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

[heybtbm]

I love corporate spin...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070228/tc_nm/sony_playstation3_dc_2

[Mayhem]

Perhaps they meant "shortages in people wanting to buy the PS3"? :p

[Bojay1997]

but to be honest, when I see units in stock at the local Best Buy or Circuit City, they usually sell within a day or two. Sure, it's not Wii demand or even PS2 demand, but at $600 not including a game or second controller, this is a serious investment. I do believe the PS3 is still in demand and is a good system, even if I currently spend more time on my Xbox 360 and Wii.

[Imstarryeyed]

I used to work for Sony corporate at one point and I have to say that this is soo how they do things in my opinion! Let's take reality and bend it until it sounds like we're right! Haha.. I enjoyed reading that article!!

[jdc]

In the small city that I live in, PS3s are literally everywhere....but no-one's coughing up the bux for them. Ditto for 360's. Wii's, on the other hand, are in such short supply that the local game shop, knowing how badly I wanted one, offered to hold a Wii for me for an entire week until I could get there. Needless to say, I have no shortage of local gamers coming over to spend time on mine until they find one.

[Damaniel]

At the local Fry's, I saw about 2 dozen PS3s stacked in a pile, more than I've ever seen there before (they would sell relatively briskly even a month ago), not to mention at least a hundred XBox 360s. At least in my area, PS3 shortages are not a problem. I've still never seen an in-stock Wii at any local store, though.

The true PS3 shortage is in games. Yes, the system has only been out for 3 months or so, but 4 or 5 retail releases since launch isn't all that many. :(

[s1lence]

Eh? What stores are saying they need PS3's ?

Reminds me of a recent Penny Arcade comic.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/02/10


I want to know what Tretton is smoking because he should share.

[jajaja]

Eh? What stores are saying they need PS3's ?

Reminds me of a recent Penny Arcade comic.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/02/10

One thing that catches my eye in this comic strip is that in each store they go to they have like 1-3 PS3 left. What happend to "floating over" over PS3s? 1 console left is floating over? O_o

[heybtbm]

What happend to "floating over" over PS3s?

That would be EVERY store in Madison, WI.

[RPG_Fanatic]

I know most people say PS3 sucks-ass but i'm glad i got mine at launch before they take out the "Emotion Engine" like in the UK version. Maybe they already have taken it out for the US versions comming over here now. Never know.:? *_*

[DigitalSpace]

And just a few days after Phil Harrison stated that rumble was a "last-gen feature." LOL

[jajaja]

That would be EVERY store in Madison, WI.

How many units in each store?

[Griking]

Apparantly Sony decided that the best way to resolve their phantom shortage problems is by cutting out backwards compatibility via hardware in it's European (and maybe other) models. :confused:

Link (http://apnews.excite.com/article/20070228/D8NIQTMG3.html)

[FantasiaWHT]

"Asked about widespread reports on video game Web sites that stacks of unsold PlayStation 3s are a common sight in many electronics shops, Tretton told Reuters in an interview that the console was still out of stock in some areas three months after its November launch."

Probably because those areas stopped reordering them, so they aren't for sale in any stores, heh

[Technosis]

In my area Wii's are in big demand/short supply...PS3's are pretty much unwanted

[s1lence]

At my local BB today there was 8 PS3's sitting on the shelf. At my local Target there was 6 behind the glass (more in the back, I asked them). My local gamecrazy even had 4 of them, which for them to have new systems isn't typical.

[Iron Draggon]

"Our goal is to fill shelves across the United States. Our goal is not to have empty shelves, it's to have full shelves. If we have empty shelves, that's one less consumer who could have bought a PlayStation 3," Tretton said.

and one less consumer who might be able to find a Wii on the shelf in that shelf space... which is the real reason why they want those shelves full of their expensive PS3's, just gathering dust... occupied shelf space can't be filled with competing products... hog more shelf space for your own products and consequently you leave less shelf space for your competitor's products... that's what marketing at the retail level is all about... occupying shelf space

[Tron 2.0]

In my area Wii's are in big demand/short supply...PS3's are pretty much unwanted

Same here was well i guess sony are liveing in a fantasy.

Since they think there system is in demand still.

Please that, would happen untile they get more games and give a price drop.

[Anthony1]

The PS3's aren't selling very well at all, it's definitely a harsh reality for Sony. On the bright side, is the fact that a few huge game releases can change all that very quickly. Motorstorm, Lair and Heavenly Sword will help sell some PS3's. I'm sure VF5 has helped sell some PS3's. They just need some compelling games that aren't available on other systems, even if it's only for a few months (VF5).

[petewhitley]

I know people think I'm some Sony apologist, but for once I'd like to see some hard data that says the PS3 isn't selling well UNIVERSALLY. No more anectdotal evidence; which isn't really evidence at all. I'm sure in Peoria, Wisconsin you have a shitload of PS3s at WalMart. Good for you. I want to know nationwide if they have a shortage or not. Your small-town story (or stories) doesn't really mean shit in terms of nationwide sales. Don't flame; bring facts.

[s1lence]

I know people think I'm some Sony apologist, but for once I'd like to see some hard data that says the PS3 isn't selling well UNIVERSALLY. No more anectdotal evidence; which isn't really evidence at all. I'm sure in Peoria, Wisconsin you have a shitload of PS3s at WalMart. Good for you. I want to know nationwide if they have a shortage or not. Your small-town story (or stories) doesn't really mean shit in terms of nationwide sales. Don't flame; bring facts.

Well show me where they have TRUE sales numbers on systems, NOT systems sold to stores, which is what is published in all the reports. (As well as what Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo base their sales on)

[petewhitley]

Well show me where they have TRUE sales numbers on systems, NOT systems sold to stores, which is what is published in all the reports. (As well as what Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo base their sales on)

That wasn't my question.

[Griking]

I know people think I'm some Sony apologist, but for once I'd like to see some hard data that says the PS3 isn't selling well UNIVERSALLY. No more anectdotal evidence; which isn't really evidence at all. I'm sure in Peoria, Wisconsin you have a shitload of PS3s at WalMart. Good for you. I want to know nationwide if they have a shortage or not. Your small-town story (or stories) doesn't really mean shit in terms of nationwide sales. Don't flame; bring facts.


Please Petewhitley, stop asking everyone else to supply numbers. Why don't YOU provide us some numbers (with SOURCES) that shows us how well the PS3 (or PSP) is selling.

You MUST have some inside information that the rest of us don't; you're the only one who seems to think that Sony is thrilled with their sales.

[petewhitley]

Please Petewhitley, stop asking everyone else to supply numbers. Why don't YOU provide us some numbers (with SOURCES) that shows us how well the PS3 (or PSP) is selling.

You MUST have some inside information that the rest of us don't; you're the only one who seems to think that Sony is thrilled with their sales.

For PSP I did (look up the "DS vs. PSP" thread). For the PS3, I have no idea. I'm just wondering, because all I see here is a bunch of naysayers who say it's completely floundering, despite the fact that MY LOCAL WALMART IS SOLD OUT (but honestly it doesn't matter, because it's just one store, and doesn't represent the whole country).

And apparently a bunch of people have some vested interest in seeing Sony die, because I suppose they haven't given us any good games or anything (... cough ... God of War, Socom, Gran Turismo, etc. etc. ...). It's just asine to me that purported gaming fans are so excited to see a gaming company "lose". Irregardless if any facts back it up or not.

It's not a goddamn competition (for the fans at least; and if you don't agree with that, you need to really re-evaluate your priorities as a gamer. Seriously.).

And time after time, what we've seen the past several years is that Sony has driven the industry, yet Microsoft AND Nintendo have still been able to give us the goods.

If Sony is dying, it's a BIG FUCKING DEAL for the industry, and something we should all be concerned about, because they've been selling folks on gaming for a long time. If Microsoft or Nintendo steps up to take their place, AMEN. But in the mean time, we better watch and not try bury the very same people who brought us to where we are today.

[heybtbm]

No more anectdotal evidence; which isn't really evidence at all. I'm sure in Peoria, Wisconsin you have a shitload of PS3s at WalMart. Good for you. I want to know nationwide if they have a shortage or not. Your small-town story (or stories) doesn't really mean shit in terms of nationwide sales.

?

I wouldn't exactly call Madison, WI and it's surrounding cities as a "small town". Also, you can dismiss everything as anecdotal evidence depending on your bias.

[petewhitley]

?

I wouldn't exactly call Madison, WI and it's surrounding cities as a "small town". Also, you can dismiss everything as anecdotal evidence depending on your bias.


Good. I dismiss EVERYTHING as anectdotal. That's my whole point. Let's see the facts.

[heybtbm]

If Sony is dying, it's a BIG FUCKING DEAL for the industry, and something we should all be concerned about, because they've been selling folks on gaming for a long time.

So what if Sony takes it on the chin this generation? They're not going anywhere. Obviously competition is a good thing for all of us, but Sony isn't going to "die". They just need a reality check (and price drop).

Their main problem (and the reason I started this thread) is that they still don't seem to understand that the average person doesn't want to drop $600+ for a game console.

However...I'll agree that this arguement is getting tired. I'll be buying a PS3 soon enough, as will most nay-sayers on this board. I mainly thought the article was hilarious and needed to be shared with the DP audience.

[cyberfluxor]

I'm going to be dropping $400 next week... on my computer. :)

In my area of around 1.5 million people PS3s are everywhere, same with those Xobx 360s. Wiis on the other hand are freaking impossible to find, anywhere! I can go to a pawn shop and find a stack of PSPs by the dozen. Every few weeks DSs will be in stock but the dissapear fast and don't last on 2nd hand stores shelves for long. It does look grim in my area for Sony, Microsoft though has the supply but have sold a ton of units too, a lot of people at my school have one. Wiis though, they need to ship more, people just can't get enough.

[kaedesdisciple]

I know most people say PS3 sucks-ass but i'm glad i got mine at launch before they take out the "Emotion Engine" like in the UK version. Maybe they already have taken it out for the US versions comming over here now. Never know.:? *_*

No no no, you're spinning it all wrong. What they've done is, um, made the PS3 more, uh, energy efficient, yea that's it. They're concerned about global warming and decided to make their console consume less energy. It's not a removal, it's a feature, they're doing it for all of us. Sony loves us :)

[jajaja]

About BC:

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=23148

Over 1000 PS2 titles, isnt that basicly every PS2 game that got released in Europe?

[heybtbm]

About BC:

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=23148

Over 1000 PS2 titles, isnt that basicly every PS2 game that got released in Europe?

According to the same article only 10% of PS2 games will play. Not sure where they're getting these numbers. My guess is the "1000" games that will work will be a mixture of PS + PS2 titles.

[jajaja]

I cant see anything where it mentions 10%, where does it say?

[p_b]

I cant see anything where it mentions 10%, where does it say?

On Usenet, someone mentioned about 8500 PS2 titles released worldwide, which would mean we're talking about a 12% range. Apparently, about 2500 PS2 were released in Europe (no idea if that's true...), so we're still under 50%. What probably bothers most people is that they're getting something like less than 50%-12% compatibility (depending on your point of view) for more money than the rest of the world...

[jajaja]

On Usenet, someone mentioned about 8500 PS2 titles released worldwide, which would mean we're talking about a 12% range. Apparently, about 2500 PS2 were released in Europe (no idea if that's true...), so we're still under 50%. What probably bothers most people is that they're getting something like less than 50%-12% compatibility (depending on your point of view) for more money than the rest of the world...

Ye, i was thinking about that actually, but since they talk about the PAL launch in this article it wouldnt make sense to make support for US and japanese games for a PAL console since the PS2 part aint region free. 2500 PS2 games in Europe sounds like ALOT, almost too much, but dunno if its true or not.

[XYXZYZ]

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

http://thedefeatists.typepad.com/apoplectic/images/asshole_1.jpg

[heybtbm]

I cant see anything where it mentions 10%, where does it say?

It's a few paragraphs down:

http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/10080/532/

[FantasiaWHT]

I know people think I'm some Sony apologist, but for once I'd like to see some hard data that says the PS3 isn't selling well UNIVERSALLY. No more anectdotal evidence; which isn't really evidence at all. I'm sure in Peoria, Wisconsin you have a shitload of PS3s at WalMart. Good for you. I want to know nationwide if they have a shortage or not. Your small-town story (or stories) doesn't really mean shit in terms of nationwide sales. Don't flame; bring facts.

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.

[jajaja]

It's a few paragraphs down:

http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/10080/532/

Ah.. i thought you ment the article that i linked to, hence the "same article". I think there is over 8000 PS2 games so thats about 10% ye (alittle more), but there isnt that many PAL PS2 games so its logical that they dont make support for these since, as i mentioned, the PS3 aint region free. Less than 3 weeks until it get released here, the list will be avalible then :)

[7th lutz]

I am hoping sony isn't shipping more ps 3's at the kmart my brother works at. The kmart he works at, is in the Milwaukee area and the store is close to a freeway exit. Milwaukee county is not a small area in population for the Midwest area in the united states. If you count the city of Milwaukee and the areas under Milwaukee county like West Allis, brookfield and others I didn't mention have a population over 630,000 people combined. That is alot of people in a county in the Midwest outside of Detroit and chicago.

At the store my brother works at, Ps 3's aren't selling well. There was only 1 ps 3 sold last month, and that was to an employee! In the meantime, there is a high demand for the wii at the store he works at. The Kmart my brother isn't able to meet the customers demand for the wii. The Ds is also selling better the psp is at that store.

What is happening is sony is inflating their ps 3 system shipping numbers numbers when sony increasing their amount of product for making ps 3 systems. They may report those numbers are sold, are really shipped to stores that don't need more ps 3 systems. Sony will have alot of ps3's shipped, but there will be too many ps 3 systems on store shelves or in the store's back room. If sony ships way too many ps 3 systems without the demand for a ps 3, like it appears now, sony could cause a crash or sony's video game division will not exist anymore.

I am saying that a crash could happen due to the fact 2 of the first signs of the video game crash of 1983-1984 was pac-man for the 2600 and E.T for the 2600. Pac-man sold about 7 million copies, but atari shipped around 12 to 15 million copies of the game depending on the source. If sony ships way too many ps 3's, a store will have to cutdown the price from $599.99 to $300.00 for a system due to the fact the store or the wherehouse the ps 3's are being stored will be taking up to much space. A store is capable of lower a price for a ps3 if that is the store could not sell the systems otherwise and no store from that retail has the need for the extra ps3 systems a store has.

[jajaja]

I am hoping sony isn't shipping more ps 3's at the kmart my brother works at.

I would say its more of a question that the store wont take in more units before the others are sold, not just Sony who ships them out. Dont think any stores will take in much more PS3 if they already got the stock full and they are selling at a slow rate.

EDIT: Fixed typo.

[chrisbid]

sony wont go out of business, the worst case scenario is the playstation brand being sold off or spun off into its own company.

their business model requires them to have the biggest piece of market share, and that simply wont happen. in the history of gaming, the only console to dig out of a hole and improve its sales status was the SNES, and that was only toward the end of the 16 bit generation.

[The Plucky Little Ninja]

Don't count Sony out yet. They're certainly taking their hits.. and I'm enjoying every minute of it, but the one factor that's going to decide this generation's winner will be exclusive games and it's looking like there will be less and less of those every year. The loss of MGS 4 could put Sony in serious trouble.

I might as well clarify the reason I'm enjoying hearing all this badmouthing of the PS3. The price is insane. Well, simply don't buy it one might say. Except that if it takes off and does extremely well we're going to have to deal with this for every console gen to come. The way I see it I have a vested interest in seeing the PS3 crash and burn so these companies see what a crap marketing strategy this is. And even if the PS3 does fail it's not going to affect Sony all that much. It took Sega at least 4 failing consoles/add ons before they called it quits.

[petewhitley]

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.

That is laughable. You can't be serious ...

[Mattiekrome]

And apparently a bunch of people have some vested interest in seeing Sony die, because I suppose they haven't given us any good games or anything (... cough ... God of War, Socom, Gran Turismo, etc. etc. ...). It's just asine to me that purported gaming fans are so excited to see a gaming company "lose". Irregardless if any facts back it up or not.

I would love to see them struggle, serves them right for not replacing the laser in my PS2 back when it went all DISK READ ERROR on me many years ago. But the games that they produce are pretty good, I'll give ya that

[whoisKeel]

...

And apparently a bunch of people have some vested interest in seeing Sony die, because I suppose they haven't given us any good games or anything (... cough ... God of War, Socom, Gran Turismo, etc. etc. ...). It's just asine to me that purported gaming fans are so excited to see a gaming company "lose". Irregardless if any facts back it up or not.

It's not a goddamn competition (for the fans at least; and if you don't agree with that, you need to really re-evaluate your priorities as a gamer. Seriously.).

And time after time, what we've seen the past several years is that Sony has driven the industry, yet Microsoft AND Nintendo have still been able to give us the goods.

If Sony is dying, it's a BIG FUCKING DEAL for the industry, and something we should all be concerned about, because they've been selling folks on gaming for a long time. If Microsoft or Nintendo steps up to take their place, AMEN. But in the mean time, we better watch and not try bury the very same people who brought us to where we are today.

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.

And, yes, AS A GAMER I'd like to see Sony take a hit. I want 2D games on my console. I want reasonable pricing, innovation, new controllers, rumble, good online play, Virtual Console/Live/etc. downloads, and pretty consoles.

Maybe I'm just partial, but I never really thought that Sony put out a great piece of gaming hardware. Excellent marketing, and awesome third party support, but mediocre and generic hardware. Hell, I hope Sony proves me wrong, that would impress the gamer in me.

[FantasiaWHT]

That is laughable. You can't be serious ...

Dead serious. I have enough evidence to create a presumption on my side. Is it certain proof? No. It's enough that I will believe it until I see evidence to the contrary. If I saw evidence to the contrary, I would change my mind.

You need to realize that just because something is only supported by anecdotal evidence doesn't mean it's wrong. It's very similar to the idea of correlation vs. causality. You create a strong enough, reproducible enough, clear enough correlation and it becomes accepted as truth unless disproven.

Smoking and lung cancer is a great example. There is only a correlation between the two (nobody has ever done the sort of experimentation on people necessary to prove causation), but the link is accepted scientific canon. Same thing with anecdotal evidence- if there is enough of it, it becomes accepted truth until proven otherwise.

[petewhitley]

You need to realize that just because something is only supported by anecdotal evidence doesn't mean it's wrong. It's very similar to the idea of correlation vs. causality. You create a strong enough, reproducible enough, clear enough correlation and it becomes accepted as truth unless disproven.

Smoking and lung cancer is a great example. There is only a correlation between the two (nobody has ever done the sort of experimentation on people necessary to prove causation), but the link is accepted scientific canon. Same thing with anecdotal evidence- if there is enough of it, it becomes accepted truth until proven otherwise.

I don't know where you obtained your views on the scientific method (and in particular, the role anecdotal evidence plays), but you're waaaaaay off-base (for the record, I have a minor in statistics). Anecdotal evidence NEVER becomes "accepted truth until proven otherwise" in this day and age. YOU personally may choose to believe anecdotal evidence as "the truth", but no-one with even a passing interest in modern science would "accept" such a notion. That's such a backwards, backwoods idea I wouldn't even know where to begin to correct you, other than to say you need a refresher course in the very basics of the scientific method.


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.

While there doesn't exist ANY hard data on how many PS3s are sitting on store shelves, there is hard data showing that Sony has shipped and continues to ship an impressive number of PS3s to North American retailers. Since your claim is contradictory to the established data, YOUR PRESUMPTION of lackluster PS3 demand & sales places the burden of truth solely on the claimant. Simple as that.

[scorch56]

To the people speaking of stores lowering prices on PS3s.. it isn't going to happen. Sony consoles are fair trade items and they have been since the beginning. No single store can lower the price of a fair trade item (Levi jeans used to be fair trade until the 80's.. they cost the same everywhere until then.. NEVER went on sale.). Prices on the PS3 won't be lowered until Sony issues an edict and gives their permission and that's not going to happen anytime soon. The way their corporate mentality works they'd rather eat their own words and keep making hardware that nobody is buying than admit.. not necessarily "defeat".. but that the way they are going is wrong.

Having said that.. stores ARE allowed to bundle extra items (as in more games or accessories) and sell THAT at a discounted price as long as they DON'T go below the price of the base unit itself. So many might end up going that route soon (some already are). Believe me.. no one would like to see a price drop more than me.. but I'm not holding my breath. If a "rogue" store decides to simply lower the price and sell what they've got, reprisals would come from Sony in the form of not allowing them to sell their product anymore. Hmmm.. this would be maybe a way out for some smaller retail units but I doubt any would take the risk.. besides.. they can always simply stop ordering them.

[Griking]

While there doesn't exist ANY hard data on how many PS3s are sitting on store shelves, there is hard data showing that Sony has shipped and continues to ship an impressive number of PS3s to North American retailers.

Yeah but Pete, nobody cares how many PS3 units Sony has shipped, especially if most of them are still sitting on store shelves. The only number that really matters is how many consumers are buying a PS3

[c0ldb33r]

Same here - PS3's on shelves, but no Wiis.

It all comes down to price. Sony will decrease their price eventually. It happens with every generation, which is why a PS2 costs less than now than it did initially. Down the road a bit, there will be a price drop, and when there is, I'll consider getting one.

If there's a price drop when Final Fantasy XIII hits, then it's a no-brainer :D

[petewhitley]

Yeah but Pete, nobody cares how many PS3 units Sony has shipped, especially if most of them are still sitting on store shelves. The only number that really matters is how many consumers are buying a PS3

I realize that, but my point is that no one has any hard data on how many PS3s are actually sitting on store shelves. The ONLY hard data we have is on shipment numbers, and any evaluations have to come out of those numbers, not what Joe Blow saw at Target last weekend. No matter what your preference is, almost everyone should be able to agree that there is currently a bias against Sony on this board. So what we end up hearing are all these crazy stories about how their local store has 23 PS3s stacked up for sale. Well honest-to-buddha, my local WalMart has been sold out continuously since launch. It means jack in terms of national sales, but I say it to illustrate that we all have different experiences in terms of finding the PS3 on store shelves. We hear from the naysayers FAR more than anyone else; these guys have some crazy holier-than-thou chip on their shoulders. The pathetic thing about it is most of them are young punks who weren't even around for the NES years ...

[Mattiekrome]

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?

Granted there are no hard #'s to back up anyone's argument here, but it seems that the "general population" as a whole seems to think the PS3 isn't selling as good as Sony had hoped.

[jajaja]

* High price of system ($500-600). This is the big reason IMO. Looking back, there have been several 'high-end' gaming systems that failed to sell in large numbers (CD32, CD-I, 3DO, Neo Geo...), and price was the biggest contributing factor with all of them. Sony decided to ignore history, and now they're realizing what a costly mistake it was.

I agree that the price has much to do with slow sale of PS3, but the other system you mention, there is much more to it than the price that made them "fail". Before there were much more competition. Other things are lack of really popular exlucive titles, price of the games (atleast Neo Geo games, insane high), they didnt have any successors, they were "unknown". Everone knows Sony and Playstation. Today gaming is also alot bigger than back then, probly mostly because of the internet. Today there is also less competition, only 3 big companies on the console marked.

Also, about the price on those systems. Here is what they cost and how much money it is today:

3do = $699.95 (~$950)
CD32 = $399.99 (~$540)
CD-I = about $700 (~$1000)
Neo Geo = $649.99 (~$970)

So only the CD32 had about the same price as PS3 got.

[jajaja]

Sure you can. It wouldnt be correct to say i.e "Neo Geo was just the same price as PS3" because you must consider the value of the money back then compared to todays value if you want compare prices. I'm just showing what the price for those consoles was compared to todays money value because you mentioned that they failed because of the high price (well, a factor atleast). They were much more expencive than the PS3, except CD32, but that was unfortunatly discontunied about a year later due to Commodore's bankruptcy. Btw, those 4 systems are from the 90s (Neo Geo being the oldest from 1990) ;)

The prices are set where i live. Cheapest i've seen is PS3 + Call of Duty 3 for about $975. The games are about $97 each. Still there seem to be big interest for it. Only 3 more weeks and we will see how things go in Europe. Looking forward to it :)

[mailman187666]

I say for the games that the PS3 has available for it as of right now (not a whole lot), the high price point, and the negetive press that its getting, it seems to be selling quite well. When Virtua Fighter 5 came out a couple weeks ago, I actually had to go to a couple stores just to find the last remaining copy at an EB. Every time I go into some of those stores, I also see people looking through the PS3 section. I think there is bigger demand than what the analists and press would say. I personally have a demand for it and look foward to seeing whats next to come for the PS3. It is fun and has lots of great features to it. I think a lot of the reasoning behind the bashing on PS3 has to do with kids who don't make enough money (or even have jobs) to afford a $600 system and they have parents that tell them to get lost when they ask for it for x-mas or birthdays. So by saying how bad it sucks, this helps make the kid accept the fact they will not be getting a PS3. I'm not saying its the case with anybody in these message boards, but you've got to admit that has something to do with it.

[exit]

We've had the same PS3 sitting in the back room for about a month now, there were 3 but apparently someone from inside the store managed to steal two them.

I just think that nobody really wants a PS3, sure they'd like to have it, people just don't want to throw down that kind of money.

[FantasiaWHT]

Sure you can. It wouldnt be correct to say i.e "Neo Geo was just the same price as PS3" because you must consider the value of the money back then compared to todays value if you want compare prices.

While your general assertion is correct, it's a bit disingenuous to try and give exact numbers, because inflation is an average, taken from all sectors of the economy. While I don't have exact numbers as to the rate of inflation in consumer electronics compared to the average rate of inflation, it's misleading to simply apply the average inflation rate and say it shows that those video game systems were actually much more expensive than PS3.

In fact, I would argue that there's some evidence video games in particular have not increased in price over the long term- First, video games follow 5-year cycles of DECREASING in price- both the average price of the system (price cuts) and games (greatest hits and more budget titles at the end of the system's life). Second, even over the longer term, the average price of consoles at launch has only increased slowly (before the recent generation)

Of course, none of this disputes the argument that you can't flat out claim that a $500 system then is the same price as a $500 system now, but can't flat out claim what the price difference is based on average inflation.

[petewhitley]

The PSP has all but gone down in flames (The UMD side of it certainly has) - shame, b/c it's a cool little system, but a lot of cool systems have died horribly quick deaths...

So if Sony has any desire to try and stop the PS3 bleeding, they need to act FAST.

Jesus, this stuff never stops. First, go over to the "DS vs. PSP" thread, and read up on some of the facts and cold, hard data regarding the worldwide success, yes, SUCCESS, of the PSP. (One more time, this is not opinion, all available data supports this. Except of course goofball forum posts that buy into the Cult-of-Nintendo hype machine.)

Secondly, "So if Sony has any desire to try and stop the PS3 bleeding, they need to act FAST" ... WTF? I'm pretty sure that's just a knee-jerk reaction, because you can't honestly be that short-sighted in regards to the gaming market. Can you?

[jajaja]

Of course, none of this disputes the argument that you can't flat out claim that a $500 system then is the same price as a $500 system now, but can't flat out claim what the price difference is based on average inflation.

Well.. its hard to know the exact value, thats why i used ~, which means aprox. I used a calculator i found online for it. I just wanted to show if you were going to buy a CD-I with todays money back in 1991 you had to use about $1000. Im not sure what you mean with the last thing you said, can you explain it more/different?

[jajaja]

My point is, none of the systems I listed would have sold today for the prices you listed. But let's apply your formula in reverse. Would a PS3 sell for half as much back then? No. With respect to console prices, you can't really do that kind of comparison. As long as there's competition in the marketplace, companies will continue to launch systems in a fixed price range, which means 10 years from now console prices will likely be very close to what they are now.

Why cant you compare it like that? About how well the PS3 had done it 15 years ago is impossible to say. If the PS3 was $350 or something (equal to todays value) 15 years ago and was a top notch system + had alot of damn great games, im sure it would sell pretty well.

[petewhitley]

@petewhitley
There's nothing 'short-sighted' about it. The video game market is a fairly predictable beast by now, and history has shown the PS3 is too damn expensive to succeed, so unless Sony decides to make some hard decisions on how to change course (ex. dropping the price or making a cheaper version of the console), they're going to lose a large chunk of the market to Nintendo and MS. No company makes a profit selling systems, but how much $ is Sony losing per system now... with a $600 system? They've made some rather terrible business moves in the past few years with other products, but I think this time their own hubris has finally caught up to them with the PS3.

As for the PSP, I stick by my comments. All I've been hearing and reading about the past few months has been DS DS DS. The UMD side of the PSP is definitely dead! You want facts? A friend of mine works for Digital Deluxe (the office in Moosic, PA to be exact) - a company that was making UMD-format movies. I say "was" because they dropped support of the format last year due to low sales (i.e. no money in it). And wasn't the fact that the PSP could play movies a major selling point? They offered a handful of movies at launch, so I would tend to think 'yes'.

I don't think you're sticking by your comments at all. You're backtracking from your original comments, in which you claimed the PSP has "gone down in flames". UMD is dead, but the PSP isn't. No one is disputing that fact. You also claimed that Sony needs to stop the PS3 "bleeding ... FAST", as if several months into a console launch means anything long-term. Now you're saying they're going to lose a "large chunk of the market". Which is it? Those are both dramatically different statements, with very different long-term consequences for the industry.

And finally, it's asinine to call me a "diehard Sony fan". I grew up in the age of Atari, Intellivision, and Coleco. The NES raised me after that. I've owned just about every system, and enjoy them all. I'm a fan of "gaming", not companies, and it's ass-backwards for you guys to get excited at the thought of a prominent gaming company failing in the marketplace. I've said this before: it ain't a goddamn competition if you're a real fan of the hobby. It is if you're trying to be some forum cool-guy I suppose ...

[petewhitley]

And wasn't the fact that the PSP could play movies a major selling point? They offered a handful of movies at launch, so I would tend to think 'yes'.

This argument is particularly ridiculous. The PSP still supports video via Memory Stick. Regardless, the sales of the PSP have INCREASED since launch, so whether or not Sony felt UMD movies were a selling point is irrelevant, as consumers are obviously in a post-UMD world purchasing the PSP mainly for gaming. A particular feature being under-utilized means nothing in terms of whether a product is successful or not when that feature was obviously not that important to the grand majority of said product's consumers.

[Griking]

Also, about the price on those systems. Here is what they cost and how much money it is today:

3do = $699.95 (~$950)
CD32 = $399.99 (~$540)
CD-I = about $700 (~$1000)
Neo Geo = $649.99 (~$970)



I'm not saying that I doubt you but what do you base these numbers on?

also, didn't the Atari 2600 debut at $200-$250, the same price as the Wii?

[FantasiaWHT]

Well.. its hard to know the exact value, thats why i used ~, which means aprox. I used a calculator i found online for it. I just wanted to show if you were going to buy a CD-I with todays money back in 1991 you had to use about $1000. Im not sure what you mean with the last thing you said, can you explain it more/different?

Well, your calculations use an inflation rate of around 40% since those systems came out (I realize they didn't all come out at the same time). Inflation isn't even across all sectors of the economy though. Some sectors might grow at a rate of 80% over that time, some might have only grown at 5%.

All this means is that while you can reliable say "The 3DO that cost $700 way back when would cost more in today's dollars," it's misleading to say "Based on the average rate of inflation, that same 3DO is worth $1,000 in today's dollars".

You would need to do some serious research and determine the rate of consumer electronics inflation for each year since a system's release. Or even a more narrow sample (video games) if that would be possible.

[jajaja]

Well, your calculations use an inflation rate of around 40% since those systems came out (I realize they didn't all come out at the same time). Inflation isn't even across all sectors of the economy though. Some sectors might grow at a rate of 80% over that time, some might have only grown at 5%.

All this means is that while you can reliable say "The 3DO that cost $700 way back when would cost more in today's dollars," it's misleading to say "Based on the average rate of inflation, that same 3DO is worth $1,000 in today's dollars".

You would need to do some serious research and determine the rate of consumer electronics inflation for each year since a system's release. Or even a more narrow sample (video games) if that would be possible.

No, because the value of the money is the same. I'm talking if you want to exchange todays money with the money 15 years ago. Back in 1990 $700 was worth the same as $1000 today. That will still be the same no matter what.

I know what you're saying tho. You say that there might be other factors to what a console would cost today compared to back then, which is true. Im not saying that a CD-i would cost $1000 today if it was released today, but if you had to work 150 hours to make $1000 in 1990 you would only have to work 100 hours today to make the same amount if you know what im saying. I'm just talking about the value of the money, nothing else.

[Berserker]

The PS3's aren't selling very well at all, it's definitely a harsh reality for Sony. On the bright side, is the fact that a few huge game releases can change all that very quickly.

It would appear to be a reality Sony is not yet ready to face, judging by these ridiculous press releases coming out lately. It's as if they're saying the sky is green, the sky is green, the sky is green, and hoping for everybody not to walk outside and look up. Motorstorm is an eye-catcher, and I was impressed when I played the demo, but I have my doubts as to how significant an impact its release will really have on bottom-line sales. Sony is going to need a HUGE game to recover from this. Likely several. Will this happen? Only time will tell, but I will say this -- if they believe their own press releases as much as we do, they're probably scrambling to pull out an Ace right this very moment. Madly. And this is what they should be doing.

Also my other wonder is, do we need to supply hard data every time we want to have a compelling discussion? Or must we all be statistical analysts to have a valid opinion? This is nothing but opinion and conjecture based on on-hand facts and personal experience. That doesn't mean it's not worth talking about.

[petewhitley]

Also my other wonder is, do we need to supply hard data every time we want to have a compelling discussion? Or must we all be statistical analysts to have a valid opinion? This is nothing but opinion and conjecture based on on-hand facts and personal experience. That doesn't mean it's not worth talking about.

You don't need hard data to merely discuss gaming. But you do have a responsibility to provide hard data if you're making broad proclamations of sales success/failure, which is unfortunately what quite a few members at DP do when it comes to any system not made by Nintendo or named "Dreamcast".

If someone is going to claim that the PSP is "going down in flames" while NPD research shows that it has since launch been virtually neck-and-neck with the DS in North America, they sure as hell ought to have some reason to make this contradictory claim other than "the Gamestop I work can't give ours away!!1!". It's an insult to our intelligence.

As a working adult, I can afford a variety of gaming systems, and I don't take any joy whatsoever at the thought of one of them dying. A lot of guys around here do. As a life-long gaming fan, I can't understand why these kids are so invested in seeing Sony fail. Sony has brought gaming to the masses with incredible success, and as gamers we should respect that legacy just as much as the legacy of Nintendo. Hot Topic peddles NES t-shirts to hipsters and kids who weren't even alive in '83; apparently it's the "cool" thing to rag on Sony. Pathetic.

[badinsults]

People who use inflation to justify the high cost of the PS3 do not understand economics. Video game consoles typically have a lifespan of 5-6 years, over which period the price of the consoles decrease significantly. So in reality, video game console pricing follows a sawtooth pattern of pricing. Sony has bucked the trend by offering a console that is over $200 more than the typical peak of the sawtooth. On that same token, the price for games has remained almost steady in the past 15 or so years, with only a slight drop in prices in the mid 90s when the advent of cds came about.


So there you go, you see why inflation does not apply to video games.

[jajaja]

People who use inflation to justify the high cost of the PS3 do not understand economics. Video game consoles typically have a lifespan of 5-6 years, over which period the price of the consoles decrease significantly. So in reality, video game console pricing follows a sawtooth pattern of pricing. Sony has bucked the trend by offering a console that is over $200 more than the typical peak of the sawtooth. On that same token, the price for games has remained almost steady in the past 15 or so years, with only a slight drop in prices in the mid 90s when the advent of cds came about.


So there you go, you see why inflation does not apply to video games.

What is there to understand? Point is that you had crazy ass expencive consoles before that were much more expencive than the PS3. PS3 is far from the only console that had high price compared to the competitors. If you had a time machine and had to buy early 90s money, you have to pay more for less. If you want $700 in 1990 money you must pay $1000 of todays money.

Btw, the prices for games have gone down over the years, atleast where i live. The price for PC CD-ROM games is cheaper today. Its about the same pricetag now as it was for 15 years ago, some are even cheaper. And as said, money were worth less before :)

[jajaja]

People who use inflation to justify the high cost of the PS3 do not understand economics. Video game consoles typically have a lifespan of 5-6 years, over which period the price of the consoles decrease significantly. So in reality, video game console pricing follows a sawtooth pattern of pricing. Sony has bucked the trend by offering a console that is over $200 more than the typical peak of the sawtooth. On that same token, the price for games has remained almost steady in the past 15 or so years, with only a slight drop in prices in the mid 90s when the advent of cds came about.


So there you go, you see why inflation does not apply to video games.

What is there to understand? I dont see anyone who have justified the PS3 price, all i've seen is comparing, where and who justified it? Point is that you had crazy ass expencive consoles before that were much more expencive than the PS3. PS3 is far from the only console that had high price compared to the competitors. If you had a time machine and had to buy early 90s money, you have to pay more for less. If you want $700 in 1990 money you must pay $1000 of todays money.

Btw, the prices for games have gone down over the years, atleast where i live. The price for PC CD-ROM games is cheaper today. Its about the same pricetag now as it was for 15 years ago, some are even cheaper. And as said, money were worth less before :)

[Mattiekrome]

PS3's are so mainstream though. You can pick one up at pretty much any of the big box stores. I can never recall a time when I walked into a Wal-Mart or K-Mart and checked out the NEO-GEO games. I'm 28 and have yet to see a NEO-GEO in person, and I've been in my fair share of gaming stores. IMO, I would say that the NEO-GEO had a totally different target audience than the PS3, but then again, times have changed ALOT since then.

Now that I think of it, I remember my old bro-in-law buying a 3DO when they first came out, but hell I cant remember where he got it from. I dont recall seeing any 3DO stuff in Wal-Mart either.

[jajaja]

That game companies don't sell consoles for what they're worth, but rather what the consumer expects. This is *not* the norm how most every other company sells their products (ex. you won't see automotive companies selling cars and trucks for less than it cost to make them, and if they do you better believe they're gonna make it up somewhere else, like with next year's model). Console makers make their $ with software, period. They always have, mainly because technology has a nasty habit of becoming obsolete very quickly (and because the console is worthless without software ;) ). As someone else mentioned, the launch price slowly comes down over time, and this is for a number of reasons:

* Cost of manufacturing the console is reduced due to cheaper parts, or via a redesign (consolidating parts, removing parts/features, etc.)
* Company can afford to lower it due to increases profits from software or other areas of their business
* Increased pressure from competitors (i.e. price war, newer systems being introduced, etc.)

True, but i dont think i get my point out the way i mean it. Take i.e Neo Geo, $649 back in 1990. If you only follow the inflation of the money, that would be the same as nearly $1000 today. Of course, as i said earlier, it wouldnt be possible to sell a console for $1000 today. The market and prices of things changes of course.

My dad bought a calculator in Hong Kong in 1974. The pricetag was $125 :o LOL That was actually very cheap back then compared to the prices back home, today that price is insane. Compared to todays value its almost $500. Selling a calculator today for that price, not gonna happend unless its made of gold. So i know you cant compare the prices today and back then since the market changes.

Therefor, i'm not connecting these prices and saying that the PS3 is cheap, because compared to the competitors, the PS3 price is high, just like Neo Geo's price was high compared to the SNES. I just thought it be fun to see how much the expencive consoles back in the early 90s was compared to todays value :)



PS3's are so mainstream though. You can pick one up at pretty much any of the big box stores. I can never recall a time when I walked into a Wal-Mart or K-Mart and checked out the NEO-GEO games. I'm 28 and have yet to see a NEO-GEO in person, and I've been in my fair share of gaming stores. IMO, I would say that the NEO-GEO had a totally different target audience than the PS3, but then again, times have changed ALOT since then.

Now that I think of it, I remember my old bro-in-law buying a 3DO when they first came out, but hell I cant remember where he got it from. I dont recall seeing any 3DO stuff in Wal-Mart either.

Good point. I also mention something about this, the consoles like Neo Geo and CD-i was pretty much unknown the general crowd, one factor that made them "fail". Today everyone knows the word Playstation, and that alone is enough to sell a fair share of consoles. "Its a Playstation, is has to be good, i'm buying it" :)

[badinsults]

It should be noted that inflation doesn't have anything to do with "value for money". It has everything to do with the cost of prices going up to offset manufacturing costs and turn a profit. The fact is, computers and electonics cost less now than they did 20 years ago without taking into account inflation. You also see this fact in the sawtooth pattern of videogame console prices. You can't compare apples and oranges. You can't compare something like the price of gasoline and the price of a video game console. They are completely different things. Inflation is just a general average of price increases across a wide range of products, but that doesn't tell you anything about how much a video game console should cost.

[jajaja]

It does. When the salary goes up, so does the prices. The pricetag on houses today are much bigger than the pricetag 20 years ago, why is that? Because we make more money. If the prices stayed the same and we just got higher and higher paychecks we would buy stuff like crazy. Therefor the prices must also follow.

There are exceptions of course, like PC games and games in generaly (atleast where i live), but you got to look at the bigger picture. No one have compared apples and oranges either, atleast not what i can see :) About the price on consoles, well.. goes for anything, they take what they can get.

[FantasiaWHT]

I don't know about PC games, but console game prices have definitely gone up :)

Up until the release of X360 a year and some change ago, prices of games definitely decreased. Look at the 16-bit era. RPG's in particular were usually selling for $70-$80, with some as high as $100 (Phantasy Star IV). Then for two generations, nothing except for collector's editions and some N64 games (which further proves the point about newer technology becoming cheaper) sold for more than $50. If you looked at average new game prices, those decreased on the average as well because of reprints and budget titles.

And jajaja, yes, apples and oranges. Inflation is NOT simply "the value of money". It does not increase evenly across the entire economy. It's an average of all sectors, all goods and services. Houses have increased MUCH more rapidly than the rate of inflation. Gold is almost twice as expensive (~$650 / oz the last time I looked) than it was ten years ago (~$350 / oz). Some things increase much more slowly or even decrease. Consumer electronics decrease rapidly in cost (how much did a DVD player cost 8 years ago?). Food increases much slower than the rate of inflation.

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.

If you don't understand that, please go take a basic economics course somewhere before you try to make these arguments.