PS3 Strategy/Confidence Retrospective
- Thread starter scooby_dooby
- Start date
- Status
Yes, as I mentioned in my first post in this thread. The boastful PR statements and the high concept visions are what people gravitated towards, but it doesn't mean Sony the company, the strategy, the pricing is founded on arrogance though.
We now know that some of those visions are indeed "for real" but it's a work in progress. At this moment, I file it under a PR mistake (read: loud mouth execs) when Sony went on for almost a year without a PR head, plus misunderstanding/disbelief (about that still crazy/insanely great Kutaragi vision).
We now know that some of those visions are indeed "for real" but it's a work in progress. At this moment, I file it under a PR mistake (read: loud mouth execs) when Sony went on for almost a year without a PR head, plus misunderstanding/disbelief (about that still crazy/insanely great Kutaragi vision).
Last edited by a moderator:
to be honest with you all,
When you are dealing with one of the biggest evils of all time "MONEY", stop pondering on why or how such things happen, evil is unpredictable as hell, literally in every since of the word.
Things happen for a reason guy's, no matter how hard you try, things might just turn out differently.
When you are dealing with one of the biggest evils of all time "MONEY", stop pondering on why or how such things happen, evil is unpredictable as hell, literally in every since of the word.
Things happen for a reason guy's, no matter how hard you try, things might just turn out differently.
DuckThor Evil
Legend
I personally think that Blu-ray might have been just the right strategy to differentiate PS3 from the competition. It might just be the one component that will eventually cost reduce to near DVD-level. If Sony had instead of Blu-ray put more ram or a GPU with twice the transistors, the cost reductions would have lagged behind X360 in those areas till the end with 100% certainty, and they would have lost all the benefits that Blu-ray brings to the table.
For Sony and/or PS3 the positive aspects of Blu-ray are:
-HD-movie playback ability and a real chance to get into a monopoly situation in the HD-movie market, also known as Blu-ray royalties
-silent PS3
-convinience as not having to swap discs and a potential to have atleast few games that wouldn't work well out of DVD
Negative aspects:
-Very high initial price level that cannibalized the first year PS3 sales to a level which was less than the competition (large variance between different markets)
-the budget could have been used to make the PS3 more powerful as a gaming machine
Did I miss lot of important stuff? In my book it made perfect sense to include it in the box, the potential is too great. Wouldn't it have been just as arrogant to release the PS3 earlier with similar specs as the X360 and use the brand power as the only differentiating factor. "it's Playstation so we'll win"?... even if true. Would the average consumer appreciate an extra 256MB ram more than they'll appreciate Blu-ray in the long run?
I think that the release window and the expected life cycles of these consoles didn't really leave a lot of room in the transistor budgets of these two consoles, with or without Blu-ray. MS put in as much transistors as they could and Sony had to work with similar numbers also.
I personally think that the pot odds were good enough to put Blu-ray in, but it definately was still a gamble.
For Sony and/or PS3 the positive aspects of Blu-ray are:
-HD-movie playback ability and a real chance to get into a monopoly situation in the HD-movie market, also known as Blu-ray royalties
-silent PS3
-convinience as not having to swap discs and a potential to have atleast few games that wouldn't work well out of DVD
Negative aspects:
-Very high initial price level that cannibalized the first year PS3 sales to a level which was less than the competition (large variance between different markets)
-the budget could have been used to make the PS3 more powerful as a gaming machine
Did I miss lot of important stuff? In my book it made perfect sense to include it in the box, the potential is too great. Wouldn't it have been just as arrogant to release the PS3 earlier with similar specs as the X360 and use the brand power as the only differentiating factor. "it's Playstation so we'll win"?... even if true. Would the average consumer appreciate an extra 256MB ram more than they'll appreciate Blu-ray in the long run?
I think that the release window and the expected life cycles of these consoles didn't really leave a lot of room in the transistor budgets of these two consoles, with or without Blu-ray. MS put in as much transistors as they could and Sony had to work with similar numbers also.
I personally think that the pot odds were good enough to put Blu-ray in, but it definately was still a gamble.
The arrogance wasn't including BluRay, it was including BluRay, making it very expensive to cover that cost, and not having the games. They expected people to lap it up at $600 with one great game.
The 'differentiating factor' should be games not hardware. People don't buy Playstations to watch movies or protein fold, they buy them to play games. That is what Sony seems to have completely forgotten.
DuckThor Evil
Legend
Initially... Now it's 399$/399€/39800¥
Compared to PS2 launch price, without taking inflation or fluctuation in exchange rates in to account that's 100$ more in US, 100€ less in Europe and the same price in Japan, So basically the inclusion of Blu-ray kept the prices abnormally high for about a one year, Sony paid the price for that, but may also get the returns of that investment, besides maybe it's better to have Blu-ray movies available when there are no games yet... I have one Blu-ray game and 12 Blu-ray movies, when the games eventually come I'll buy some of them. The PS3 game selection is not that bad, if it's the only console in the house, it lacks quality exclusives and it takes time to get them if you are not the only console out there.
Sony probably didn't want to launch in 2006 with a 600 price tag, but MS and Toshiba in combination forced them to do it. I don't think that's arrogant of Sony in any way. Some PR comments they have made have been arrogant, but in my opinion most companies in the business environment make arrogant comments to downplay competition or promote their own side, hearing them has never been a problem to me.
You're one of the few with that many movies. Halo sold more games in a day in the US, than all manufacturers have sold blu-ray movies in the US in 2007. If their plan was to sell movies, well they aren't doing much of that either.
not sure where you've been, but anyone who was around for that E3 2005 PS3 event and compares it to what they ended up with can certainly call Sony's plans arrogant. They literally acted as if they "won" before they even knew the capabilities of their own machine while simutaniously blasting the 360 in both design and function. Oh and the Wii? That was, to paraphrase, "of no concern". These statements were from representatives of Sony who were clearly of the mind that they were impervious. Funny how they've shut up considerably over the last year. This isnt ment for you personally, but anyone who doesnt think Sony was arrogant with regards to the PS3 and its reception is kissing their backside in my opinion.
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree with the above, and I might add that it is in the interest of Sonys TV division to get more HD-content out on the market, so there definitely is some synergy between the Sony divisions. I think Sony is in this for a long run and the PS3 will probably age with grace, the competition not so much.
Microsoft and Nintendo has no real interest to push HD from the hardware POV. When HD hardware has been standardised they will present new hardware.
It´s being done better for a long time, and the prices on the movies are pretty much the same. It´s true that the absolute cheapest HD-DVD player are below the cheapest Blu-Ray players. However, the cheapest Blu-Ray player (PS3) is also the best, and includes a PS3
That's bluster though. If Sony were terrified of Wii, they'd say to the public 'it's no problem'. You wouldn't expect that to be different from any company. What they say in public doesn't necessarily have any bearing on how they are internally!
Right, I can agree with that if that is what the decision makers at Sony went with. However, a lot rests on this point...TheChefO said:
What if PS3 had launched at $400? Would you say BRD was a bad choice then? Although they wouldn't have a strong software presence, their software presence would have been no worse than is normal. As you've said, it's the fault of several shortcomings along with the high price that are so bad for Sony. So if the price was reasonable, you wouldn't have a complaint with their software choices, accepting that the PS2 and PSP developments were sensible to offset the very costly burden of PS3?
Now what if $400 was Sony's launch-price target, from 2000 up to late 2005, and it was only closer to launch (12 months) that the high cost became known for sure? Prior to that let's say forecasts went from 'we can comfortably hit $400' to 'we are confident to hit $400' to 'well we are having issues, but we should be able to work this out' and finally to '65nm just isn't happening, and these damned blue diodes are a pig. Sorry but we can't make $400. More like $600.' This isn't an unlikely situation. Sony would then have their existing software and development choices already in play based on prior forecasts. 12 months isn't enough time to jump from PS2 to PS3, so wouldn't it make sense to finish those titles and get back the returns? I'm not saying that's the only choice either, but it's not a stupid choice. I'd also like to see some real evidence that they were withholding investment in PS3. You've said you can't provide it, but looking at release titles, it's been very much PS3 rather than PS2 from Sony, no?
You perspective seems to be that Sony knew well enough in advance that they were going to hit problems but didn't put in enough effort to avoid them, being overconfident that they could plan to launch a $600 machine and still be success, and had plenty of forewarning. My perspective is that Sony's choices weren't so blinkered and that the situation they found themselves in is totally not the one they wanted, and they didn't have enough forewarning to do something about it as they were waiting on technologies. The actual release date of XB360 wasn't known until Sep '05, announced 2 months before availability. Sony could well have been planning to launch 6 months after that as they kept suggesting, but then had to keep stalling because the technologies just weren't being delivered. And we don't know if their forecasts were in 2005 'we can't launch until 2006 at $600' or in 2005 'we can launch at $400 in '06' followed by 'we'll be 3 months late' in mid '05 followed by 'we'll be 3 months later' 3months after that, and so on. If Sony were given a revised hard-target update early enough, they could have done something about it. If what they had was a moving target, they couldn't make any concrete choices. If they had pulled BRD from PS3 3 months before launch, only for it to become viable for inclusion 3 months later, they'd have been kicking themselves! Plus having invested in BRD drive production principally for the PS3, as there's no need for millions of those for HD players yet, PS3 would be essential for the ROI on that.
Without access to the actual reports and back-room chatter we can't ever know what the decision making process was, but given how other projects are handled in lots of fields, I would rate the chances of setbacks without clear time-lines and resolutions as highly plausible. for those who think Sony should have had a good fall-back contingency plan that they could quickly have switched to, can you provide any comparable examples from other fields? I can't recall any. All the stories I can think of are products launching and bombing, with no contingencies at all. I expect pretty much all businessmen will back an idea 100% after having reviewed it and deciding they were confident of it, rather than spread resources over alternative options 'just in case'. I can't recall any 'just in case' business strategies, let alone any for high-tech devices.
I don't think the initial cost release price of the PS3 was that big of a factor though?. At least for me, I don't know how much Sony should have advertised it's free online service, but I believe the public knew about it? Still, Sony should have advertised the hell out of it, and making a point of the cost of online services that the MS 360 has.
Considering the price of online subscription of MS and the 360 vs. Sony's Free online service. To me the initial entry price of Sony's barebones PS3 at $499.00 for the 20g at release was still as close as it could come to MS xbox360 sold at $399.00 with the additional cost of $59.99 subscription fee to get online making the total $458.00. That is after all something that has to be paid for out of pocket by the consumer. Halo just sold 3.3 million copy's, I wonder how many of those users play online, I am willing to bet the farm it's allot.
I think this deserves as much light as anything, Consoles are built to last for years, at $60.00 a year times "X" number of years for an online subscription does add up to quite a chunk of change, the 360 with online service could cost way more than any PS3 sku released by Sony in the long run.
Considering the price of online subscription of MS and the 360 vs. Sony's Free online service. To me the initial entry price of Sony's barebones PS3 at $499.00 for the 20g at release was still as close as it could come to MS xbox360 sold at $399.00 with the additional cost of $59.99 subscription fee to get online making the total $458.00. That is after all something that has to be paid for out of pocket by the consumer. Halo just sold 3.3 million copy's, I wonder how many of those users play online, I am willing to bet the farm it's allot.
I think this deserves as much light as anything, Consoles are built to last for years, at $60.00 a year times "X" number of years for an online subscription does add up to quite a chunk of change, the 360 with online service could cost way more than any PS3 sku released by Sony in the long run.
2 cents here
IMHO,
It seems that a lot of people are just looking at the video gaming perspective when debating about the initial price of the PS3. Many would say that the price point is "arrogant" but they never marketed the system as just a videogaming machine. Intitially, it was marketed as a a multimedia machine. hence the added price premium for such features. They never intended it solely as a videogaming machine with extra features but as a machine that could do different things... and one of it's features is to play video games. It was designed as a multimedia system from the get go to specifically help them sell their new media (Blu-Ray), be it on games or movies. It was more of a culmination of different aspects and direction for their company as a whole... not just their videogaming sector.
Although some would argue that the bread and butter of the PS3's success and sony's profitability is in the videogaming business (which is quite true), If the PS3 fails as a videogaming system, it would still be a viable (maybe successful???) machine as Blu-ray player.
IMHO,
It seems that a lot of people are just looking at the video gaming perspective when debating about the initial price of the PS3. Many would say that the price point is "arrogant" but they never marketed the system as just a videogaming machine. Intitially, it was marketed as a a multimedia machine. hence the added price premium for such features. They never intended it solely as a videogaming machine with extra features but as a machine that could do different things... and one of it's features is to play video games. It was designed as a multimedia system from the get go to specifically help them sell their new media (Blu-Ray), be it on games or movies. It was more of a culmination of different aspects and direction for their company as a whole... not just their videogaming sector.
Although some would argue that the bread and butter of the PS3's success and sony's profitability is in the videogaming business (which is quite true), If the PS3 fails as a videogaming system, it would still be a viable (maybe successful???) machine as Blu-ray player.
For point of clarification it is $49.95/year and it cost $0 to create a Silver account.
On a personal side note, I always find it interesting that certain members on 1up tout the free PSN model vs the subscription based Live, when they work for a subscription based magazine yet they find it hard to fathom why someone would pay for a service.
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
Very good observation.
It's pretty clear that Sony was arrogant, given the overwhelming evidence in this thread. Hopefully Sony has learned their lesson and we end up with a viable platform in 2008 when they finally get some blockbuster games out.
It's pretty clear that Sony was arrogant, given the overwhelming evidence in this thread. Hopefully Sony has learned their lesson and we end up with a viable platform in 2008 when they finally get some blockbuster games out.
That's an interesting point. If this discussion were being held in an AV forum, would HD movie enthusiasts be complaining about Sony's arrogance? The source of complaint is entirely from the perspective of people wanting a games machine or viewing the PS3 in relative terms to the console industry. In a graph of consoles it sits a distant third after 10 months, but how does it fair in the HD movie player charts? Proof again that everything is relative!
Also a point of clarification is that the free Silver account, only allows some MMO's to play online, and even then MMO's like "final Fantasy" have there own subscription fee!, you need a GOLD membership to play ALL online multiplayers games like Halo.
To me the Silver account is meaningless, truly. more or less you get a gamer tag, and can download demo's but that's it.
To compare each other, Sony's free online service you have to look at the MS GOLD memebrship to get about the same features.
If you don't play online though, Silver is comparable to PS3's situation. Though for 'hardcore' gamers the XB360 they compare with PS3 should include the online price if that's a feature they want, just as if you want WiFi you need to add that price.
- Status