Can The PS3 Save SONY?

[patsu]

To you and me, yes.

To the average Joe casual gamer/every day consumer.... They probably don't even know what Bluray is.

Yes, Sony still has not convinced consumers of the BR value. In fact, Sony has not communicated PS3's unique values/experiences (if any) to justify for the USD 599 price tag yet. The current BOM/component-based approach can only go so far. This is my biggest gripe of Sony today.

If Sony can differentiate PS3 successfully based on the combined value/experiences (Enabled by Cell + RSX + Blu-ray + HDD + controller + Playstation Network), then the perception of "We don't need Blu-ray" or "Blu-ray is expensive" may go away. This may be a better approach than trying to single-out and explain Blu-ray separately.

In this line of thought how many of you would complain if xbox720 came bundled with an MS ipod (zune) and they charged an additional $200 over ps4? The portable device would come equiped to play native arcade titles and so one could view it as "essential" to the 720 experience as it extends it beyond the living room and "keeps you connected on the go"tm.


I for one would be pissed because I'm not a fan of portable gaming. Just as I'm not exactly thrilled at the prospect of paying for a BR player that I do not intend to use. Until ps3 games show a significant (read $200) improvement over xb360 games and that improvement is directly related to the extended storage space, BR will be a PS gamer tax in my eyes and I would assume most others as well that are not interested in BR movies.

Blu-ray alone may not make up the USD 200 price difference. The "free" online infrastructure (if we believe Sony), low initial Cell yield, 40 Gb additional HDD space, exclusive games may also contribute to the price gap (for now at least). Regardless, I agree that as long as Sony fails to articulate the PS3 experiences, people will attribute the high cost to the Blu-ray scapegoat.

As for the 720 example, the answer is simple. I won't buy it but I won't bitch about it too.

My reasoning is iPod has already dominated the music player space. So Zune feels like a tag-on, or worsestill duplicated purchase (More like a buy-one-get-one free promotion). The ability to play arcade game is also non-critical for me (unless it provides a new controller experience for the big budget titles like Wii).

Conversely for PS3, I will buy it for different reasons (Blu-ray only plays a part). Sony and MS just need to project how many people are like me and build their business case. They can drop their price later to try to capture more customers. There is no hate or swear words involved.

 

[Powderkeg]

Heck, the average joe tends to call ANY console either a 'nintendo' or a 'playstation'.

We were talking about fans though, which makes the situation a little different.

"Fans" tend to be narrowminded, only supporting the system they are fans of. Thus, PS3 fans will naturally see Bluray as something that makes the PS3 stand out because they are PS3 fans. Fans of the other 2 systems will see it as irrelevent.

 

[archangelmorph]

Until ps3 games show a significant (read $200) improvement over xb360 games and that improvement is directly related to the extended storage space, BR will be a PS gamer tax in my eyes and I would assume most others as well that are not interested in BR movies.

It doesn't have to be exactly related..

As far as I can see the $200 (or £125 over here) between the price of the xb360 and the PS3 is justified far more by looking at the greater scheme of the differences on functionality rather than concentrating soley on the inclusion of next gen storage media on Sony's part..:

xb360 functionality list:
+ next-gen games console
- non-standard memory card interface
- non-standard HDD (20GB)
- no free online gaming
- DVD movie playback
- no built in Wifi
(total price: £280)

PS3 functionality list:
+ next-gen games console (+ more horse power)
+ standard memory interface (use ur phone/mp3/digital camera's memory sticks for game saves etc.. )
+ standard HDD (according to the phil harris interview on gamesindustry.biz a while back..)
+ HDMI connection (future proofing)
+ bigger HDD (60GB)
+ free online gaming (worth £40 per yr on xb360, that's £180 for a 5 yr console lifespan!!)
+ Blu-ray movie playback (+ Blu-ray for games, whatever that may mean..)
+ DVD movie playback
+ built in Wifi (an adaptor for the xb360 costs around £50..)
+ connectivity with PSP (gimmick or may turn out not to be..)
+ new tilt controller functionality (adds a new dimension to interactivity in games..)
(total price: £425)

So to get an Xbox360 even to match the PS3 for functionality, bar increased HDD space, standard memory card interface, HDMI or Blu-ray, it's cost would look like this..:

xb360 - £280
wifi adaptor - £50
5 yr xbl subscription - £180
(total price: £510)

So even ignoring the inclusion of the proprietary storage media, PS3 would STILL be a bargain over what you get with the Xbox360 AND you have the added bonus of all those wonderful japanese developed exclusive titles as opposed to wave after wave of FPS's and action games we tend to see on MS platforms..

Personally I don't think there's any chance of the PS3 suffering failure even with such a high price tag..

If companies like nVidia and ATI can make big bucks selling truck loads of £100-400 high-end graphics cards then i'm sure that means there's more than enough "early adoptors" and "Sony enthusiasts" to see the PS3 sell very well for at *least* 12 months before they start to consider reducing the console to a more competitive price point..

 

[TheChefO]

Blu-ray alone may not make up the USD 200 price difference. The "free" online infrastructure (if we believe Sony), low initial Cell yield, 40 Gb additional HDD space, exclusive games may also contribute to the price gap (for now at least). Regardless, I agree that as long as Sony fails to articulate the PS3 experiences, people will attribute the high cost to the Blu-ray scapegoat.

As a gamer those things mean nothing to me. If the games are not significantly better ($200) then where is the value?

As for the 720 example, the answer is simple. I won't buy it but I won't bitch about it too.

My reasoning is iPod has already dominated the music player space. So Zune feels like a tag-on, or worsestill duplicated purchase (More like a buy-one-get-one free promotion). The ability to play arcade game is also non-critical for me (unless it provides a new controller experience for the big budget titles like Wii).

Replace "ipod" in your quote with "dvd" and you'll get where I'm coming from.

 

[Powderkeg]

It doesn't have to be exactly related..

As far as I can see the $200 (or £125 over here) between the price of the xb360 and the PS3 is justified far more by looking at the greater scheme of the differences on functionality rather than concentrating soley on the inclusion of next gen storage media on Sony's part..

The price is only justified if the added functionality is put to use. If you've got a person gaming on an SDTV, doesn't use a wireless network connection, and doesn't save multimedia files to their game console, then paying another $200 to get those features isn't justifiable.

 

[TheChefO]

The price is only justified if the added functionality is put to use. If you've got a person gaming on an HDTV, doesn't use a wireless network connection, and doesn't save multimedia files to their game console, then paying another $200 to get those features isn't justifiable.

fixed

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The price is only justified if the added functionality is put to use. If you've got a person gaming on an SDTV, doesn't use a wireless network connection, and doesn't save multimedia files to their game console, then paying another $200 to get those features isn't justifiable.

That's mostly true, though you can't take the price of PS3 an effectively partition it that way. You will find some people who don't have HDTV nor wireless networking and yet who can justify $600 for the console (except they'd be buying the $500 version!) as the system is for them worth that much. MS Works might cost me £100, of which half the features I don't use, but if the overall application is worth £100 to me for the features I do use the price is justified. Though of course it would be nice to have an alternative option that loses the features I don't use and has a price saving to match!

In the case of PS3 and that extra $200 for BRD, if games come on BRD then it is being used, in contrast to the MS Works analogy. I don't think it safe yet to say SDTV users will see no benefit. If texture quality and game detail is improved because of the extra storage space it still has a benefit and can't be classed as an excessive component. It might be that everything PS3 can do with BRD in it's games it could do on DVD, but we don't know for sure yet and there's certainly some noises saying otherwise.

 

[patsu]

As a gamer those things mean nothing to me. If the games are not significantly better ($200) then where is the value?

Free online play and game services (if we believe Sony) is something that Xbox owners do not have. The other hardware features all contributed incrementally to better games. Finally PS3 exclusive games such as Heavenly Sword looks promising.

If "as a gamer, those things mean nothing to you", then my recommendation for you would be: Don't buy a PS3. Further explanations would be pointless since you can't see the value and I'm not a sales person.

Replace "ipod" in your quote with "dvd" and you'll get where I'm coming from.

Not really. A DVD is a commodity today. Every laptop/PC has one. I don't see where you're coming from ?

 

[archangelmorph]

The price is only justified if the added functionality is put to use. If you've got a person gaming on an SDTV, doesn't use a wireless network connection, and doesn't save multimedia files to their game console, then paying another $200 to get those features isn't justifiable.

I see what your saying but at the same time I believe the average consumer when buying new consumer electronics consider shelling out a little extra for some additional functionality they may not use now but *may* use in the future worthwhile..

I mean I bought my PS2 coming from a PS1 I had owned previously but at the time I had no intention of buying it to watch movies.. Later on down the line though I regularly made visits to the video store to buy and rent many a title just because the PS2 offered my the convenience of movie playback my previous console did not.. And added to that the sheer novelty of the DVD format which was relatively new at the time and far better in quality than my VHS, I definitely considered it to be a worthwhile purchase..

I think most people don't wanna by a Playstation console because of the functionality they think they will use but rather for the *possibilities* of utilising the functionalities they maybe haven't used previously.. That's all part of the experience of getting new technology with added functionality to play with..

If this mindset was not even remotely true for alot of consumers then mobile phones today wouldn't have mp3/wap/digital cameras/games and all the other crap that gets shoved into them.. Granted most people never use most of the functionality and some people will use it but maybe not very often.. But paying a few pounds extra for some functionality which gives you the ability to do something that you probably will need 4-5 yrs down the line (I.e. next-gen movie playback) is definitely not as incredibly taxing as some people seem to think thing IMO.. Heck it beats having to buy a new product altogether (see gaming PCs, mobile phones, early HDTVs lacking HDMI etc..) in 2-3 yrs time because you were too stingy to pay the premium in the beginning..

I know most consumers would prefer to buy a product thats future proof especially when it's a product with such a long life span..

If I can look at my PS3 in 4 yrs time and still be able to use it with my top of the range media, TV and other home entertainment devices then I'd say a one-off payment of £425 is entirely justified..

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

I know most consumers would prefer to buy a product thats future proof especially when it's a product with such a long life span..

If there's a phrase that should have never entered the english lexicon, 'future proof' is certainly it.

There's no such thing.

If I can look at my PS3 in 4 yrs time and still be able to use it with my top of the range media, TV and other home entertainment devices then I'd say a one-off payment of £425 is entirely justified..

Umm.. sure. In fact, I'd say that if you can look at your PS3 in 4 years time and not have it be the weak link in your 'top of the range' media, TV, and other entertainment devices, then the PS3 is justified at three times is current price tag.

As it is, I'll be shocked if your PS3 isn't the weak link in your 'top of the range' entertainment devices the second you take it out of the box.

 

[compres]

I keep it simple:

I don't want to pay sony for stuff I don't need. And that is:

a) A video player (BR is fine if we need the GBs, I am not sure either way)
b) A DVR and the hard drive.
c) A computer (Unless you live in the 3rd world I don't see the point)
d) Memory Stick(r) reader. I use SD thanks.


There are some things I'm not so shure like:

- Lots of USB(wtf could I do with those?)
- WiFi connection (guess I like it if free, not if they charging me for that)
- Old generation PC video card

The stuff I like:

1) Unique maybe even innovative CPU
2) Err good internet service? Ahh wtf that's why I'm not buying the thing....


Now I don't care who wins the console wars, but trying to be imparial and objective here. I don't think that even with the best console games ever released in human history a 600usd console will sell enough units to win the market.

That said I would love to be proven wrong, sice I am no fan of Microsoft and their monopolistic behavour.

 

[Guden Oden]

I keep it simple:

No, you're not. You list like a million irrelevant arguments, when the two (or maybe even the ONE) that you REALLY need to concern yourself with isn't anywhere to be seen.

Two: price.
ONE: GAMES.

That is keeping it simple...

 

[patsu]

The price is only justified if the added functionality is put to use. If you've got a person gaming on an SDTV, doesn't use a wireless network connection, and doesn't save multimedia files to their game console, then paying another $200 to get those features isn't justifiable.

Powderkeg, it's a very valid point, which is why Sony will lose marketshares more than they want to this coming gen.

Just a minor item, the difference may be $100 under the above assumptions (i.e., buy the low end PS3). The rest will depend on whether Sony can demonstrate the PS3 gaming differences.

 

[patsu]

As it is, I'll be shocked if your PS3 isn't the weak link in your 'top of the range' entertainment devices the second you take it out of the box.

RancidLunchmeat, could you elaborate more ? Do you mean the playback software in PS3 is not mature enough as a player, or something else ? As it stands, PS3 is likely to be state of-the-art because of new hardware standards, digital distribution and updatable software (barring any bugs like the Samsung player).

I don't want to pay sony for stuff I don't need. And that is:

a) A video player (BR is fine if we need the GBs, I am not sure either way)
b) A DVR and the hard drive.
c) A computer (Unless you live in the 3rd world I don't see the point)
d) Memory Stick(r) reader. I use SD thanks.

PS3 does not promise a DVR. It supports SD though.

 

[Fafalada]

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.

Maybe you were following different field then - because I distinctly remember PS2 being bashed below ground quite often.
Graphics/CPU was brought in question from more angles then PS3 and 360 combined (no IBM and NVidia involvement made things worse in that regard), it was claimed the machine was impossible to build, and later that it cost Sony 800+ to build (DVD being the main reason for high cost).
DVD was also considered a threat to the platform (if it succeeds, noone will buy any games), and I don't even need to talk about how things were once the jaggie mania started.

People quickly forget what they criticised in the past though. In the end it really boils down to whether the price tag will work or not, the rest is just people arguing for arguing sake.

 

[compres]

No, you're not. You list like a million irrelevant arguments, when the two (or maybe even the ONE) that you REALLY need to concern yourself with isn't anywhere to be seen.

Two: price.
ONE: GAMES.

That is keeping it simple...

LOL seems like you are right my friend. However no matter how good the games are at 600 it wont be a hot seller.

 

[compres]

PS3 does not promise a DVR. It supports SD though.

My bad, I stand corrected. However I still don't know of anything important to do with the memory.

 

[patsu]

Some possibilities are: import photos/music into a game, export in-game videos, or perhaps save game progress to memory stick, SD, ...

It depends on the PS3 OS and bundled applications (if any). Not much is known at the moment. Personally, I don't mind centralizing my iTunes, photo collections on a PS3, and mount them from my laptop or my wife's laptop, but your mileage may vary.

 

[TheChefO]

Maybe you were following different field then - because I distinctly remember PS2 being bashed below ground quite often.
Graphics/CPU was brought in question from more angles then PS3 and 360 combined (no IBM and NVidia involvement made things worse in that regard), it was claimed the machine was impossible to build, and later that it cost Sony 800+ to build (DVD being the main reason for high cost).
DVD was also considered a threat to the platform (if it succeeds, noone will buy any games), and I don't even need to talk about how things were once the jaggie mania started.

People quickly forget what they criticised in the past though. In the end it really boils down to whether the price tag will work or not, the rest is just people arguing for arguing sake.

Faf - I truly respect your opinion in all matters programming and looking at it from that perspective, yes ps2 had a lot of question marks. However, the general media and general public were raving on about ps2 as if it were the second coming - and yes even after looking like a wet turd compared to Dreamcast with the jaggie fisaco it was still hyped. General consensus amoung the idiots err public was that the machine was "too powerful to quickly come to grips with" and eventually it would save the world ... or sell a 100million units but certainly one of the two.

ps1 was seen as an impending doom for Sega and Nintendo and that quickly proved true for one of them and certainly didn't raise the other ones stock.

ps3 has been bantered back and fourth as a question mark between failure and success mostly based on price. I look at it as Sony internally using ps tech as the sacrifical offering to BR as the machine would have not been questioned for one second if it retailed at the same price as ps1 and ps2 and was not hampered with the high cost of BR. In this case we would not be having this conversation at all and instead would be asking how much longer will Ms continue to run in the red with their xbox experiment.

 

[TheChefO]

Some possibilities are: import photos/music into a game, export in-game videos, or perhaps save game progress to memory stick, SD, ...

It depends on the PS3 OS and bundled applications (if any). Not much is known at the moment. Personally, I don't mind centralizing my iTunes, photo collections on a PS3, and mount them from my laptop or my wife's laptop, but your mileage may vary.

how are those advantages over 360? from what I've seen you can save pics/music from usb connected devices...