Console Failures and Successes *spawn*

[mrcorbo]

Whether you want to ignore the minimum price of entry or not, the typical, expected price of a console was ~$400 and the rival's price was $400. PS3 wasn't $400 until a year after release, when it's sales picked up and stayed pretty constant, no?

It's not a "want to". It was an irrelevant SKU and should not be considered. Sony didn't want to sell it and consumers didn't want to buy it.

FWIW, I don't completely disagree with what you're saying about the PS3. I'm just not's sure it's correct that the PS3's turnaround was driven entirely by the price cut. There was more to it. And I don't agree completely with how you are evaluating sales for the One. It did sell better after it got a price cut. It didn't see as dramatic of a sales increase as the PS3 because the PS3 started from a worse place.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

My XB1 observation was mostly to contrast the obvious uptick PS3's price drop caused. If my point about PS3 is incorrect, shouldn't there be evidence in sales of improvements not associated with price drops? Although without an obvious uptick, it'd be hard to pin-point them. Of course, improvemetns do help, but I'll still stand by my conviction that PS3 was desired at launch and only not bought by those who desired it because it was at least $100 more than the $400 general new console price. People were not waiting until online became good (which never really happened! ). Those that were put off by PS3's shortcomings in certain areas bought a 360.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

The 20 GB sku was discontinued in April 07 and was limited to the US and Japan.

The 20Gb model was a launch option in Europe in March 2007 too. You had the choice of the 20Gb black trim PS3 with some fewer card slots or the 60Gb chrome trim PS3 with all the slots you'll never need.

 

[mrcorbo]

The 20Gb model was a launch option in Europe in March 2007 too. You had the choice of the 20Gb black trim PS3 with some fewer card slots or the 60Gb chrome trim PS3 with all the slots you'll never need.

Eh?

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Eh?

That may have been in the intention in January 2007 (when the story ran) but it had changed by late March when they launched. The 20Gb model is obviously out of stock but is still listed on Amazon UK.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

The 20GB unit was never available in Europe. Some sites like Amazon had it listed long before the launch, assuming it was coming, but it didn't.

 

[Rikimaru]

In Europe PS3 launched with CECHC 60Gb model with Emotion Engine but without GS. Then CECHE 80Gb came out (EE/ no GS). Then CECHG 40Gb without EE/GS.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

In Europe PS3 launched with CECHC 60Gb model with Emotion Engine but without GS. Then CECHE 80Gb came out (EE/ no GS). Then CECHG 40Gb without EE/GS.

It was the other way around. Europe models never had Emotion Engine, but still had Graphics Synthesizer and PS2 backwards compatibility. When they later dropped GS, they also dropped PS2 support for the system.

 

[Rikimaru]

Ah yes, you are right.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That may have been in the intention in January 2007 (when the story ran) but it had changed by late March when they launched. The 20Gb model is obviously out of stock but is still listed on Amazon UK.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

This troubles me. I thought I bought the good PS3 console now I realise I bought the only PS3 console!

My bad.

 

[dobwal]

The PS3 wasn't a failure for Sony. Outside of selling software and accessories the PS3 was tasked with spearheading the push for BluRay adoption to replace DVD.

Stringer talked up how the PS3 would drive the adoption of BluRay like the PS2 did for DVD format even that wasn't really the case for the PS2. But that's the argument that Sony probably used to get major studios on board. Without the PS3, it would of been harder for BluRay to overcome HD-DVD. As HD-DVD would of come out earlier and made it to mass market pricing much faster. The first standalone BluRay was $1000 and had to face a $500 HD-DVD player. It could of easily ended up like DV and HDR10 where even superior tech can see a competitor capture a huge chunk of the market because it just cheaper.

The PS3 ended being one of the most popular BluRay players in its early life. In 2009 standalone BluRay players were in 7% of US households compared to 11% for HD-DVD. But the PS3 were in another 10% of homes giving BluRay almost 2/3rds of the US market. Now account for the PS3 popularity outside the US.

The PS3 initial attachment rate paled in comparison to the 360. However even though the 360 received Netflix support before the PS3, the PS3 ended being the most popular device for streaming to a TV in the US. Meaning a ton of early adopters were buying the PS3 for its media capabilities.

Sony knew it was sacrificing unit sales and profitability for BluRay adoption. You can't look at a $600 console with a $800 BOM and not know that reality.

If Sony had forseen the slow adoption of BluRay and spread of DD, they may have chosen otherwise. But the PS3 accomplished exactly what Sony wanted it to do and that's help BluRay outcompete HD-DVD. Without BluRay on the PS3 we might have the PS4s and XB1s sporting HD-DVD and Ultra HD-DVD drives.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

This troubles me. I thought I bought the good PS3 console now I realise I bought the only PS3 console!

My bad.

Well yours was the only European model ever to have the PS2 support enabled

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The PS3 wasn't a failure for Sony. Outside of selling software and accessories the PS3 was tasked with spearheading the push for BluRay adoption to replace DVD.

I think you set your target too early - long term, BRD and its sacrifices were a Fail. The reason to secure the format wars was money. Yes, PS3 secured that, but at what cost? PS3 succeeded in securing the format wars win, but failed to give Sony a BRD cash-cow as people moved over to streaming. The battle was a success, but the war was a failure.

 

[dobwal]

I think you set your target too early - long term, BRD and its sacrifices were a Fail. The reason to secure the format wars was money. Yes, PS3 secured that, but at what cost? PS3 succeeded in securing the format wars win, but failed to give Sony a BRD cash-cow as people moved over to streaming. The battle was a success, but the war was a failure.

BRD's life isn't over. Even now the enterprise market for optical disc, due to archival demands with the growing data that needs long term storage, is strong. Strong enough that Sony's BluRay successor is strictly targeting the enterprise market.

Plus it's not the gaming division's fault the consumer market for optical disc shrunk. If you enlist my help to rob a bank of your choice and the job goes as planned. How did I fail if all the bank vault contained was just $6 dollars?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

How did I fail if all the bank vault contained was just $6 dollars?

Failure is measured against goals. If the goal was to rob the bank, it succeeded. If the goal was to leave with at least a million bucks, you failed. As I said, PS3 managed to secure BRD, but that wasn't the end of plan. Ergo, PS3 was a success and a failure regards the new disc format. Even if BRD goes on to secure Sony many billions of dollars (though you talk of its successor), replacing those lost by PS3, its success as an archive format probably has nothing to do with PS3's success as a video player. HD-DVD wasn't suited for archiving whereas that was always an objective for BRD.

 

[Entropy]

Lacking total royalty revenue over the lifetime of a format makes discussions about ”failure” or ”win” really difficult.
For example all BR players had to pay a $9 (!) royalty fee, slightly lowered to seven something quite recently.
I've checked Sony Corp reports and they make it really difficult to even see where royalty revenue ends up ("other"? "financials"?), much less put a number on it. On top of that it is really difficult to estimate how BR has impacted their sales of players/AV/TV et cetera, nevermind production gear.

That income should be put against how much better (?) the PS3 would have done without having to serve as a vehicle to launch BR. But would it? Many or even most of the early sales were specifically due to its pedigree as a BR-player. Putting a number on how much the PS3 would have sold without BR is impossible, and estimating profits from such a hypothetical number is even more impossible.

(Trying to extract royalty revenue numbers turned out to be a total bitch. If anyone has good numbers I'd love to see them, because by now I have the feeling they are deliberately hidden away for whatever reason.)

 

[Globalisateur]

Failure is measured against goals. If the goal was to rob the bank, it succeeded. If the goal was to leave with at least a million bucks, you failed. As I said, PS3 managed to secure BRD, but that wasn't the end of plan. Ergo, PS3 was a success and a failure regards the new disc format. Even if BRD goes on to secure Sony many billions of dollars (though you talk of its successor), replacing those lost by PS3, its success as an archive format probably has nothing to do with PS3's success as a video player. HD-DVD wasn't suited for archiving whereas that was always an objective for BRD.

Goals, right.

...

XB1 failed to become TV TV TV. It's failed to sell as many as 360, thus losing MS's hardware momentum. It failed to offer the best value price/performance, and has failed to prevent the rival getting more exclusives and offering a more numerous library of its core purpose. It's succeeded as a prized gaming platform by its fans, succeeded in making money (those believing MS can't turn a profit from 30+ million gaming machines, let alone 80 million last gen, need to tighten their tinfoil hats and stock up on the Koolade), succeeded in offering BC beyond anything any machine has done before, and whatever other successes its had - it's users are better positioned to comment than I!

But that's not Microsoft goals about the XB1. That's yours. From your imagination. You don't know what they were. We don't know how many profits they make as they conveniently bury the exact numbers with other stuff. They could make $1 for all you know.

Everything is relative. By spinning it we can always see the good stuff in the bad. Always. Were their goals selling half as much of their previous console (like they are about to) and evidently loosing precious market share (and brand value) like they had with XB1 ?

Because I don't think that's the kinds of goals global companies like MS do, like at all. Hey, didn't they already tell us what goals they had ?

Every generation, as you’ve probably heard, has grown approximately 30%. So this generation is about 300 million units. Most industry experts think the next generation will get upwards of about 400 million units. That’s if it’s a game console, over the next decade...We think you can go broader than a game console, that’s our aim, and you can go from 400 million to potentially upwards of a billion units. That’s how we’re thinking of the Xbox opportunity as we go forward.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

But that's not Microsoft goals about the XB1.

Did I say they were MS's goals? They're clearly just examples of the many ways XB1 could be measured. If you want to determine if XB1 was a failure according to MS's goals, the question needs to be, "does MS consider XB1 a failure?" or "did XB1 achieve the goals set for it?" rather than the generic, unqualified, "is it a failure?"

You talk about spin, but it's you trying to find all the negatives and stockpile them. Some of us care for a more balanced picture and like to see the good with bad.

 

[Globalisateur]

Did I say they were MS's goals? They're clearly just examples of the many ways XB1 could be measured. If you want to determine if XB1 was a failure according to MS's goals, the question needs to be, "does MS consider XB1 a failure?" or "did XB1 achieve the goals set for it?" rather than the generic, unqualified, "is it a failure?"

You talk about spin, but it's you trying to find all the negatives and stockpile them. Some of us care for a more balanced picture and like to see the good with bad.

I thought the balanced picture was obvious. Everything in the Universe can either be seen as a success or failure.

Based on the OT, the thread title should not have be so politically correct. Usually on the Internets the OT exposes his opinion and wants people to discuss / argue with him, and the title is chosen accordingly. He was clearly talking about XB1 failure on all fronts from the previous gen, which is what any corporation would do, so MS most probable definition of failure. They plan things based on their current state of affairs and predict +30% improvement (like MS did here in 2013).

I don't think the thread title has being written by @Shortbread. The politically neutral (-ized) title has generalized the discussion to an elevated and harmless point of view. Consoles failures and successes. Soon we will talk about the Atari and the NES.