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

[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

[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.