Marcus Dyson of spong has an opinion piece up detailing why the PlayStation 3 is '*bleep*ed', unless they get on a price drop pronto. With the Xbox 360 offering what it does for the price is it does, does he have a point?
Full thing at the source.
I have been accused of being a Sony Fanboy. I resent the assertion. It is not true.
What is true is that I think Microsoft has often behaved in a way that has been anti-competitive, has exploited its desktop monopoly, and has acted against the interest of consumers. I think it has subverted good technology to further the interest of its own (sometimes) inferior technology.
I also think that anyone having a monopoly in the video games console market and, more importantly, in the content delivery channel, would be against the interest of gamers, and ultimately of all consumers.
So that's the context for you when I say this:
PlayStation is *bleep*ed.
When the PS3 costs £300 for the console alone, and you can buy this bundle for under £200, unless Sony does something drastic, and does it soon, they are royally screwed.
That package, in case Game deletes it or sells out contains an Xbox 360 Premium 60Gb, Gears of War, Gears of War 2, Far Cry 2, SEGA Tennis and PGR4. A console with a hard drive, and five quality games for under, for well under £200.
News story attached to:
Comments
that puts it in between the premium 360 and the elite which is sitting at £369
http://www.game.co.uk/lowdown.aspx?lid=5789&cm_sp=x360-_-topnav-_-bundles
Hell, if Sony had the technology, they could have just made a separate Blu-Ray player. I understand they wanted to introduce the format to their consumers, but I think in the long run it reduced the PS3's options.. since lowering the price further would just become too much of a loss.
Sony keeps saying they're in it for the long haul, that the PS3 will catch on and come out on top. I dunno if this is true or just the executives doing damage control, but I'm curious to see which way it goes a year or two from now.
Now you can say it wasn't much of a war, and frankly it wasn't. Blu-ray got the lions share of the publishers before the war even started. Everyone still expected it to last much longer though, predictions were that it would still be going on today and we would only be half way through. HD-DVD just folded over faster because it have no support from the industry.
And Microsoft was never really vested in HD-DVD. They just figured they needed to be part of the war. So they picked a side, I think in part simply because Sony was on the other side. Microsoft didn't care who won and that's why they didn't push HD-DVD harder.
Sony on the other hand was a primary player in the creation of Blu-ray. They had a vested interest in the success of the format. And because of that they pushed it and pushed it hard. And the PS3 was the senter peice of that push.
Same for the HD wars. Wasn't much of a war.
Eloquently put.
Agreed entirely.
Um, I dont think the PS3 will come out on top. It might end up in a "good situation", but I think the Wii has sucked everyone in and the 360 has too much going for it. Not to say I dont wish Sony the best, its just..I dont know. I cant not think of the PS3 as for a minority audience (as compared to the other two), that being people with lots of cash and a need for the best film tech.
I really couldn't care less about it Blu-Ray or HDDVDs. I'm pretty happy with the 360's Netflix service, since I'm not much of a movie buff.
Yeah, I agree. And since the PS3 has Netflix too now its all kind of hilarious.
Secondly, I don't know what's with all the pessimism on the PS3. It just getting on its good foot, and it's just past two years. TWO YEARS. 360 hit its own stride on its second year, why is it wrong for the PS3 to be doing the same? And just because some dude says the PS3 needs a price cut now, doesn't mean it's the best idea. Would you rather the PS3 be super-affordable but be backed by a company getting themselves in the hole, or a console just a tiny tiny bit expensive with a company aiming to get back losses?
The 360 only came down to its current price within the last year. To be asking a price cut this early for PS3 and have it go down THAT low is asking too much.
Now, Sony is in a bit of a pickle because they have the most costly console to make while and can't cut back on the cost without making a loss. Microsoft, on the other hand, has a MUCH cheaper system to make. Though it was losing money to begin with, the parts have become cheaper and production has become more efficient.
Sony is doing well for themselves in other areas, but America is a huge market. Seeing next year's titles, I don't think Sony will have a problem moving consoles.
Microsoft does have a cheaper console, yeah. But with the RROD, for every console they sell they pretty much need to give another away, so they're not exactly 1000x better than Sony as far as it being expensive as hell to produce.
I'm in agreeance with you then.
From the several store managers I know personally, all "new" 360's sold have a n average of 3% return rate, sometimes less in some areas.
Where as the earlier model, mainly the first model and it's subsequent repaired units, are THE ones coming back.
SO saying ALL 360's are doomed to failure is a complete misconception actually. As is the Sony droppingthier RRP.
They simply CAN NOT DROP it . . As their CEO Sir Howrd Stringer has publicly stated, the PS3 will NEVER see a profit in its lifetime . . and they will look at "other means" to get the platform back in the "black"
The Playstation 3 is the only section of Sony that is in the red, and last Qtr saw it in the red by $US3.2 bil (for the QUARTER) not the year.
This is primarily due to the entire fact that a 'certain" Sony PS evangalist made "HIS" (Ken K) style of console and ignored even the CEO of Sony to NOT do things. He basically told his staff not to reply to emails and also ignor any input Sony US was giving them.
He even ignored an order NOT to change the first 20gig PS3, and upped the specs and dropped the price BEFORE release . .Something Sony Corp could NOT go back on once it was made public. Forcing them to sell the unit at a huge loss. Not too mention the loss each PS3 has, and continues to have.
MS arenot doing anything underhanded by droppingprices. They are working within a white paper they constructed in 2002/03 where they planed on having the 360 break even in early '08 and have new motherboards and construction to allow the units to be made at a profit by that years end. Those papers were designed in late '02 and released in August '03 when they were PLANNING the 360 as they released the 1st-Gen Xbox.
Yes, the 360 was on the drawing boards that early. So was the PS3. For some 'real' details of the goings on of both MS and Sony on their gaming platforms, you need to read both Dean Takahashi's books on the xbox and the 360, plus his 6 page report on the stuff up that was the first model Xbox 360.
He tells it like it was/is, and had full access to all memos, and in-house meeting tapes and sat in on many of those meeting. Interviewed ppl from Sony, MS Xbox Div,and Nintendio for the books and reports. The first one being release in 2002 and the 360 one being released in 2005.
Sony simply can not do it "this console" . .that's why they are currently working on the PS4 in Germany, so they can keep the ps3, but bring in a cheaper playstation to sell to the masses that will allow them greater appeal at a price-point that will fit in with the other two platforms. But will it be too late.
As it's not earmarked for at least 2 more years, by then, MS will have the x720 on shelves alongside the 360, which will be at rock bottom prices, no Arcade mode, or if there is, it'll have the 20gig HDD fitted as standard and a 250gig on the Elite style model with the Unified CPU/GPU called Valhalla due out LATE '09 or mid (first Qtr) 2010.
If Sony dropped their price now, their shares would fall faster than a truck off a 50 story building, as investors moved to other investments. Staying as they are, albeit losing $$, they are at least keeping the shareholder happy - of sorts, while working on a rebuilding plan in the background.
Their way out will not be how manythink it will be. . .
Gamers haveto realize that these companies are NOT HERE TO MAKE YOU HAPPY every morning you wake up. They are not in business to lose money, but to make money. They rely on investors funding future products and R&D, without which, ALL companies, Publishers and Dev studios would simply fold up shop and go work for the council in their area.
They do not wake up and think, how can I make young Jonyy in the US/UK/Aust happy this morning by givinghim a game console cheaper thatn we can manafacture it, or give them games for less than it costs us to make develope and distribute them for.
No, shock horror, they are in business (operative word being BUSINESS) to make the money which is perfectly fine, as that is what businesses do, and WE, that is you and I rely on every single day of the year.
Fact is, the RROD costed them a shit load. The failure rate is much lower now, I know. I was just trying to be simple, I guess I generalized it too much. Not every 360 will fail. Either way, whatever the loss is for every PS3 sold, it's hard to beat how MS has been forced (to ignore an even worse rep) to replace so many 360's free of charge. I remember reading some huge number as to how much cash MS lost because of it. People seem to think that Sony is the only one hurting when it comes to selling the console itself, when really that isn't the case. That was my only point.
And while I say the PS4 will be different and cheaper. It is that they will be able to produce it straight off the bat with cheaper production and small components. Even if they introduced them into this gen PS3, they still could not pull it back from the brink it is on.
If one has a business why a model simply is overblown financially, it makes no business sense to invest more into it. One needs to refinethe item and come out with a better - but cheaper model. It's a consumer perception thing more than anything else.
The 'average; consumer, not you or I, see's a touched up product as just that, not quite as good as it originally was/is. However, make anew version, and they will buy it. Look at Nindy . They do the complete opposite of all platforms. They come out with a new console or item every few years, NOT every 5 years.
And guess what, the public buys them up at a faster rate than the previous iteration. They generally see it as a 'refinement on the older model, and are willing to put their money on that, rather than the older one with tweaks to make it suit the market.
If you check MS-Xbox DIv's White paper called XE 30 (i'm sure it's that) which was released in Aug 2003, you'll see their financial plan which at the time, allowed for - wait for it - an estimated $US6,2 bil loss if the worse-case senario was to happen.
If the opposit occured according to their paper, the unit wouldbe making a production proft by early '08 and making retail profit in order for them to drop the RRP to well below what they introduced it at, even with refinements and new internals.
So basically they are on track with that, albeit with the huge blowout that was/is the RROD.
The MAIn reason there was a RROD in the first place wasn't due to poor design. In fact, the design "initially" worked flawlessly at room temps between just above freezing to almost 50 deg Cel. A whole room of them working away without a problem.
They all were fitted with a water/liquid cooling system. The Bean counters at MS Corp got hold of the figures, and said well, if we remove this water cooler, we can trim $XX off the production costs and come in faster. The Xbox team did NOT want it out, but it was taken out. Which was later re-installed with the new falcon motherboards during repairs of the items under return policies
The main reason the MB's failed and cracked was that the watercooler held the MB's down and had a base that held the whole thing in place much more securely than without it when it was hot. So that without the Watercooler, the board flexed, cracked the solder, and bingo, we have problems Huston.
So IF they had not of done that really stupid thing, theywould have reached their higher sales figures faster, andnothad to shell out the huge, but not huge enough replacement policies they had to. Remembering that that figure poured into the replacements and 3 yr extended warranties is still well below their estimated, and budgeted $US6.2 bil figure they planed for in a worse case senario.
Hope that explains it a little better.??
Also FYI PS4 is going to have the same stuff the PS3 has, Cell, and Blu-ray, the only thing is, the system and cell is going to be more powerful but cheaper when the system launches. That I know has been officially stated by Sony, if you think I'm lying check the PS3 general forum and find the threads started by me, its in there. Here I helped you out with the link.
Everything else I do agree with though.
I guess I should learn to expect as much by now.
Sorry, was just pointing out the utter stupidity of claiming your opinion as fact.
The last thing I wanna do is get enemies, no matter how bad I am at doing it.
This news story is archived and is closed to comments now.