Final confirmed Jan NPD's

TheChefO said:
In and of itself, yes, it does what it supposed to do. However the price/experience for a gamer is questionable when compared to other offerings available. Add games selection and it becomes decidedly more questionable. Not that everyone will question it. Almost 2 million agree with you. The other 98+ million aren't convinced yet.;)
Click to expand...

You go too far in generalizing 'gamer' Chef; I also raise an eyebrow at your seeming implication that those present owners are seemingly 'blinded' to the truth rather than cognizant of it. There is appeal to the PS3 above and beyond its present game library, whether you choose to recognize it or not. And the fact that you said you would purchase one yourself at ~$200 would lead one to assume you see a value not completely duplicated by the other consoles as well - it's simply that for you, that value is not worth more than $200. For myself, it was worth $500. Different people value different things. I'm puzzled by those that hail these results as a 'consumer' victory - the consumer *always* wins, because he does what he feels will benefit him the most. More options in the marketplace means a wider swath of the populace covered. So, a victory for MS, a defeat for Sony, the indication of a paradigm shift with Wii; all of these are valid things to say. But the idea held by some that if PS3 had sold double 360 or whatever, that somehow the consumer would have been 'losing,' just sort of startles me.
 
Carl B said:
You go too far in generalizing 'gamer' Chef; I also raise an eyebrow at your seeming implication that those present owners are seemingly 'blinded' to the truth rather than cognizant of it. There is appeal to the PS3 above and beyond its present game library, whether you choose to recognize it or not. And the fact that you said you would purchase one yourself at ~$200 would lead one to assume you see a value not completely duplicated by the other consoles as well - it's simply that for you, that value is not worth more than $200. For myself, it was worth $500. Different people value different things. I'm puzzled by those that hail these results as a 'consumer' victory - the consumer *always* wins, because he does what he feels will benefit him the most. More options in the marketplace means a wider swath of the populace covered. So, a victory for MS, a defeat for Sony, the indication of a paradigm shift with Wii; all of these are valid things to say. But the idea held by some that if PS3 had sold double 360 or whatever, that somehow the consumer would have been 'losing,' just sort of startles me.
Click to expand...

I don't see how you get that form his post. He's only stating that the price and game library have made the purchase questionable. Whereas it would have been a slam dunk, surefire purchase previously, it's now questionably because people see a cheaper alternative with a better game library.

What he's saying is obviously true, it'e being demonstrated as we speak, otherwise Sony would be completely supply limited right now with their 100million+ userbase.

No one is saying the consumer 'loses' by buying PS3, no-one is saying that there is no added value beyond the current game library.

He's simply saying that Sony has put themselves at somewhat of a disavantage, and that they should probably act a little less arrogant considering the position they've put themselves in, and current market conditions.

In other words, if Sony had launched in 05, at $299 or $399, they could probably afford to be arrogant, and would probably be rightfully so. Launchign a year later, at $500-600, with a weak game library, and the 360 doing extremely well, the arrogance just comes off as stupidity...
 
patsu said:
It is basic economics.

And you know that it's impossible to produce 100 million consoles at USD199 on day 1 right ? Well... heck even for month 3.
Click to expand...

Indeed, the results so far are falling significantly short of their target of 6 million in 6 months or 1 million/mo though... and apparantly supply isn't the problem.

Why worry/FUD ? We will just wait and see. Meanwhile I am having loads of fun on my PS3. Check the Resistance thread in GAF. That's the only thread I post there.
Click to expand...

No worry from me. I'm glad you're having fun and I'm sure there are many thousands more that are too. This question/answer is probably differerent for you, me and Sony but; What would you consider to be a successful ps3 userbase by next-nextgen?

If you say so...

As you said yourself, "You can talk the talk, but can you... ?"
Click to expand...

You lost me:oops:
 
scooby_dooby said:
I don't see how you get that form his post. He's only stating that the price and game library have made the purchase questionable. Whereas it would have been a slam dunk, surefire purchase previously, it's now questionably because people see a cheaper alternative with a better game library.

What he's saying is obviously true, it'e being demonstrated as we speak, otherwise Sony would be completely supply limited right now with their 100million+ userbase.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of that, but it was the sentence "Not that everyone will question it." that led to my post. To me, this seems to indicate a segment of the population that does not question what is presented to them, and essentially 'buys the hype.' Tell me if you read it differently. Now, I don't think Chef was trying to be insulting or anything, but at the same time I think it bares addressing that you can be a critical thinker yet still opt to purchase a PS3.

No one is saying the consumer 'loses' by buying PS3, no-one is saying that there is no added value beyond the current game library.
Click to expand...

People aren't saying that the consumer 'loses' by buying PS3, but there are many saying that the consumer has 'won' by not buying PS3. I'm (I think fairly) applying the transitive property in interpreting their meaning. ;)

He's simply saying that Sony has put themselves at somewhat of a disavantage, and that they should probably act a little less arrogant considering the position they've put themselves in, and current market conditions.

In other words, if Sony had launched in 05, at $299 or $399, they could probably afford to be arrogant, and would probably be rightfully so. Launchign a year later, at $500-600, with a weak game library, and the 360 doing extremely well, the arrogance just comes off as stupidity...
Click to expand...

I agree with this. I think they'll wait until after the Euro-launch to see to what level they should recast their tone in public.
 
Carl B said:
You go too far in generalizing 'gamer' Chef; I also raise an eyebrow at your seeming implication that those present owners are seemingly 'blinded' to the truth rather than cognizant of it. There is appeal to the PS3 above and beyond its present game library, whether you choose to recognize it or not. And the fact that you said you would purchase one yourself at ~$200 would lead one to assume you see a value not completely duplicated by the other consoles as well - it's simply that for you, that value is not worth more than $200. For myself, it was worth $500. Different people value different things. I'm puzzled by those that hail these results as a 'consumer' victory - the consumer *always* wins, because he does what he feels will benefit him the most. More options in the marketplace means a wider swath of the populace covered. So, a victory for MS, a defeat for Sony, the indication of a paradigm shift with Wii; all of these are valid things to say. But the idea held by some that if PS3 had sold double 360 or whatever, that somehow the consumer would have been 'losing,' just sort of startles me.
Click to expand...

I think the implication is that if the console makers got it into their heads that $600 was a viable price point for a console that we would see an escalation similar to what has been seen in the add-in graphics card market at the high end.

I, for one, am glad to see that price is a factor for the majority of consumers. Even to the degree that I suspect it's holding down 360 sales as well. And Nintendo OTOH is being rewarded for delivering products that people want at prices they are willing to pay.

I just have this sense that Sony have a tendancy to create the product they want to make, decide what they want to charge and then figure out how they are going to make people want to buy it.
 
Todd33 said:
The MS 360 VGA cable was $40 everywhere in Feb 06 (it still is), no off-brand ones existed to my knowledge. As for HDMI - Monopricre.com, quality cables for cheap. This gets to my point, off the shelf stuff versus 360 proprietary.

Bluetooth headsets, USB keyboard and mouse, HDMI cables - it may not make Sony money but it helps consumers.
Click to expand...

good point - Sony did throw the consumer a bone with industry wide standards in some cases and should be appluaded for it as it is a change in the right direction.

Carl B said:
You go too far in generalizing 'gamer' Chef; I also raise an eyebrow at your seeming implication that those present owners are seemingly 'blinded' to the truth rather than cognizant of it. There is appeal to the PS3 above and beyond its present game library, whether you choose to recognize it or not. And the fact that you said you would purchase one yourself at ~$200 would lead one to assume you see a value not completely duplicated by the other consoles as well - it's simply that for you, that value is not worth more than $200. For myself, it was worth $500. Different people value different things. I'm puzzled by those that hail these results as a 'consumer' victory - the consumer *always* wins, because he does what he feels will benefit him the most. More options in the marketplace means a wider swath of the populace covered. So, a victory for MS, a defeat for Sony, the indication of a paradigm shift with Wii; all of these are valid things to say. But the idea held by some that if PS3 had sold double 360 or whatever, that somehow the consumer would have been 'losing,' just sort of startles me.
Click to expand...

scooby_dooby said:
I don't see how you get that form his post. He's only stating that the price and game library have made the purchase questionable. Whereas it would have been a slam dunk, surefire purchase previously, it's now questionably because people see a cheaper alternative with a better game library.

What he's saying is obviously true, it'e being demonstrated as we speak, otherwise Sony would be completely supply limited right now with their 100million+ userbase.

No one is saying the consumer 'loses' by buying PS3, no-one is saying that there is no added value beyond the current game library.

He's simply saying that Sony has put themselves at somewhat of a disavantage, and that they should probably act a little less arrogant considering the position they've put themselves in, and current market conditions.

In other words, if Sony had launched in 05, at $299 or $399, they could probably afford to be arrogant, and would probably be rightfully so. Launchign a year later, at $500-600, with a weak game library, and the 360 doing extremely well, the arrogance just comes off as stupidity...
Click to expand...

Exactly Scooby,

However I would add to that, their arrogant behavior is what put them in their position in the first place. Arrogance on top of questionable decisions does lead to a chuckle though I must admit.

Not unlike a few decisions from MS last gen, but they were humbled enough to realize their position by pricing their console accordingly.

Obviously value of a games console is subjective to personal opinion. This opinion is reflected in sales (dependant on availability of course).
 
scooby_dooby said:
He's simply saying that Sony has put themselves at somewhat of a disavantage, and that they should probably act a little less arrogant considering the position they've put themselves in, and current market conditions.
Click to expand...

Sony can definitely benefit from humbling down. But it does not mean that their strategy is flawed, or their product is questionable.

In other words, if Sony had launched in 05, at $299 or $399, they could probably afford to be arrogant, and would probably be rightfully so. Launchign a year later, at $500-600, with a weak game library, and the 360 doing extremely well, the arrogance just comes off as stupidity...
Click to expand...

Yes, these are the shortfalls. You forgot the good things from Sony's perspective: Having established a 1 million base for Blu-ray (and still retaining strong studio support), laying a software foundation for Cell platform and more importantly the company, generating the demand for HDTV, having a good FPS like Resistance, ...

As they said, they are looking at a marathon. I'm not saying they will prevail. I'm saying we posters only have a partial view, and we may be overly arrogant ourselves for mocking the execs.
 
Carl B said:
I agree with all of that, but it was the sentence "Not that everyone will question it." that led to my post. To me, this seems to indicate a segment of the population that does not question what is presented to them, and essentially 'buys the hype.' Tell me if you read it differently. Now, I don't think Chef was trying to be insulting or anything, but at the same time I think it bares addressing that you can be a critical thinker yet still opt to purchase a PS3.
Click to expand...

My point, when looking at that sentence in context, was ps3 positioning was/is questionable.
Meaning one could question it. It is at a pricepoint which forces many to doubletake and research much further than a typical console purchase.

PS3 at $300 (at launch) fly's of the shelf, no questions asked.


People aren't saying that the consumer 'loses' by buying PS3, but there are many saying that the consumer has 'won' by not buying PS3. I'm (I think fairly) applying the transitive property in interpreting their meaning. ;)
Click to expand...

Sony getting the message that the consumer will not blindly follow the Playstation brand regardless of the offering is a good thing for the gaming consumer.

I agree with this. I think they'll wait until after the Euro-launch to see to what level they should recast their tone in public.
Click to expand...

Their tone is of little concern at this point - IMO. Killer Games. That is what it will take to turn their ship around.
 
TheChefO said:
Not unlike a few decisions from MS last gen, but they were humbled enough to realize their position by pricing their console accordingly.
Click to expand...

By raising the price $100?

Obviously value of a games console is subjective to personal opinion. This opinion is reflected in sales (dependant on availability of course).
Click to expand...

It sold 240k with no software to boost sales and is more expensive. It kind of looks like the 360's Feb-March numbers from 2006 (when there was no real shortage or next gen competition). So now they have failed utterly they will be humbled and do what?
 
TheChefO said:
My point, when looking at that sentence in context, was ps3 positioning was/is questionable.
Meaning one could question it. It is at a pricepoint which forces many to doubletake and research much further than a typical console purchase.

PS3 at $300 (at launch) fly's of the shelf, no questions asked.
Click to expand...

See, I don't agree with this though. I think questions should *always* be asked. No doubt at $300 more PS3's would fly off the shelves, because the opportunity cost is much lower at half the price, but my question to you is why is an install base of 3 million PS3s without BD playback in Jan of 07 better for Sony than an install base of 1 million PS3s with BD playback? And if you think about it, the answer is that maybe it's not.

Now, I don't think that things are going as Sony expected them to, but at the same time that doesn't mean that they wouldn't still have walked down the same path. I think we need to think in terms of years vs months before we can start writing the collective histories of mistakes and misteps.

Their tone is of little concern at this point - IMO. Killer Games. That is what it will take to turn their ship around.
Click to expand...

Turn the ship around? Killer games (and killer aps in general) are always what it's about. The ship just left port - why not give it a chance to see where it's actually going before talking of course correction. 360 pre-Gears and 360 post-Gears is all anyone need look at to see what said aps can do for uptake.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
patsu said:
Sony can definitely benefit from humbling down. But it does not mean that their strategy is flawed, or their product is questionable.
Click to expand...

Why are they missing their sales targets?

Yes, these are the shortfalls. You forgot the good things from Sony's perspective: Having established a 1 million base for Blu-ray (and still retaining strong studio support), laying a software foundation for Cell platform and more importantly the company, generating the demand for HDTV, having a good FPS like Resistance, ...
Click to expand...

Indeed those are good things for Sony. Bluray Royalties are good for Sony along with HDTV sales and establishing Cell. How is it good for me - Joe gamer? Did it make ps3 cheaper? Cheaper Games? Better Games?

As they said, they are looking at a marathon. I'm not saying they will prevail. I'm saying we posters only have a partial view, and we may be overly arrogant ourselves for mocking the execs.
Click to expand...

Agreed it is a marathon. We can only discuss the periodic barometers letting us know how the runners in the marathon are doing. As in anything else you have favorites to win and favorites to lose, and the people that will tell you why they believe the favorite to win or lose will win or lose.
 
mrcorbo said:
I think the implication is that if the console makers got it into their heads that $600 was a viable price point for a console that we would see an escalation similar to what has been seen in the add-in graphics card market at the high end.

I, for one, am glad to see that price is a factor for the majority of consumers.
Click to expand...

Well, I think we all knew that price would be a factor - it's just within that range we had everything from "PS3 won't sell at all" to "PS3 will sell the first 6 million no questions asked."

I think the graphics card analogy is a great one - indeed, I would never spend $600 for an add-in card, but at the same time that doesn't mean that I don't think consumers should have the option. There's clearly a market afterall. In consoles it's different because they have to be mainstream by their very natures - and in this I suspect that you're right, and Sony is probably feeling some burn. If the 20GB were available at all, I'd be curious to see how it fares against the 60GB; to me $500 vs $600 is an important psychological barrier. But alas, supplies are artificially weighted towards the 60GB.
 
xb360 still lead in the US in a years time

NPDjan.png

still looking like the xb360 will be leading in a years time in the US

WRT sales numbers all are lower than i expected ( except the ps2, prolly due to god of war2 i suspose )
terrible numbers for the ps3 esp, IMO sony need to really push blu-ray more ( it has won the battle of hd-dvd vs blu-ray ) but its not winning the battle against dvd, hint to sony, releasing a few titles per month, aint helping
 
Carl B said:
See, I don't agree with this though. I think questions should *always* be asked. No doubt at $300 more PS3's would fly off the shelves, because the opportunity cost is much lower at half the price, but my question to you is why is an install base of 3 million PS3s without BD playback in Jan of 07 better for Sony than an install base of 1 million PS3s with BD playback? And if you think about it, the answer is that maybe it's not.
Click to expand...

PS3 without BR at $300 is 100% no doubt in my mind, better for Sony than with BR at $500-600 (and delayed)

The thought that BR cannot compete without ps3 is a bit odd to me. If it isn't a better platform than HD-DVD then it will lose. If it is they, win. Consider also the option of a ps3 with BR as an additional SKU. Still the cheapest BR player on the market but if the ps3 base model was BR-less it could have been on the market cheaper and sooner.

Their position on the matter though is clear: greed and arrogance.

Example:
greed = a ps3 with built-in BR + HDD at $600
arrogance = all games on BR

DVD based games would have allowed the flexability to introduce a BR-less (and HDD-less) SKU to reach price sensetive markets. Through their arrogance they didn't consider the option of slow sales/rejection of the $500-600 pricepoint.

Now, I don't think that things are going as Sony expected them to, but at the same time that doesn't mean that they wouldn't still have walked down the same path. I think we need to think in terms of years vs months before we can start writing the collective histories of mistakes and misteps.
Click to expand...

Indeed it is early, however that does not erase the current state.

Turn the ship around? Killer games (and killer aps in general) are always what it's about. The ship just left port - why not give it a chance to see where it's actually going before talking of course correction. 360 pre-Gears and 360 post-Gears is all anyone need look at to see what said aps can do for uptake.
Click to expand...

The pre-post gears argument is a bit misleading. Those months also coincided with their first Christmas of not being supply limited and a years worth of software releases. Not that Gears didn't help but I think the increase had a lot more to do with the time of year than game of year :)razz: )
 
TheChefO said:
PS3 without BR at $300 is 100% no doubt in my mind, better for Sony than with BR at $500-600 (and delayed)

The thought that BR cannot compete without ps3 is a bit odd to me. If it isn't a better platform than HD-DVD then it will lose. If it is they, win. Consider also the option of a ps3 with BR as an additional SKU. Still the cheapest BR player on the market but if the ps3 base model was BR-less it could have been on the market cheaper and sooner.

Their position on the matter though is clear: greed and arrogance.

Example:
greed = a ps3 with built-in BR + HDD at $600
arrogance = all games on BR

DVD based games would have allowed the flexability to introduce a BR-less (and HDD-less) SKU to reach price sensetive markets.
Click to expand...

Chef, I could make a hundred arguments as to why pushing BD in PS3, making it standard, and putting the games on it is a better move for Sony on a strategic level as a whole, but since we just can't know right now... I state again that it will be years and not months before we can write the histories. I also think that your assertion that Sony is more or less greedy than any other company is nonsense, and if there is 'greed' in play, it is on the part of Nintendo right now. For your accusations that an included HDD and BD drive constitute greed, I would say only so far as they tie in to a greater corporate strategy. Because Sony is losing significant sums on the console manufacture, and that greed is subtle rather than in your face. And even then, I would *also* point out to you that the console you described can be had at $500. Since I imagine you don't own the core 360, I'm sure you'll willingly grant the feature differences equate to $100 between what you own and the "greed machine." Is $100 a lot or a little? Well - that's a per consumer analysis. I'm a fan of the HD media playback myself.

The pre-post gears argument is a bit misleading. Those months also coincided with their first Christmas of not being supply limited and a years worth of software releases. Not that Gears didn't help but I think the increase had a lot more to do with the time of year than game of year :)razz: )
Click to expand...

Ok... and that's different than PS3's situation how?
 
Todd33 said:
This "war" doesn't even start until Nov-Dec 07 and even then it's in its infancy. Right now all sides are just warming up for the battle.
Click to expand...

It started in Nov 05. Just because one party is late, the others won't stand still.
 
Laa-Yosh said:
It started in Nov 05. Just because one party is late, the others won't stand still.
Click to expand...

Its all perspective anyway. Just because one party needed to rush and get there early doesn't make the other two late. In this case, the plural would be used correctly instead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top