Article : One POV on PS3's pricing and Sony's strategy.

[Nesh]

The PS2 was never priced poorly in NA so price never hurt it like the PS3. The PS2 was the same as the PS1 so price was not an issue. If the PS2 would of been 599 and the gamecube as 199 then you bet sales would of been different. Price matters till you get to a certain point then game library takes over. There are no games out there that are going to sell a 599 dollar machine in NA. Sony is not the first to try this just the most recent.

599 were worth so much more during 2000.

Price sure would have affected sales. I never claimed price doesnt play a role at all. But PS2 wouldnt have necessarilly performed like the PS3 either.
Perhaps people have to give up the notion of expecting the PS3 to sell just like the PS2 to be considered "healthy". If it sold more than today but still less than PS2 that wouldnt mean it is "unhealthy"

Sony is not the first to sell a console in that price, but really if you are comparing it to the likes of Jaguar and 3DO these didnt have enough or good enough games, the appropriate marketing or the approrpiate dedication by their companies either (unlike Sony).

About the part in bold there is also a comparative measure which so many seem to ignore. What do you get with each price. If in the case of the PS3 offered great unique library of games, while the 360 at a cheaper price didnt offer anything just as interesting expect the PS3 to have performed MUCH MUCH better. Thats why partially (regarding the blue part) the PS3 isnt going to end up like the examples that probably got in your mind when you said that no other console has sold in the NA under a similar pricing, because its not totally lacklaster of intersting games people would love to get their hands on. Which again shows the importance of game library

If the 360 didnt have Gears of War and never got any of the titles that were initially expected to be PS3 exclusive (see Assasin's Creed) or games like Mass effect even with titles such us FEAR, Viva Pinata, COD3, Rainbow Six, Kameo etc it wouldnt have been doing anywhere as good and the PS3 would have been performing much better. I expect it would have been even selling more than the 360 if that was the case too.

Just watching forums is enough evidence that PS3 strangely despite the price has many fans, much more than what past observations suggest towards expensive consoles.

Currently PS3 needs a price drop more because 360 comparatively to the PS3 also offers a very interesting and increasing library in which originally exclusive PS3 games are being added.

 

[ninzel]

The reason for the PS2 long staying power is not system specs but killer game library that comes with a 70% market share. The xbox was much more foward looking but did not have any staying power because of the game library. The PS3 can have all the tech it wants in it but if it does not have that killer game library it will not have staying power. .

^^^^^^^^
That was exactly my point. I thought I made that clear. "obviously the PS3 can as well with the right software"
By referencing PS3 specs I only meant to suggest that a great library plus good specs could help to make PS3 last even longer than the PS2. So a fast start might not be as important.
Very strong specs aren't nearly everything,but they could help at the tail end of the cycle.

 

[Nesh]

^^^^^^^^
That was exactly my point. I thought I made that clear. "obviously the PS3 can as well with the right software"
By referencing PS3 specs I only meant to suggest that a great library plus good specs could help to make PS3 last even longer than the PS2. So a fast start might not be as important.
Very strong specs aren't nearly everything,but they could help at the tail end of the cycle.

Yeah that what I was saying as well so I wonder where's the disagreement with quest.

Nobody implied PS3 can sell exactly like the PS2 anyways under that price 100% quaranteed but with the right support and software it might sell enough to remain on top or atleas at equal levels to the 360

 

[ninzel]

Yeah that what I was saying as well so I wonder where's the disagreement with quest.

Nobody implied PS3 can sell exactly like the PS2 anyways under that price 100% quaranteed but with the right support and software it might sell enough to remain on top or atleas at equal levels to the 360

I guess my only disagreement is that I'm not as doomsday-ish about the PS3's long term prospects. It also comes down to when you measure that number of market share,that has changed. 3 years from now the PS3 might not be as successful as the PS2,but maybe 6 years from now it may be ,and while MS and Nintendo are spending millions to make, sell and market their next systems,Sony could still be selling the PS3 and not ready to introduce PS4.
When I look at the PS3 I don't see less overall success than the PS2, just shifted and extended time lines.

 

[quest55720]

599 were worth so much more during 2000.

Price sure would have affected sales. I never claimed price doesnt play a role at all. But PS2 wouldnt have necessarilly performed like the PS3 either.
Perhaps people have to give up the notion of expecting the PS3 to sell just like the PS2 to be considered "healthy". If it sold more than today but still less than PS2 that wouldnt mean it is "unhealthy"

Sony is not the first to sell a console in that price, but really if you are comparing it to the likes of Jaguar and 3DO these didnt have enough or good enough games, the appropriate marketing or the approrpiate dedication by their companies either (unlike Sony).

About the part in bold there is also a comparative measure which so many seem to ignore. What do you get with each price. If in the case of the PS3 offered great unique library of games, while the 360 at a cheaper price didnt offer anything just as interesting expect the PS3 to have performed MUCH MUCH better. Thats why partially (regarding the blue part) the PS3 isnt going to end up like the examples that probably got in your mind when you said that no other console has sold in the NA under a similar pricing, because its not totally lacklaster of intersting games people would love to get their hands on. Which again shows the importance of game library

If the 360 didnt have Gears of War and never got any of the titles that were initially expected to be PS3 exclusive (see Assasin's Creed) or games like Mass effect even with titles such us FEAR, Viva Pinata, COD3, Rainbow Six, Kameo etc it wouldnt have been doing anywhere as good and the PS3 would have been performing much better. I expect it would have been even selling more than the 360 if that was the case too.

Just watching forums is enough evidence that PS3 strangely despite the price has many fans, much more than what past observations suggest towards expensive consoles.

Currently PS3 needs a price drop more because 360 comparatively to the PS3 also offers a very interesting and increasing library in which originally exclusive PS3 games are being added.

No the PS3 does not have to sell like the PS2 to be healthy. But come on it is selling close to a 1/3 of the supply limited Wii and dangerously close to 1/2 the 360 sold last month in NA.

Also the article makes no sense really. Sony could of charged 399 for the PS3 and it would of not affected PS2 sales at all. The person buying a 129 dollar console near the end of its life is not going to buy a 399 dollar machine. They are 2 totally seperate markets.

 

[Nesh]

I guess my only disagreement is that I'm not as doomsday-ish about the PS3's long term prospects. It also comes down to when you measure that number of market share,that has changed. 3 years from now the PS3 might not be as successful as the PS2,but maybe 6 years from now it may be ,and while MS and Nintendo are spending millions to make, sell and market their next systems,Sony could still be selling the PS3 and not ready to introduce PS4.
When I look at the PS3 I don't see less overall success than the PS2, just shifted and extended time lines.

Yeah could be the case. This is going to be an iintersting "war"

What you say is very apparent in Sony's plans. They seem to try to differentiate the console gradually.

Some of their offerings are still in a developing form but their is a continuous effort still to mature them. Pretty much everything on the PS3 is still developing.

Its also eminent in efforts such as Home and its features. Cell seems to be a long term investment itself. It might open new possibilities as they work more on it to improve efficiency and performance. Then there is Playstation EDGE and internal projects. Their efforts dont reflect present targets or a console that is bound to die. They dont seem to be actions of last hope. They are actions of long term vision. Perhaps even BR might find a better use in gaming

Probably if things progress smoothly PS3 might begin in the future to show things the competition wont be able to match after some point in this generation.

 

[Nesh]

No the PS3 does not have to sell like the PS2 to be healthy. But come on it is selling close to a 1/3 of the supply limited Wii and dangerously close to 1/2 the 360 sold last month in NA.

Also the article makes no sense really. Sony could of charged 399 for the PS3 and it would of not affected PS2 sales at all. The person buying a 129 dollar console near the end of its life is not going to buy a 399 dollar machine. They are 2 totally seperate markets.

Well I dont count Wii in the picture. I dont even consider it to be doing better than 360 either because its not trying to compete it in the same aspects. So I dont feel like comparing any of the big two to Wii to be able to jump to such conclusion.

Yeah I agree about the PS3 vs 360 though. But I dont solely blame price, but a combination of lacklaster games and reduced expectations against increasing libary and expectation on the 360. As a result this gives more incentives to question whether the higher price is worth it.

About the article, the question should be whether Sony can reduce the price that much without creating financial problems and increase risk. If they can reduce it by just $100 at the most in order not to end up in a pit of unrecoveringh losses then that price reduction might be a bad idea. It might not increase sales enough

Also I dont know if we can be absolute about how seperate PS2 and PS3 markets will be if they reduce the price to $399 (a huge price reduction). This might partially unite them. A consumer who is interested on a Playstation console may be willing to pay from 0 to $399 but not $600 at all. So most likely he may choose the cheaper alternative of $125 the PS2 as long as the PS3 is $500-600. A huge price reduction (that will sky rocket losses) droping the PS3 to $399 may make that consumer go for a PS3.

Ofcourse all these are just hypothetical.

Its a hard thing to conclude just from an article. Unless we have the data and some of us is in position to make a full detailed analysis and predictions based on them I dont think we can be absolute on what price they should choose and wether price reduction will help or not. Perhaps you are right and they are acting arrogantly, perhaps they are taking the best decicion they can make (even if its not a rosy one) based on their financial and market position.

I dont think we can find a definite answer to that. Perhaps the course will reveal to us some of these information as we observe the results and their performance

 

[TheChefO]

^^^^^^^^
That was exactly my point. I thought I made that clear. "obviously the PS3 can as well with the right software"
By referencing PS3 specs I only meant to suggest that a great library plus good specs could help to make PS3 last even longer than the PS2. So a fast start might not be as important.
Very strong specs aren't nearly everything,but they could help at the tail end of the cycle.

eh eh ... specs at the tail end of the cycle will not help it when nextgen systems roll in it will be old news. xb1 had the best specs last gen and how much did that help them when they had doom3 and half life2 and riddick on the box? Not much. attention in this market gets turned to the next gen boxes. The ones interested in a "cheaper" game system wil be eyeing library + price, not specs.

 

[ninzel]

eh eh ... specs at the tail end of the cycle will not help it when nextgen systems roll in it will be old news. xb1 had the best specs last gen and how much did that help them when they had doom3 and half life2 and riddick on the box? Not much. attention in this market gets turned to the next gen boxes. The ones interested in a "cheaper" game system wil be eyeing library + price, not specs.

Some peoples attentions turn to next gen when the new boxes roll in.
And what's with the either, or mentality?If the ps3 by the end of it's cycle has strong games library like the ps2+ it's lower price+ specs that help it's games look comparable to next gen that makes a compelling case to the consumer.

 

[gollumsluvslave]

One thing that article glosses over is that surely Sony has a responsibility to it's publishing partners who sign on to develop PS3 titles (especially ones who have moved from PS2) to ensure that the install base is enough to provide the publisher with decent sales.

If this really was their strategy (which I sincerely doubt), it's one that most publishers wouldn't be too happy with I think, and some publishers are already hedging their bets - Capcom for example.

 

[Phil]

A secondary response is: they didn't seem to need this strategy when it came to the PS2, so why would they need it with the PS3?

Because they didn't have a strong enough competitor that ended the cycle of their previous console after 4 years?

Besides, the PS2 is much more successful than PSone was - perhaps they are learning from last generations transition?

 

[Platon]

So the BluRay being so important, that they put into their next Playstation and betting the farm on it, almost willing to sucrifice the PS brand just to get the BR out to peoples homes and then they don't want to disturb the PS2 sales? Right...

 

[NERO]

Look at it this way folks: Sony decided to combine their new generation media strategy with their newest console. As most in this forum know, the PS3 is the Blu Ray trojan horse and it has sold "enough" to get Sony a healthy lead in the media battle but at the cost of overpricing the brand for a 1-2 year window. IMHO Sony found a decent price to fit both goals and will be successful in both, but most of us (yes me included) have a warped view of success in the console business. The market has changed again and looks to be more competetive than the last one due to Nintendo's cheap & fun strategy Microsoft's head start. If Sony can just rise to second place they have been successful in this round - they don't have to actually win.

Am I right? Probably not, but my mother says I'm smart and handsome and that's all that counts

 

[TheChefO]

Some peoples attentions turn to next gen when the new boxes roll in.
And what's with the either, or mentality?If the ps3 by the end of it's cycle has strong games library like the ps2+ it's lower price+ specs that help it's games look comparable to next gen that makes a compelling case to the consumer.

ok ... you don't seriously think ps3 is going to be comperable to ps4 + xb720 + WiiHD do you? (ehh on second though .. scratch WiiHD ... it just might be!)

ninzel, as good as xbox AAA games looked last gen, take a look and see how they compare to most ps3/xb360 games. They aren't comperable.

I agree withthe assertion that "some people" turn their attention to nextgen and said as much in my post. The rest, turn their attention to games-library and price. (see ps2 last gen)

Perhaps ps3 turns up the heat and rolls past xb360 and Wii in this regard. However that is currently the least likely scenario based on current trends.

 

[ninzel]

ok ... you don't seriously think ps3 is going to be comperable to ps4 + xb720 + WiiHD do you? (ehh on second though .. scratch WiiHD ... it just might be!)

I absolutely think that the best of the last PS3 games could be comparable to the first next gen PS4,xb720 games.I'm not saying it will give the PS3 an extra 5 years and they can totally skip next gen. I'm saying the extra hosrepower could extend the PS3's lifecycle enough that they aren't in such a hurry right now. Which is the original idea of the article.
Let's not go into the realm of extremes,I've been very careful to keep my arguments moderate and sensible.
This is the problem with internet discussions. No one every wants to agree so inevitably one or both people end up taking an extreme position.

 

[TheChefO]

I absolutely think that the best of the last PS3 games could be comparable to the first next gen PS4,xb720 games.I'm not saying it will give the PS3 an extra 5 years and they can totally skip next gen. I'm saying the extra hosrepower could extend the PS3's lifecycle enough that they aren't in such a hurry right now. Which is the original idea of the article.
Let's not go into the realm of extremes,I've been very careful to keep my arguments moderate and sensible.
This is the problem with internet discussions. No one every wants to agree so inevitably one or both people end up taking an extreme position.

xbd - I give you: ninzel.

ninzel: Took a look at the best of the best from the ps2/xb/gc gen. Compare it(them) to xb360 launch games. They aren't even close. (aside from the portware which even that ran at higher res)

With this being a matter of opinion, obviously I have mine and you have yours but reality is even the worse looking xb360 launch game portware, looked better than its xb/ps2 counterpart.

PS3 will not compare to ps4 or xb720 at any point. The tech is not boundless and regardless what Sony PR wants you to believe with the whole "designed for 10 years" line, fact is as soon as the nextgen boxes ship, ps3 will be outclassed, regardless of how you think it will fair this gen.

This is not an "extreme position" on this matter, it is a basic observation of a ~5 year gap in technology and what that gap will produce on screen.

 

[ninzel]

xbd - I give you: ninzel.

.

Oh god don't be such a drama queen.I haven't bought into anyones hype,I'm just going by what I see at the transition of generations.
Edit: Anyway...regardless of the exactly how comparable games are at a transition is besides the point so let's go there.We could go around all day.
My point was the stronger the specs at the end of a life cycle,the longer a company could hold off releasing their next gen machine. PS3 is stronger than it's competition comprared to how strong the PS2 was relative to it's competition,thus giving the PS3 potentially more staying power than the PS2 given all else being equal(price ,library etc.) I think that even to the casual graphics are important. Not as important as they are to us,but still a bonus on top of good price and library.
Now I'm done with this conversation I have a difficult level of Motorstorm to beat.

 

[Mintmaster]

ninzel, you're really exaggerating the strengths of the PS3. It barely has any more staying power than the XB360, especially from the superficial standpoint that you're talking about (i.e. a quick comparison of one gen's games to another). If Sony wanted staying power they should have waited a bit longer and put in a more powerful GPU that is clearly/visibly stronger than Xenos.

I do think you may be right about next gen being harder to distinguish because I believe we're at a point of diminishing returns with hardware and there won't be a resolution difference like there was this gen. But as I said above, I seriously doubt PS3 will be clearly closer to initial PS4/X720 games than XB360.

 

[Vic]

The article confirms that Blu-ray is pulling ahead of HD-DVD. If Blu-ray becomes as popular as it looks like becoming (even here in the UK) the decision to include Blu-ray as standard will look justified, perhaps even inspired. Though as the article points out, Sony will be under more pressure to introduce an early price-cut.

 

[ninzel]

ninzel, you're really exaggerating the strengths of the PS3. .

I don't think I am really. PS2 was number three in terms of specs last gen by many measures. The PS3 is possibly number one,a moving up of 2 positions. I think it's clear that it's relative position compared to it's direct competition is much improved this gen. And if the PS2 can last 6 strong years at number three in terms of power,itI wouldn't surprise me to see an few more years out of the PS3.
I don't see what I'm blowing up here.I'm not saying the PS3 will part the heavens and earth and make all other consoles obsolete due to the Cell's ability to transmit 4d images directly into the cerebral cortex, but just that it will have more staying power than the PS2.