DFC Report: "Clear possibility that PS3 could end upthird in market share"
- Thread starter Hardknock
- Start date
I can only guess he means you need a MemCard. I mean, you can play games on XB360 Core, but not very effectively!
Shifty Geezer said:
Not having a mem card would not prevent you from playing games. It just prevents you from saving your progress. Saying that, is like saying the PS2 is not useable out of the box compared to the original xbox. I think that would also be a dumb statement imo, wouldn't you think the same?
Last edited by a moderator:
Qroach said:
I dont think, in many cases is impossible to play a game in 1 row, and kepping a console turned on in realluy bad idea (from economics to ecologic POVs, it probably dont do any good to the console itself too) and it is only possible to play one game.
Basicaly it is stupid as hell.
I did say effectively. Playing a game from beginning to end without ever switching off your console is rather ridiculous. And yes, by the argument presented the PS2 was not useable out of the box, though I wouldn't use the word 'unusable'.Qroach said:
I agree though a co-worker of mine did just that with Kameo. I couldn't understand why you wouldn't just buy the memory card. I am surprised that Sony is giving up the memory card; this accounted for roughly 1 billion dollars in sales for the PS2 (if my memory is correct).pc999 said:
That and the lack of an IR port really confuse me; Sony knows hardware, so I'm sure they've worked through this, but it is still confusing to me.
Because memory cards suck! 8 MB for the price of what, 256 MB of ordinary flash? No thanks! Plus they want portability with other devices like cameras and PSP. A proprietary card won't allow that. And if you're adding support for flash devices, stinging your pundits for overpriced Memory Cards when they already have a Flash storage is just a sick insult IMO. Back in PS2's day Flash wasn't a big thing, so I can just about excuse them. But now it's so prevalent there's no reason not to allow people to use those old 32 MB CF and SD cards they have lying around, or share data with their 512 MB cards that they use on the cameras.Sis said:
scooby_dooby
Legend
Ya that's a a juicy piece of pie to pull off the table if you're sony, especially having conditioned buyers for the last 10 years that a memory card is required. I also didn't believe they were going to give up that revenue, which was why I so strongly believed there would be no bundled HDD. I also though they would come in at $400 so they're really surprising me.
The statement the Core is not useable out of the box is ridiculous though. For the last 10 years consumers have been conditioned to buy a memory card in addition to their console. It's like saying a remote control is not functional out of the box because it lack batteries, while everyone knows you have to buy batteries seperately.
MS can take advantage of that conditioning, just like PS2 did with XBOX. One of the main reasons MS execs cut the HDD is because the consumers simply didn't recognize the value added in an internal HDD.
The statement the Core is not useable out of the box is ridiculous though. For the last 10 years consumers have been conditioned to buy a memory card in addition to their console. It's like saying a remote control is not functional out of the box because it lack batteries, while everyone knows you have to buy batteries seperately.
MS can take advantage of that conditioning, just like PS2 did with XBOX. One of the main reasons MS execs cut the HDD is because the consumers simply didn't recognize the value added in an internal HDD.
There's simply no way to properly show how a hard drive adds value to the majority of the gaming market. This much has already been proven by microsoft. the whole, 'you don't need mem cards" doesn't mean squat to gamers. There's also no way to show how it would justify an added expense to those that are casual gamers.
Last edited by a moderator:
So wait, we are getting mad at sony for doing away with memory cards and including a standard hard drive because we are not used to it? Whats next? getting mad at microsoft for wireless controllers? From a business standpoint I can see what your saying, but from a consumer standpoint, im ALL for this type of stuff. I doubt memory cards helped the ps2 gain marketshare. That is what the thread is about, marketshare, no?
Not really sure what your saying. All those demo's and downloadable content over xbox live give no value toward the system? If anything, I think thats one of the coolest things about the 360, and only the hard drive can give you that.Qroach said:
Last edited by a moderator:
scooby_dooby said:
That was exactly my argument against the Core. Everybody these days knows that you have to factor in the price of a memory card when you buy the core, and therefore everyone disregards the core as a viable alternative to the HD version - it is very bad value for money.
What MS could have done is release the Core with a 512mb-1Gb memcard included, preferably of a non-proprietary format so they could make them cheap and people could upgrade when the 4gb or 8gb etc. versions come out. Then it would have actually made at least a little bit sense and you could even download some Live Arcade games to it and such.
Another thing that Microsoft could have done is allow people to just plug in their own harddrives, in the way that you could on the PS2 (it was a very good system, just too bad it wasn't supported - even just being able to save your games to it would have been great). Another big opportunity missed.
Bad_Boy said:
you're sorta flipping what I'm saying around backwards. I'm not saying that having memory cards supported caused sony to increase market share. I'm saying MS having a hard drive included did NOT help XBOX increase market share.
It was a feature that was very useful from a hardcore gamers point of view, however having that didn't make casuals want to buy an xbox over a PS2 with both consoles being the same price (thus saving money ove ra PS2. In the PS3, it's slightly more complicated. You have a cost difference between it and the Xbox and what I'm saying is you can't list the hardrive in the PS3 as a justification of the higher price since the majority of the market (casual gamers) won't care. All they will see if a $299 360 versus a $499 PS3.
What I'm saying is you can't use adding a hard drive as justification for a higher price tag, since not everyone will benefit from it in the same way. For example, the downloadable content you mentioned only applies to people that go online. The majority of the console buying public will NEVER go online. With regards to PS3, how do you justify the price difference to those people? Imo you can't...
similar problem with blu ray. You can't justify that to the people that don't own HDTV's. You can't even justify it to those that have HDTV's that are "compatible" instead of - "HD ready" since they won't really see "much" of a benefit visually over regular DVD. Many HDTV compatible sets don't even come close to 720p resoloution, bordering on SDTV res.
Last edited by a moderator:
That's debateable. I expect the entirety of the console buying public go online, just on PCs rather than consoles. And that's because online gaming doesn't appeal to everyone. But if that online service provides more than just online gaming, it might well get a lot more users. eg. If you could, say, watch a BRD movie on PS3, love the soundtrack, switch over to the Content Portal and buy and download the soundtrack to HDD, able to copy it to flash for other platforms, that's something a fair number of non-network gamers would be interested in I imagine.Qroach said:
scooby_dooby
Legend
Bad_Boy said:
Mad dog? I give Sony a huge pat on the back for what they've done here. I think they'll lose marketshare because of it, but I appreciate it from a consumer point of view certainly.
scooby_dooby
Legend
Arwin said:
I disagree. I think what MS should've done is price the memory card and HDD alot lower which would automatically make the core desireable. Remeber the core is aimed at non-Live users as well as people with little expendable income.
If the HDD was $60, and memory card $30, alot of people wouldn't even bother with the premium, as it stands now the core is just a horrible deal. It's all a pricing problem that's all it is, they gave the Premium an extra $200 in value, and saddled the core with a wired controller, obviously very few people will be interested in such a crappy deal.
It has nothing to do with HDD or Memory Cards imo, everything to do with a lop sided pricing model. Nobody likes to get a crappy deal. There's no reason the Core needs to be a crappy deal, but it is right now.
Gradthrawn
Veteran
Qroach said:
Online functionality has never been as robust as it is now. The previous stats, ~6% online attachment rate for the PS2, ~10% for the XBox, are based on the online configurations for the last generation. When online play was pretty much the only functionality, outside of a few downloads for games. As someone pointed out, far more robust functionality is being offered, and now that additional functionality is free. Silver accounts cost nothing, and that allows users to download demos, trailers, etc. That wasn't available before. I would be very cautious about making assumptions about general online attachment rates based on last generation's figures. This generation, all 3 competitors are stepping up to plate with online from day 1, with some level of free services. Online as an integral part of the console, not just for online play. Online play, I would agree with in terms of low attachment rate now and in the near future. But online in general for consoles, no, not at all. Why buy OPM for the demo disc when you can now get the demos for free?
Qroach said:
That would be to completely ignore the benefit that the additional storage space can offer to all games. That is a value that you can justify to any user, no matter their display device. Doesn't matter what the actual benefit is, no more then it matters what benefit the Cell and RSX may actually have. You just have to be able to market the benefit they offer to everyone.
Last edited by a moderator:
scooby_dooby
Legend
Gradthrawn said:
Still, X360 currently has only 50% of their users connected to Live! That means half of the early adopters haven't even bothered signing up, that speaks alot to me about where the mainstream is with regards to online, it's more important now for sure, but you still have loads of people who don't care and won't be going online at all. Half the userbase is nothing to scoff at.
Shifty Geezer said:
Well it is debateable. I would also add to this and say that a big portion of the console buying casuals may not even own a PC at all. Also the ones that do may even have simple dial up internet service that again is another barrier to cross. broadband is doing well but still hasn't caught up to the amount of users on really cheap dial up from what i understand.
It's not just a fact of needing that compelling online service there and available, you also need the market to be ready for that service and to be capable of seeing the added value that is being marketed.
So in this case someone sees the PS3 price tag and the 360 price tag. To justify the PS3 's high price to those casuals you need to consider.
1. Do they have an HDTV
2. Is it a real HTDV (lot's of scam TV's out there for very cheap prices)
3. Do they want online gaming
4. Are they capable of online gaming (dial up isn't good for downloading console game demos)
there's a whole lot of things ton consider before the people that fallinto those catagories will see anyt sort of added value.
I don't think people will care about this, at least not as far as gaming goes. I mean you could always do something like this on Xbox and most people that own one don't even know that it's possilbe. cool feature but really how usefull is it? not usefull enough to justify an increase in price.
Also this is more of a software related feature. I've been sticking to hardware and how cost/price is justified by what is included. you could say, software in this case is essentially free since both 360 and PS3 will allow for software updates to add new features.
I think it's safe to say the 360 uses the Hard Drive better in many ways than the X-Box ever did. (if you dont count homebrew) And now its almost a bulletpoint for added value if your thinking about buying a 360, average joe or not.Qroach said:
Like said above, online is getting more and more attention than it ever has, we cant base that off last gen numbers. Hard drive wont give the user just an online experience also, there are many offline features that could be used. Who knows what sony has in mind.Qroach said:
Wasnt directly aimed at you bro, just the whole feel of this thread gave the harddrive/no-memory thing a bad connotation.scooby_dooby said:
Maybe with free online features the average joe will find it more appealing? Guess we will have to wait and see.scooby_dooby said:
Similar threads
