PS3 Losing More Money Than PS2 Made

[megasdkirby]

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

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

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

[Oobgarm]

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

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

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

[megasdkirby]

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

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

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

[Sergeant Sega]

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

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

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

THINK, gamers.

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

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

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

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

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

[swlovinist]

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

[Kid Ice]

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

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

[Sudo]

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

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

[geneshifter]

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

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

[The 1 2 P]

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

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

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

[Kid Ice]

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

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

[digitalpress]

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

i want the business model to fail, not the company

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

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

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

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

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

[josekortez]

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

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

[The 1 2 P]

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

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

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

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

[digitalpress]

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

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

[Graham Mitchell]

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

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

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

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

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

[Raedon]

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

[Raedon]

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

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

[Nature Boy]

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

Take a marketing course.

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

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

[megasdkirby]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[esquire]

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

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

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

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

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