PS3 sales

Those add-ons were garbage and didn't sell enough to make optical formats a norm for gaming.

By the time the PS1 launched, the prime competitors were predominantly using carts to distribute games.

PS1 brought CD-ROM to the gaming masses. Period.

 

Lets completely ignore the Saturn which also had CD Rom.

 

The 3do was not a add on that was a fully functional console that had a cd-rom.

The saturn also had a cd-rom drive the only reason the ps1 brought cd-rom to the masses was they won the generation. If sega would of won the saturn would of brought cd-rom to the masses. Also by the time cd-rom was put into game machines it was a very mature platform not ubar expensive bleeding edge tech. The saturn even launched before the PS1 in north america so sony was not even the first that generation with a cd-rom in north america. Everyone but nintendo was going towards optical media don't make it sound like sony some how came up with it the idea of putting a cd-rom in a console.

 

Oh then I guess 3DO and Saturn "forced CD-ROM down the throats" of gamers.

Just not many of them though.

So what's the issue, forcing some storage format on gamers or selling too many consoles and propagating the format?

 

In fact they did, along with Philips.

 

There's no such pretension.

PS1 played CDs (Red book audio).

PS2 played DVD-Video.

PS3/Blu-Ray isn't the first time they offered AV features beyond games. Don't pretend otherwise.

Oh and if I'm not mistaken, they had patent positions on CDs and DVDs as well. So them having ulterior motives for using a particular storage format isn't anything new.

 

The reason why inflation is a valid variable here is because it reflects what a consumer is willing to spend on a certain technology. It's true the technology itself becomes cheaper; conversly, you can spend the same amount and expect more. Or... in this case, spend more and get much more.

I spend more on cell phones now than I ever have, and I do so for a huge functionality increase relative to the handsets of the past. It's not that x console automatically justifies y price... the inflation benchmark is more just an indicator of what people were paying, relative to their real-world incomes, for price of entry into gaming before. Whether people are willing to pay more, less, or what... I think this generation will clarify for us. But it won't be a lab environment, because on top of that experiment, the actual market/populace these consoles are pushed on is going to be expanded.

**********************

On the high-def optical formats... I think Total HD is a terrible idea, and the LG dual-format player, a much better one. Whether dual-format players catch on or remain a novelty will in part be determined by how the format war itself plays out during this year.

 

IIRC PS3 Blu-Ray support was announced way back in 2004 by SCEI. People have known for a long time that the console would come with this technology as standard. I don't get the "their forcing this down our throats" comments either.

Sony's folly is the $599 tag - that causes huge sticker shock. Anything over $500 means people start thinking about the next milestone - $1,000, this is why (IMO) psychologically the lead SKU will have difficulty selling. Remember original targets were for 4mn worldwide by the end of 2006 and only 2mn all the way till the end of March 2007. Sony themselves expected demand to fall of a cliff after the holidays.

$599 is not an impulse buy to even the hardcore - it will make you stop and think.

 

regarding Total HD: Whether or not it takes off, it supports both formats. Thus, it supports both lines of players. So, if it does become the standard, all the better! Both HD-DVD and Blu Ray will live on, and neither the HD-DVD 360 add-on, or the internal PS3 Blu-Ray drive, will be rendered obsolete. With that said, I have my doubts about studios supporting it

 

It may be not be the first time for av features but it is the first time av features have almost doubled the price of a game machine. The PS2 was the same price as PS1 DVD added nothing to the cost for the consumer it was a good deal. Also the PS1 and PS2 used established media formats to push gaming this time it is using a game machine to push an un established media with gamer footing the bill directly. Blue ray and blue ray alone forced sony to almost double the price of the new generation machines. If the PS3 launched in 2008 or 2009 when the new media formats were established and reasonably priced I would not mind them including it in the system since it would add nothing to my cost.

 

The Sega Saturn launched earlier than the PS1, it was a console, not an add on.

Read up on your console history Here

 

The Question I have is how did Playstation 1 sell next to Saturn in the US/EU/Japan markets? PS2 didn't have a direct competitor (DC doesn't count) so it's tougher to guage but I don't recall Sony ever being in this position (last) sales-wise.

Does anyone have an accurate total for ps3 units sold so far?

 

As far as I know PS1 did great in all markets. Saturn was doing better initially in Japan but it was very soon taken over. Sega shipped greater numbers than the PS1 numbersbeing sold though and they kept announcing their shipped numbers as proof doing better than PS1 in Japan when the case was the exact opposite. Anyways, Sega went downhill back then due to the mistakes and arrogance of one man.

In general PS1 was outselling N64 and Saturn in all territories.

 

From what I read not sure if it is true or not the saturn and ps1 were basically neck and neck in japan till FF7 hit and the PS1 took off. Iam not sure in the other territories but from what I can remember the saturn was a dud in north america after a surprise launch backfired and they never recovered.

 

What is this total HD? Does it offer something beyond HD-DVD and Blu-ray?

 

Well we didnt have the internet to tell us Sony is Evil and Microsoft is good for competition back then..

 

Actually, though this is true, I'm not sure that changes Sony's choices or PS3's price. Imagine that they didn't develop BRD and there was only the HD DVD standard. Do you think Sony would have stuck with DVDs or included HD-DVD? I think they'd have done the latter because they believe storage is important, and want HD video playback in their system, and thus the price of PS3 would still be very high. That's the difference between forcing a standard on people and choosing the next storage format as a content delivery platform. It's only because of the BRD-HD DVD conflict that people assume it's the only reason BRD was included. Until that's confirmed, and we know an alternative HD drive wouldn't have been included given the absence on a Sony format, I think people are jumping the gun saying Sony are forcing their standard on people and that's the only reason it was included.