[scooby_dooby]

*This thread was spawned from the NPD thread.*

Originally Posted by Nesh

None of the points you brought are explained necessarily by arrogance.
Shifty explained you the possible reasons in his posts already.

Unpredictable events and lack of conservatism

Holy moly, some people can spin anything!!

Sony was arrogant yes, why? They actually thought they could sell a $600 console!!

Call that whatever you will, arrogance, overconfidence, stupidity, whatever label you want to slap onto it... it's all the same thing. The entire premise of their strategy is built around over-confidence/arrogance (err...I mean lack of conservatism ).

[Johnny Awesome]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

But they had been creating those tools for decades! They are ported over in substantial part from the PC space. Looking at some of the hardware specific stuff that MS had to create for the platform, like libraries for predicated tiling, they were late to the party.

Or...perish the thought...creating tools is actually quite hard? It's not like PS3 launched into a vacuum of tools. Sony provide a vastly superior development platform to the PS2, bought in know-how, and have continued to provide support for what's a difficult platform. Considering they aren't a software company like MS, and haven't been focussed on creating OSes and development tools for the past 10+ years, they aren't doing too badly. Sure it can be better, but then MS's hardware reliability could be better. You don't expect everyone to get everything right 100% of the time. At least you shouldn't.

Actually to a degree they could have. Design of these systems is a long-term process with some basis on predictions. Design of Cell began in 2000, long before even 90nm was available. When choosing to go with Cell and RSX, Sony may have had an expectation that 65nm would be available at launch in 2006, and Blue Laser production would be cost effective. They designed the hardware perhaps with the expectation of a $400 price (which has been achieved with efficient BRD production and 65nm process availability) but these technologies weren't actually available when they had hoped, and the best they could do was launch at the price they were forced into by over-optimism that could never have accounted for the difficulties chip fabs have had in reaching 65nm.

It would be nice if technology could be designed with a perfect understanding of what's going to happen, and an exact roadmap for n years can be plotted with certainty, but it's just not like that. It's wrong to assume everything that has happened, every choice made, is exactly according to Sony's Grand Master Plan set in motion 5, 6, even 7 years ago. MS aren't incompetant but their hardware kept breaking, costing them a billion dollars. Do you think that was part of their plan? Or do you think their best expectations and forecasts and predictions just didn't pan out how they hoped?

The difference between MS and Sony is that when they make mistakes or things don't go according to plan Sony expects the consumer to bear the costs (BR - $600 PS3) whereas MS expects to pay it themselves (extending the warranty - $1 billion loss). That's the arrogance I'm talking about. Besides how can you argue that Sony isn't arrogant when execs were talking about selling 10 million units without needing any software? Seriously. It's not really a matter of opinion: Sony was arrogrant at the beginning of this generation and MS and Nintendo have taught them a lesson.

[jonabbey]

Originally Posted by Johnny Awesome

The difference between MS and Sony is that when they make mistakes or things don't go according to plan Sony expects the consumer to bear the costs (BR - $600 PS3) whereas MS expects to pay it themselves (extending the warranty - $1 billion loss). That's the arrogance I'm talking about. Besides how can you argue that Sony isn't arrogant when execs were talking about selling 10 million units without needing any software? Seriously. It's not really a matter of opinion: Sony was arrogrant at the beginning of this generation and MS and Nintendo have taught them a lesson.

a) Sony isn't expecting anyone to pay $600 for a PS3 these days. They priced themselves too high for the larger gaming market with too much expensive technology in the box at launch, for sure, but there are plenty of us who actually get a lot of use out of the Blu-Ray player support now, and there's lots more use to come.

b) XBox customers have paid plenty for the hardware failure rates on the 360, in time, hassle, and even additional 360's that a number of people have bought to replace their broken ones without having to wait 6 weeks for a refurb.

c) Sony never talked about selling 10 million units without software.

[TheChefO]

Originally Posted by jonabbey

c) Sony never talked about selling 10 million units without software.

True.

They expected to sell 5 million without software. Either way, it's quite arrogant.

[TheChefO]

I think a simple question here could put this to rest:

What would Sony have done ANYTHING differently if they had no competition at all?












IMO, it would have been very similar to what we saw with ps3:

high price
poor dev tools
proprietary media
very few games

In fact, I think the only thing that may have been different is an even further delayed launch.

[Lycan]

Arrogance doesn't mean anything in business. This is no children play court. Overconfidence, yes. PS1 was a success, and so was the PS2...They thought they had a chance of selling consoles at that price and that the brand would justify such a premium and they were proven quite wrong...
I see no arrogance here. It's not about PR sentences , companies are not human beings...They took decisions based on assumptions they thought wre solid. I can't imagine them overlloking facts for the sake of looking ARROGANT. !!!

[Nesh]

Originally Posted by TheChefO

I think a simple question here could put this to rest:

What would Sony have done ANYTHING differently if they had no competition at all?

IMO, it would have been very similar to what we saw with ps3:

high price
poor dev tools
proprietary media
very few games

In fact, I think the only thing that may have been different is an even further delayed launch.

Hmm? I wouldn't go as far as to say "poor dev tools". It is just harder to develop for I think. Shifty already pointed to you Sony's efforts to provide developers with the necessary tools and help

Sony has nothing to do with the release of few games. Sony's studios alone are making many games. They are just too long in development. Third party developers would have filled PS3 with much more games if there was no competition.

Additionally I see nothing wrong with proprietary media if it contributes positively

Also I doubt there is a company in existence that wouldnt have exploited their position if they were alone.

Lastly it is not like Sony was selling PS3 at a profit. They were selling it at their expense. Even at that price

[ArturNOW]

Originally Posted by TheChefO

True.

They expected to sell 5 million without software. Either way, it's quite arrogant.

It's not arrogant, but true. Sell it as Blu-Ray player even for 1,000$ at the beginning. I think it would be no problem.

I don't think we should every call them arrogant. Ken as other Japanese are of course proud, hard working and I think they put a lot of effort in anything they do. They are also optimistic, but how can you run business if you are not optimistic and sure you're product is a success.

I doubt Sony was aiming with 600$ product. It's Sony that intoduced new business model in the console market that you sell console with loss. The same thing applies to PS3 even if it the most expensive. If Sony would be arrogand they would have set the price at 900-1000$ because there are so sure no matter the price people would buy it.

Sony postponed PS3 launch not because they were arrogant, but because of Blu-Ray diode production problem and I assume Cell production problem. I think they were aiming with 65nm in 2006 when they started designing PS3. It also raised the price, but Sony quickly adjusted the price when production problems were solved. Of course current situation have a lot to do with price drop.

[Nesh]

Originally Posted by scooby_dooby

Holy moly, some people can spin anything!!

Sony was arrogant yes, why? They actually thought they could sell a $600 console!!

Call that whatever you will, arrogance, overconfidence, stupidity, whatever label you want to slap onto it... it's all the same thing. The entire premise of their strategy is built around over-confidence/arrogance (err...I mean lack of conservatism ).

Care to get deeper into this?

[Neb]

Is there really much to discuss here, isn't the past history proof enough of attitudes, trashtalking and false promises?

[betan]

Originally Posted by Nebula

Is there really much to discuss here, isn't the past history proof enough of attitudes, trashtalking and false promises?

The discussion should not be the amount of arrogance as in the thread title, but how that arrogance affected their decision making (PS3 setup, pricing, marketing) and current situation.

I personally don't think the arrogance effected public reception much compared other factors, and regarding Blu-ray and price I guess I'm the only one who cannot imagine how that decision can be a result of arrogance. Those kind of financial decisions aren't typically made without significant market research, very expensive analysis, projection, etc.

[scooby_dooby]

Originally Posted by betan

The discussion should not be the amount of arrogance as in the thread title, but how that arrogance affected their decision making (PS3 setup, pricing, marketing) and current situation.

Well someone created this thread for me, but I would certainly have titled it "How arrogant were sony", since I think think they've been humbled by now.

But that's if I thought it was worth a thread, which I totally don't think it is, I just had to comment on the ridiculous spin I saw going on in the other thread...

I.e. Sony wasn't arrogant, they just had a lack of 'conservatism'!!

COME ON!! What is this, FOX news??

[patsu]

Originally Posted by TheChefO

Ms didn't just wake up with dev tools in their laps. They had to create them.

As Shifty mentioned, MS already has decade of experiences deploying and integrating OS, applications, game APIs and SDKs. The IPs was ported to Xbox 360. Even the HD-DVD layer has its roots on Windows.

Sony could have done the same thing and likewise, they didn't just wake up one day and ps3 was on their desk. Sony's planning for ps3 was slow and passive at a time they couldn't afford to be. That's either incompetence, or arrogance. Given the fact they have orchastrated system launches and hardware before, my bet isn't on incompetent.

... or they could be optimistic. Kutaragi is an engineer at heart. It seems that he simply wants to realize his distributed entertainment platform vision (The same way he wanted to realize the original Playstation vision).

Doesn't have to be incompetent or arrogant to be slow and passive (Why only 2 discrete variables). As I mentioned, complexity could be another reason. Even the best OS players, MS and Apple, have their own fair share of slippage (think "Longhorn" and "Pink").

Again, management had to be involved on what would and wouldn't be included in the box and had to be aware of the BOM and consequent required MSRP when factored in with acceptable losses.

Sure, if they truly believe in the value they can bring, perhaps they genuinely think that it's worth US$599 ? Apple priced its iPhone at $599 too. Are they arrogant too ? Pricing a new product is a multi-million dollar business. It's not that simple.

The BOM cost and price could be estimated early, but the software delay may be the one that pull the rug under their feet.

Sony also went through a management shakeout. It is unclear how much of the original plan stayed intact (e.g., PSP launched at a very reasonable price).

The final product is on the shelf.

Not according to the original vision that was demoed.

Games will get better with time just as they do for all platforms. This isn't exclusive to ps3. In some cases, the cell has more room to grow, but this requires more time/money. Thus, it will be exclusive to a handful of titles, likely from Sony. Even in such cases, the difference between a title maximizing ps3's advantage and the same for xb360 will not be so large as to sway the general consumer.

Evidence? Xbox v ps2

Further, more recent evidence: Wii, DS

Historic examples are indicative but may not be always accurate. The rules have changed somewhat this gen. As I said, we shall see.

As we all should be. Like I've said all along, these guys know a thing or two about hardware. They aren't incompetent, just too arrogant.

They simply bite off more than they can chew. Everyone can make that mistake. You don't have to be arrogant about it.

I also think that you have misunderstood my post. Johnny Awesome mentioned that arrogance disrupted Sony's plans ("Their arrogance was their undoing"). I simply stated that complexity may be the main culprit (In a multi-headed conglomerate amidst management shuffle, there are plenty of room for complexity to creep in, who say it must be arrogance). This is a very different argument from whether Sony is arrogant or not.

People want to label Sony as "arrogant" because they attach their emotion to the high price, and most importantly, some of the Sony execs mishandled PR when the ex-PR head left).

EDIT:

Originally Posted by scooby dooby

Arrogance and overconfidence tend to go hand in hand, I think you're splitting hairs at this point.

Perhaps ! But people can be overconfident because of wrong intellgence/information from vendors or subordinates, unexpected events, and changing climate. Or the final outcome may be a compromise between multiple strong heads. There could be tons of reasons, I will only settle down when that PS3 book arrive... hopefully I can live to see it.

[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by scooby_dooby

Well someone created this thread for me, but I would certainly have titled it "How arrogant were sony", since I think think they've been humbled by now.

I agree with that. Some of their statements were outright stupid and they deserve any negative consequences of them, but...

I.e. Sony wasn't arrogant, they just had a lack of 'conservatism'!!

...I disagree that absolutely everything about PS3 is spawned of Sony arrogance, which is TheChefO's take. I think that's a criminal simplification of the process of designing and building a console with tools and software. Sony spent billions of dollars in making this thing, including a budget that had to take into consideration the rest of the company's products - they couldn't throw unlimited resources at the project. Does anyone seriously think that such a financial investment was for people sitting around in boardrooms laughing up how easy this console industry thing is and why didn't they get involved earlier, or could there perhaps have been real life people working proper jobs developing hardware, manufacturing systems, development tools, games, and so forth? I think that's disingenuous to all the Sony and other employees involved. It is very, very easy in the IT industry to underestimate demands, scheduling projects and costings that never pan out. Even with buckets of experience. I can't believe that in designing the PS3, the board were saying "let's chuck in every thing we can. It really doesn't matter what we price it at as the idiots will buy it anyway!" If they are in any way half decent business folk, they looked at cost estimates, product estimates, made guesses on what the rival's were up to, and came up with a plan. Maybe that plan was to launch at $600 because they thought the Sony brand could carry it, as some senior comments make out? Maybe instead they planned to launch at $400 but got scuppered by the technology not delivering, and with a year to go realized the thing that they couldn't redesign now was going to cost an arm and leg, at which point they went into a backward PR spin saying it was so great you'd want a second job to land it?

I don't know, and without a Takahashi insight maybe we'll never know, but what I take objection to is the polarized, black and white interpretation. People can dig up arrogant statements from Sony and I'll nod my head and agree 'yep, that was an arrogant thing to say', but that doesn't indicate every action surrounding PS3 was centred on an intrinsic sense of impunity that Sony could do whatever they wanted with PS3 and still come out on top. Hell, if that was really the case, wouldn't they have put in cheap hardware, overcharged, and looked to make a huge profit on the hardware, instead of large losses to try and drive their long term visions?

"Right, this meeting of the PS3 design committee is called to order. Our plan is to milk the chumps for all their worth. Any noteworthy points?"
"They're such suckers for PS3, we could sell an empty cardboard box for $500 and they'd stil buy it!"
"Right. But we also want BluRay in there."
"How's about a BRD player then, with a PS3 label stuck on it?"
"Someone might notice if there's no games."
"Okay, we put in whatever cheap components we can to make something passable as a next-gen games system, sell it at $500, and get BRDs everywhere."
"Champagne all round!"

There were lots of people involved, with lots of decisions, some good and some bad, different perspectives, different ideologies even, and a lot of people working to create the product and services. If anyone thinks Sony's inability to have all the intended software ready from day 1 is because they couldn't be arsed to make it, I can only assume they've never worked on any big, complicated projects. I myself have trouble recalling any project that's run smoothly to deadline and had everything exactly as intended when intended, in my own experiences, experiences of friends, and even just paying attention to the rest of the world (workplace has building work going on, 3 months overdue, but that's the norm for construction).

I'm sure DeanA can step in at some point and tell us how Sony told him to take it easy because people will buy the console whether there's any software for it or not. And I guess Heavenly Sword wasn't ready on Day 1 because everyone at Ninja Theory was spending their time playing Twister as Sony said there wasn't any need to rush. Home would actually have been ready for PS3's launch if it weren't for the fact Sony only put a couple of College undergrads on the job because they didn't think it important to get any worthwhile software for their machine. But then, we all know how lazy them devs are! It's a marvel we ever have any software at all, the way they bum about. And to think they keep trying to pass of this ridiculous idea of 'crunch time'!

[kyleb]

Sony sold a $600 console because they knew people would buy all they could make at that price, and they kept selling out for many months at that price. Since they started sitting on the shelves, Sony dropped their prices to attract a larger market. That isn't arrogance, it is just smart business.

[Cryect]

Originally Posted by kyleb

Sony sold a $600 console because they knew people would buy all they could make at that price, and they kept selling out for many months at that price. Since they started sitting on the shelves, Sony dropped their prices to attract a larger market. That isn't arrogance, it is just smart business.

Where was Sony supply constrained beyond the launch month anywhere?

[kyleb]

Originally Posted by Cryect

Where was Sony supply constrained beyond the launch month anywhere?

Good point, or close anyway. Looking back it seems January was when they started to saturate demand for the 60gb model anyway, though I still had trouble finding my 20gb model then.

Still, while selling the hardware at a loss it only makes sense to keep those losses as small as possible with high prices rather than going with a lower price and loosing even more money with every console you make.

[dobwal]

Originally Posted by kyleb

Sony sold a $600 console because they knew people would buy all they could make at that price, and they kept selling out for many months at that price. Since they started sitting on the shelves, Sony dropped their prices to attract a larger market. That isn't arrogance, it is just smart business.

They couldn't sell all the console they could make at that price they drop the 60Gb to $499.00 in the US in July due to increasing inventory.

Lack of demand show up way before that intial price cut happen as the PS3 was moving in the 80K range for two months and south of 130K since February of this year.

It was arrogance that lead to the $600 console. The PS3 price was dependent on Sony executing perfectly on two new technologies, BluRay and Cell. Perfect execution is something Sony thought they could execute but couldn't.

I don't even have to mention the diode issue.

You do know Sony and Toshiba is about two years behind on their transition to 45nm production. They announce in 2004 that would transition to 45nm in late 2005. They made this announcement with the knowledge that Intel wouldn't start transitioning to 65nm until late 2005. There talking about producing 45nm chips in two years time when not even producing 65nm chips. If this isn't a sign of arrogance then I don't know the definition of the word.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/02...to_move_chips/
http://www.itworld.com/Comp/1099/040212sony/

They made this announcement in the middle of Sony starting its investment into its 65nm facilities. In all likelihood, Sony planned (prior to 2005) for the initial Cells in the PS3 to be at 65nm not at 90nm and that 45nm Cells in PS3 would be a reality today.

[Carl B]

Originally Posted by dobwal

You do know Sony and Toshiba is about two years behind on their transition to 45nm production. They announce in 2004 that would transition to 45nm in late 2005. They made this announcement with the knowledge that Intel wouldn't start transitioning to 65nm until late 2005. There talking about producing 45nm chips in two years time when not even producing 65nm chips. If this isn't a sign of arrogance then I don't know the definition of the word.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/02...to_move_chips/
http://www.itworld.com/Comp/1099/040212sony/

They made this announcement in the middle of Sony starting its investment into its 65nm facilities. In all likelihood, Sony planned (prior to 2005) for the initial Cells in the PS3 to be at 65nm not at 90nm and that 45nm Cells in PS3 would be a reality today.

I want to comment on this. Back then, *no one* thought that the move from 90nm-->65nm, and from there 65nm-->45nm would take the time that it has. Those articles are from February 2004 for God's sake! Yes, the original PS3 was premised on 65nm being available, but by the time the console was formally unveiled, the expectation had already shifted to a 90nm launch - there's even some Kutaragi interview on it out there somewhere. So, Sony and Toshiba claiming an aggressive 45nm ramp is neither here nor there... they were hardly alone at the time (and they meant for CMOS also rather than SOI).

I really do believe that ultimately it was simply the BD inclusion that led to the jacked initial price. That, and obviously they had hoped to be on GS-only by that point rather than EE+GS+32MB RDRAM on the B/C.

A lot of us, well myself at least, were thinking that the PS3 would be around ~$450 at launch with a single SKU. A year later, Sony's more or less there, but it's a trail of tears Sony has marched to get here.

[dobwal]

Originally Posted by Carl B

I want to comment on this. Back then, *no one* thought that the move from 90nm-->65nm, and from there 65nm-->45nm would take the time that it has. Those articles are from February 2004 for God's sake! .

Even Intel's early estimate for 65nm during 2004 was late 2005 and yet Sony and Toshiba is talking 45nm at the same time. They don't even have 65nm, yet announce they going to outpace Intel by two nodes to one. At this point AMD is still at 130nm and IBM is have major problems with its 90nm yields.

Originally Posted by Carl B

Yes, the original PS3 was premised on 65nm being available, but by the time the console was formally unveiled, the expectation had already shifted to a 90nm launch - there's even some Kutaragi interview on it out there somewhere. So, Sony and Toshiba claiming an aggressive 45nm ramp is neither here nor there... they were hardly alone at the time (and they meant for CMOS also rather than SOI)

They were alone as everyone's roadmap other than Sony and Toshiba has 45nm no where near the end of 2005. The PS3 is being finalized at this time as BluRay was announced for the PS3 during 2004so its easy to assume that the PS3's high cost is related to Sony inability to accurately estimate its future manufacturing abilities during 2004.

Originally Posted by Carl B

I really do believe that ultimately it was simply the BD inclusion that led to the jacked initial price. That, and obviously they had hoped to be on GS-only by that point rather than EE+GS+32MB RDRAM on the B/C.

I think Sony had plans for BluRay to be further along then it was at the time of the PS3 release.

[Carl B]

Originally Posted by dobwal

They were alone as everyone's roadmap other than Sony and Toshiba has 45nm no where near the end of 2005. The PS3 is being finalized at this time as BluRay was announced for the PS3 during 2004so its easy to assume that the PS3's high cost is related to Sony inability to accurately estimate its future manufacturing abilities during 2004.

Nah I don't think so... and I say this because the silicon that ultimately went into the PS3 was simply less ambitious than what was being tossed around back in 2004 anyway. As the awareness of the launch node changed, so did the target silicon. There's nothing in PS3 from a silicon perspective at 90nm that to me says: "out of control." So, I don't see the exhorbinant cost as related to that (beyond the B/C provisions at the time vs the newer 80GB units).

I think Sony had plans for BluRay to be further along then it was at the time of the PS3 release.

Well, obviously!

[Johnny Awesome]

Originally Posted by Carl B

I want to comment on this. Back then, *no one* thought that the move from 90nm-->65nm, and from there 65nm-->45nm would take the time that it has. Those articles are from February 2004 for God's sake! Yes, the original PS3 was premised on 65nm being available, but by the time the console was formally unveiled, the expectation had already shifted to a 90nm launch - there's even some Kutaragi interview on it out there somewhere. So, Sony and Toshiba claiming an aggressive 45nm ramp is neither here nor there... they were hardly alone at the time (and they meant for CMOS also rather than SOI).

I really do believe that ultimately it was simply the BD inclusion that led to the jacked initial price. That, and obviously they had hoped to be on GS-only by that point rather than EE+GS+32MB RDRAM on the B/C.

A lot of us, well myself at least, were thinking that the PS3 would be around ~$450 at launch with a single SKU. A year later, Sony's more or less there, but it's a trail of tears Sony has marched to get here.

I wouldn't say that no one hear predicted that. Many of us did. I remember the huge arguments some of us had with Vince about Sony's ability to get their processes down. It's not as much of a surprise as you think.

[Carl B]

Originally Posted by Johnny Awesome

I wouldn't say that no one hear predicted that. Many of us did. I remember the huge arguments some of us had with Vince about Sony's ability to get their processes down. It's not as much of a surprise as you think.

Whoa whoa, where did I say I was surprised? Or if you were referring to Sony/Toshiba, well... stars in their eyes it seemed.

Originally Posted by betan

Very true, but did Xbox's bigger memory, faster GPU help marketability in the end?

Avarage Joe can barely tell the difference between PS2 and PS3, I don't think a year of CPU, GPU or memory difference would effect anything, certainly not worthy of a delay.

Well, just as Sony made decisions based on the info they had back then, it's hard to look at this scenario and know that'd actually be better or not, but on the surface I would think that Fall 07 with stronger hardware would have secured the 'hype' for PS3, and although the every-man would not have been able to tell the difference, the press at least might have been pliant in crooning about it. Also, a lot has changed in the past year in terms of how people view 1080p, high-def formats, etc... thus the marketing around the console may have been more cohesive in general. But of course there's obviously a flip side to it, and for Sony's purposes I think retrospectively it would be could BD have fought back starting in 2007 on the heels of a more popular PS3 launch vs having emerged and led all year in 2006 based on a less-successful PS3 launch?

That said a 2005 launch on DVD would have been a viable solution as well, but given the leadership shake-up that year and Sony's plans for the console in general, I don't think they would have been able to turn on a dime like that.

(By the way people, it's BD, not BR - c'mon, we're a tech site here!)

[Geo]

Umm, what? By that reasoning a $50,000 console that they can only make 1 per month of is a success so long as that one per month sells?

Surely Sony stopped being supply constrained many months ago vs current demand.

[kyleb]

Eh? I never said anything about success, but your example certainly makes for less of a failure than selling that one console they can manage to produce a month for cheaper.