Can The PS3 Save SONY?

Even in the very unlikely event that it does sell 1/3 of the 360, they will still make money not only from Software but also from the countless other businesses Sony owns.

Thinking that PS3 will "fail", and thinking that if that were to happen, Sony would just go bankrupt must be the 2 most ridiculous notions around the net.

 

Except it's not just marketing schpeel. Wanna make a bet with me? You give me good rep if I'm right one year from now and at least 5 games have demonstrated that I was right, and I give you good rep if you are right.

That would also give the both of us enough time to get to a point where we can give rep, hopefully.

 

'Bombed' in this sense can only be measured by financial returns. If PS3 only sells 1/3 what XB360 does, but it establishes BRD as the next-gen format and finds a rich revenue stream in downloadable content, it could make a profit that covers the investment then they wouldn't be in serious financial trouble.

Obviously PS3 doesn't meet your criteria, but I don't think you alone represent all the potential buyers out there and we can't conclude PS3 is doomed because you don't like the idea of BRD.

It could even be that where inclusion of BRD has hiked the price to a point that gamers don't care, PS3's rich feature set has the other 900 million people in the developed world who don't buy consoles interested over the next 5+ years. Maybe all the old PS2 owners will migrate to XB360, but all the non-console owning DVD player and PC owners buy into PS3...

 

Now what lazy developer isnt going to bloat a game to take up more space then a standard DVD disc? Especially with something like HD 720p cut scenes or something. And i can give rep...just only positive .

It has nothing to do with my criteria, i'm only a periodic console gamer at best. The thing i dont like is Sony charging essentially every user a tax to pay for their form of media, which may or may not become a dead format, because they wanted to take the chance. So the burden of that is on us, the consumers. This whole thing could of been avoided if they just trashed BRD and installed a HDDVD into every PS3, then at LEAST you know you have a nextgen HDplayer, at the very least. I feel strongly that buying a PS3, especially at 500-600 or more a pop, is like gambling with loaded dice. And most people do just want to play the games, which is why large percents of people are totally turned off at the price tag, and those that arent are early adopters with money to burn and a wet dream of high def.

 

I can't see how putting HD DVD in PS3 instead of BD makes things better when the transfer speed of the fastest HD DVD drive currently available is 1/2 of the BD drive in PS3.

 

What makes you think the developer is lazy? Pre-rendered cut-scenes can be a big time/budget saver without the studio being full of "lazy developers".

Horseshit... The distribution format is irrelevant to the purchase unless you're going to explicitly use the system for video playback and *NOT* for gaming at all. The format is guaranteed for the life of the system. Besides, I take it you don't play any Nintendo games since they only release titles on "dead" formats. As a matter of fact, playing any console game would make you a hypocrite as you can't find a system that's choke full of licensed technologies that gets passed on to you (as a tax if you will).

So basically you're a Blu-Ray hater... You're brilliant logic is to trash years of development and R&D (and potential revenue) and instead license and stuff a (potentially slower) HD-DVD drive that will pass on more cost to you than the BD-ROM drive? And care to elaborate how HD-DVD is "nextgen" and BD-ROM isn't?

Loaded dice? Then are you really gambling? Sorry, but buying 10000 shares of a stock you know nothing about on a tip from a friend is "gambling". Buying a $600 game system, is just buying an expensive piece of hardware... So it's expensive... Boo hoo, cry me a river.

 

Personally I think the article does a good job, althought it forgests one thing.

IMO this all start because Sony does have, many times (I did not said most), problems knowing what the market wants and/or if they have the right idea they fail to deliver it the right way (the UMD movies is a good example). This often lead to they trying to impose a format.

Then we have that this way of doing things it is very costly, so they either have a fail and possible lost a lot of money or they have a sucess but it takes a lot of time till have proffit. Being costly also mean that they operate with low proffit margins, look at PS2 it only got 1,5% of proffit which is not much and if just a few things had happened diferently (eg Dreamcast had more sucess, or GC launched early (as planned IIRC) ...) they could have losses with PS2.

In music and movies they also go a route of big investiment for low (%wise) proffit which also reflet the same situation.

This doesnt mean that Sony is doomed or suchm its mean that they walk in a thin line and it is easy to go bellow or above it but usually not much, and sucess or failure will depend on how much time they pass above or bellow the line more than anything else.

One must also say that the dimensions and diversity of the company also help a lot keeping it on the line.

 

I'm a little confused.

Would you be able to elaborate on the above point ? Why is HDDVD a nextgen player but not a BR player ?

But that's their business plan ? It's like Apple imposing FairPlay DRM on every expensive iPod owners. Or MS forcing people to subscribe for online gameplay (while Sony champions free online play). There is usually a retainer/lock-in for the business to make sense.

If consumers feel that PS3's overpriced, it will surely sell badly. Sony will hopefully learn the lesson and live to fight another day. However we can't stop companies from trying.

Today, iPod and its closed DRM format turn out to be a financial success, while BR is still an unknown. A big problem is Sony fails to explain the unique benefits of *PS3* adequately at this point in time.

If people perceived PS3 as a worthwhile buy, the issue of BR will not matter. If PS3 became a failure (because of BR or other reasons), don't you think Sony will react to the market ?

As for failure to understand market, and inability to execute, Sony has many failures as well as successes. The same goes for MS (Most of its ventures outside the IT market tanked). I'm not sure what kind of conclusion we can draw at this point.

This is the part that gets me.

PS2 is a huge success so why are we bringing up the "what-ifs" that never happened ? Do you think that PS2 was released without planning and market feedback ? What's your baseline ? For PS3, you complained about high price, for PS2 you complain about low price (hence low margin). Are you saying they should charge more for PS2 to begin with ? How is PS2 success is negative thing now ?

For what it's worth, MS also has not made a profit yet on Xbox. So everyone, including Nintendo, is trying their own formulae. I feel this would be a valuable discussion *after* PS3 is released for about a year.

 

Point was one isnt going to be picked, it just really sucks having to worry about buying dead media, and since Sony is taking the biggest chance at the biggest loss and putting the biggest strain on the consumers shoulders, i saw no reason that they could of dropped it. Way too late now obviously.

"The" developer? My point was simple, if you offer an unlimited amount of space a dev can be careless about how he uses it. Not sure where "the" single developer came from.

All PS3 games are in for trouble if BRD dies. Do you wonder what happens if BRD becomes the dead format forcing essentially the PS4 to be HD-DVD? What happens to backward compatability, have to do 2 drives or lose your previous library, quite a gamble. People will also be tempted to pickup BRD titles, nintendo has none of these problems since they're not marketing an elitist console at a huge cost, partly do to its media player. Wii, GC, N64, all for games. PS3, the media console for HD in the living room.

Incorrect, what i dont like is, once again, Sony forcing the tax onto the consumers of what is normally a game console first and a media player second. The PS3 essentially has a roll reversal in that its the primary means for marketing their nextgen media format, not all about playing games like every previous console before. You think the inclusion of a HDDVD drive would be more then 200 per console? Thats interesting. Personally i could care less what the nextgen media format is, but the inclusion of it in the PS3 and forcing the costs on the consumer that just wants to play some games is really just a dumb idea. Point being if HDDVD was simply put in to replace the BRD then there would be no question as to what would be the nextgen format, then you could safely go out and get games and movies and not have to worry about them all being trash in 2010 and for the future iteration of the PS.

No river needed, and to some people 600 + the money spent on any movies or games would be an investment. Perhaps you've had to earn nothing so you cant respect that? Anyway its obvious i've roused someone of the "PS3 hardon folk" so i'm going to simply walk away since i dont really enjoy reading some guys blatantly hostile, or gruff tone because they disagree with my thoughts of a peice of electronic hardware.

 

You're right of course, and in order to avoid developers being careless about how they use resources, MS and Sony should scrap the current consoles and release a box with Abacus inside. Screw memory, discs, and graphic chipsets.
That way there's no margin for carelessnes left, and noone can afford to be lazy.

You mean like how all GC games were in trouble from begining since its MiniDisc was a dead format and forcing the Revolution to be DVD?

Given there's no HDDVD drives at speeds reasonable enough for a console yet - the better question is whether inclusion would be possible at all (but most likely quite costly yes).

 

I like how some of you guys talk about 600usd like if it's nothing. In the case of a console it's way too much. Do you think the ps2 became a force ignoring regular people's budget?

300 is too much for some people. That's why the ps2 did not became a best seller console at that pricepoint. At 600 chance is it's going to tank at sales.

Say what you want but more than a stat I'll bet the house with anyone that 600 is going to be the magic number in sony's tanking sales after all early adopters(f word?) are satisfied.

And most people can't care less about br or hd dvd simply becouse of digital comunication these days. Discs are becoming irrelevant.

 

I don't think that's the issue. Sony has full right to charge USD600 for the premium model to execute its plan (Whatever it is). Presumably, there are associated services and user experiences for what you pay for.

People are not forced to buy the hi-end PS3 model. One can either: save up, buy the low-end model, wait for Sony to drop its price, buy a XBox 360 and/or a Wii. It's demand and supply.

Sony will suffer any consequences as a result of this pricing decision. They will have to adjust their moves based on sales numbers and competitive pressure.

Switching to a HD-DVD player will not change the situation. Charging a higher price for PS2 may not work too.

 

So basically, you're just assuming (hoping?) Blu-ray will fail no matter what, and HD-DVD will be the next standard???

 

The bias of some people really comes through in some posts and this thread is a prime example of subjectivity over objectivity, assumptions disguised as predictions...

Nothing new really.

Sugarcoat, your continuous posts about how Bluray will "fail" and whatnot are getting boring now. Your whole argument is sugarcoated with your own assumptions and they have no sign of an objective view on how things work.

 

The topic is silly. Sony is doing MIGHTY well. The consoles aren't their only business, y'know...

 

Heh, if only people did some research...

Sony owns half of Hollywood for god's sake!! They are the best selling HDTV company, and the profit they make out of those babies is, needless to say seen the prices they sell them at, very big!! They'll always have money!!

If Bluray for some reason sells as bad as UMD movies, then the whole "backward compatibility" argument of PS4 (if it were to have a HDDVD drive) is just silly as by the time PS4 comes out, there will be hybrid players and if HDDVD for some reason really does become the next DVD, Sony won't think twice before embracing it and releasing their movies on both formats (like they do now, heck they release their movies over and over again on as many different formats as you can find!) and players that can read both formats.

I really don't see how on earth HDDVD would be able to actually outsell Bluray the way DVD is now outselling both formats (especially seen how there will be about 3 million Bluray players in people's houses by Christmas compared to a few thousands HDDVD players...), but hey we've seen lots of strange things in the past, anything could happen.

 

Not true. There's things like loading times and RAM limits to worry about. For any platform there's a risk devs will use some of it's resources inefficiently (as Faf points out).

No PS3 games are in trouble. UMD is a 'dead' format but PSP is still capable of using UMDs. If BRD dies as a film format, PS3 will still go on to use RBD for it's whole life.

So Sony should have chosen a different format based on what the next console would need?! Without any knowledge of what HDDVD would do? And for a format that won't be able to support as much data either.

Why can't they release PS4 games on BRD as a proprietary console format, the same as GC uses a format not used anywhere else? Or by then dual-format drives should be cheap enough. And that's if HDDVD doesn't die! And why is it Sony's fault for using BRD instead of HDDVD, and not Toshiba's fault for creating a rival HD format when there was a solution already coming and everyone knew it was going to appear in PS3? I think the problem here is evil scummy Tohsiba have greedily pursued the HD movie market, despite most companies already backing a blue-laser format that has a better technical capacity, and fractured the market, aided and abetted by the evil scummy MS who are only providing an HDDVD addon and not giving consumers a choice of which format they want to support...

1) They're not forcing anyone. You don't have to buy the PS3 you know. I'm gobsmacked how many people seem to think every product should fit exactly their idea of what it should be, and anything that's more than that and so costs me is a tax or such.

2) Games console first in your estimation. Could well be either a media platform first and foremost in Sony's intentions, or equally a media platform and console.

Yeah. And what's Wii all about, changing the gaming interface to something different from every previous console before? It's like companies change strategy and evolve their markets or something. It's almost as though Sony don't want to produce just another console that just appeals to console gamers, and instead want to produce a multi-functional CE product with wider household appeal...

It seems to me the problem here is you're seeing PS3 as a product it was never designed to be. It's not just a console. It's not priced as a console or equipped as just a console and they want to appeal to more than the existing console owners. Your grumble that it's priced more than the product you want to buy is fair enough, but your reasoning it's a tax is illogical. If you don't want it, don't buy it, same as every product (de ja vu...) That's very different to a tax which is 'pay whether you want to or not or you go to prison'!

 

I also find it funny how some people refer to the sudden "death" of a format...

I mean, it's almost as if at one point all Bluray players and discs will just stop working. They just die.

First of all, consoles have been known to use formats that can be very well be considered "dead", as in they were only used on those consoles and were only compatible with those consoles. The only exception would be the consoles using CD and DVD, which are actually quite a few compared to the total number of consoles ever sold.

Second a most important, what gives some people the right to assume that one just-released format will fail and die, and the other one won't, when really there is no evidence that either of them will actually make an impact at all in the grand scheme of things? Why would Bluray "die" and HDDVD go on as the "winner", the saviour of HD movies?? We know very little, and from the little we do know, everything actually tilts in favour of Bluray from both a quantity of software available (eventually) and also number of players available in a few months (the PS3). This is from a purely marketing point of view, no one is discussing the merits of each format (the current better quality of video if HDDVD over Bluray titles for example), which matters very little when you have 3 million PS3s in houses and 30 times fewer HDDVD players around... If one were to make assumptions from the very little we know, he'd think Bluray would be the favourite.

I think some people just can't get over the fact that Sony (and PS3 and all things Sony-related) are in the business and are here to stay.

 

Fyi - Perhaps in other regions ps1 or ps2 was not welcomed with open arms but in the us neither console had any issue selling and nobody questioned the impact of these systems and their ability and probability to succeed.

Ps3 is another story.

To those that say ps3 isn't "taxing" gamers for bluray because ps3 isn't primarily a games machine I have one thing to say: If ps3 isn't primarily a games machine perhaps we shouldn't expect it to sell like one. (afterall it certainly isn't priced as such.)

/end rant

 

PS3 bashing is in vogue right now.

Not surprised.