and the PS3 hardware losses will drown sony. nintendos model doesnt make hardware a loss leader. thats how theyve been able to be financially healthy through the last 10 years despite bringing up the rear in market share.

[jajaja]

sonys business model assumes large losses on consoles assuming they will make up the difference with software sales, both first and third party. it worked out quite well for them with the PSX and PS2, but when sega tried this model with the dreamcast, it failed to get a big enough install base to get more third parties on board and software sales never got to the level to make a profit for sega. microsoft uses the same strategy, but they have enough cash to take a loss.

market share is critical in sonys business model. if they do not get a commanding percentage of units sold, the third party software will dry up (like it did with the gamecube) and the PS3 hardware losses will drown sony. nintendos model doesnt make hardware a loss leader. thats how theyve been able to be financially healthy through the last 10 years despite bringing up the rear in market share.

True, but its still way to early to say anything about a flop or not.

[FantasiaWHT]

I'd actually be really curious to see a list of consoles, whether they were sold for a loss at launch (and how much of a loss) and either how successful the system was in terms of sales, or how successful the manufacturer was in profit from the system, games & accessories, over the lifetime of the console.

I know that PS1, PS2, PS3, Xbox, and X360 were all sold for a loss at launch, and I know for a fact no Nintendo system ever has been, but I don't know about any other systems.

Basically, I wonder if loss-leader systems have more often been successful or unsuccessful? And which companies have used loss-leading strategies succesfully and which haven't?

[Rob2600]

I am still trying to figure out how the dreamcast was a flop so early out the gate with its outstanding launch day numbers. Great system unfairly treated.

The hard core gamers lined up the night before the Dreamcast was released and bought it right away, but the casual gamers fell for Sony's hype and waited a year for Playstation 2 to come out.

Even when the Dreamcast was selling for $99 in late 2000 and early 2001 and the PlayStation 2 was sold out for weeks at a time, casual gamers were still chosing to wait and spend $300 on the PlayStation 2.

I was working at a major video game chain at the time and I'd ask people why they'd rather spend $300 on a PlayStation 2 than $99 on a Dreamcast and many said it was because the PlayStation 2 could play DVD movies. When I told them they could buy a Dreamcast *and* a separate DVD player for less than the price of a PlayStation 2, they didn't care.

[Rob2600]

I think its more because of the rather lousy and early predictions. People were screaming that PS3 was a flop only after 3-4 weeks just because it wasnt pulled out of the shelfs everywhere.

Maybe PlayStation 3 sales will stall at 9 million, at which point it will be considered a flop. Maybe sales will pick up and will reach 45 million. I don't know.

I'm just saying that the PlayStation 3 isn't the huge, unstoppable, runaway success that the PlayStation 2 was. Maybe PlayStation 3 will come in thrid place this generation. Some people seem to think that's impossible and that Sony will always be the king, even though history has proven that no single home video game company has been the most popular for more than two generations in a row.

[jajaja]

I'd actually be really curious to see a list of consoles, whether they were sold for a loss at launch (and how much of a loss) and either how successful the system was in terms of sales, or how successful the manufacturer was in profit from the system, games & accessories, over the lifetime of the console.

Not exactly what you're looking for, but i found this list interesting :)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v218/grimreaper19/saleshw7yz.jpg

[Rob2600]

Not exactly what you're looking for, but i found this list interesting :)

I'm guessing those are U.S. sales figures because the Xbox did not sell nearly as well in Japan.

[jajaja]

Ye, i guess so. Found it on another forum earlier today.

[chrisbid]

True, but its still way to early to say anything about a flop or not.


no, its not

the only console to ever move up in market position after launch was the SNES. every other machine starts off at their highest point in market position, and stays stagnant until new machines are released. in the case of the SNES, it took nintendo two years to catch up, competitive pricing, and sega screwing themselves to get there and the race was always pretty close until sega dropped the genesis for saturn development in 95.

there is a small chance sony can make up the early deficit, but it requires heavy action now, and they seem to be content with staying the course. Microsoft is helping out by raising their price to match specs with the PS3 (a move that would make more sense if the PS3 was blowing the 360 away) leaving the door open for sony to stick around. If MS manages to lower the price of the 360 or make Halo 3 a limited time pack in this xmas, sony will have to make some drastic moves to stay in the game.

[jajaja]

no, its not

the only console to ever move up in market position after launch was the SNES. every other machine starts off at their highest point in market position, and stays stagnant until new machines are released. in the case of the SNES, it took nintendo two years to catch up, competitive pricing, and sega screwing themselves to get there and the race was always pretty close until sega dropped the genesis for saturn development in 95.

there is a small chance sony can make up the early deficit, but it requires heavy action now, and they seem to be content with staying the course. Microsoft is helping out by raising their price to match specs with the PS3 (a move that would make more sense if the PS3 was blowing the 360 away) leaving the door open for sony to stick around. If MS manages to lower the price of the 360 or make Halo 3 a limited time pack in this xmas, sony will have to make some drastic moves to stay in the game.

First, not a single soul can say what the future brings, ergo, no one can know if PS3 will fail big time or not. They can predict yes, but they cannot tell for sure. Its been like 5 months, its nothing. What happends if PS3 suddently cost $300 in 1 year and all the good games are out? Many talk like the PS3 will cost $599 throughout its entire lifetime, but that will never happend :) What Sony will do in 1-2 years we dont know, i'm sure they dont even know hehe. We can only guess, but we can never know for sure.

So.. yes, its too early to say if its a flop or not.

[Nature Boy]

The hard core gamers lined up the night before the Dreamcast was released and bought it right away, but the casual gamers fell for Sony's hype and waited a year for Playstation 2 to come out.

Why don't DC fans ever point out the fact that the Saturn/32X/Sega CD had something to do with killing it? How many poorly received consoles/add ons do you think a company can release before consumers decide they don't want anything to do with the company?

The PS1's success over the Saturn is a big reason the PS2 hype worked in the first place. Casual gamers hated the Saturn - why would they suddenly decide that it's successor would be better than the machine they *did* like?

[veronica_marsfan]

Why don't DC fans ever point out the fact that the Saturn/32X/Sega CD had something to do with killing it? How many poorly received consoles/add ons do you think a company can release before consumers decide they don't want anything to do with the company? Quoted for truth. I had a Genesis, invested in a 32X, only to see it abandoned/discontinued a year later by Saturn...

...and that was introduced with virtually no games & abandoned after only two years.

32X - waste of money. Saturn - waste of money. Why should I ever trust Sega again? I refused to touch the dreamcast.

[agbulls]

32X - waste of money. Saturn - waste of money. Why should I ever trust Sega again? I refused to touch the dreamcast.

Blasphemy! The Saturn was never a waste of money. I'm sure many DP'ers would agree with me on that one.

[Rob2600]

32X - waste of money. Saturn - waste of money. Why should I ever trust Sega again?

True, but what about Sony? I was working at a major video game chain at the time and customers were constantly coming in with broken PlayStation consoles. Some people were buying their third and fourth PlayStation. Why? I understand that sometimes things break, but the PlayStation problem seemed to be so widespread...and yet, people kept pouring money into Sony's pockets for an inferior product. I never once dealt with a customer who had to turn their Saturn, Nintendo 64, or Dreamcast upside down to get it to work.

Later on, many customers had problems with their PlayStation 2 consoles as well. There were tons of disc read errors and some people's consoles were actually scratching rings into their games...and yet, once again, people kept buying more PlayStation 2 consoles after they kept having problems and breaking.

What is wrong with people? Yes, Sega eventually deserved customers' lack of trust, but didn't Sony, too? I guess what goes around comes around and now the Wii is outselling the PlayStation 3 by 2-to-1.

[jajaja]

I was working at a major video game chain at the time and customers were constantly coming in with broken PlayStation consoles. Some people were buying their third and fourth PlayStation.

What did they do with the old one(s)?