PS3 Strategy/Confidence Retrospective

[Arwin]

In previous debates on this matter I think it was clearly proven that PS2's impact was quite minimal.

Depending on which region you are looking at. I'm willing to bet there were a fair number of people (like me, and certainly in Europe and Japan where other formats did well) that didn't have a DVD when they bought my PS2, and no matter how hard people argue that this isn't the case, and no matter how hard they scream that the PS2 sucked as a DVD player, the PS2 has, in fact, been used as a DVD player a fair bit. In Japan, the PS2 was key to establish the format, because they had both Video CD and LaserDisc. Of course, in terms of percentages, initially that would have been relatively high, and then it would have dropped off quickly as the mainstream picked up DVD players that were more specialised and/or they weren't interested in games at all.

However, there is again a flaw in Joshua's internal logic, in that IF the initial phase of a console is more important (as he argues for the 360 and against the PS3), then the early contribution of the PS2 to the DVD's base is conversely important even if it was small. And, shock, the same goes for PS3's contribution for BluRay. I'm not going to repeat the argument again, and at least in theory its implications go either way towards the debate.

*Removed off-topic banter and unhelpful joke about platform bias*

HOWEVER ... I much more object to akamajou's tone. I've been on this forum a little while now and this is not an appropriate place to bring out the 'you're obviously working for company x or company y' card. Even if it is true, it's simply not suited to this forum. A lot of people here in fact are working for a certain company in the games industry, yet they are also some of the most valuable people to discuss with. If at some point in time they will say things that favor the perspective of their employer, whether they have to gain by it or not, this particular forum can never work if we don't separate the factual argument from the individual who is making the post.

While in my time here there has in fact been at least one employer of a certain company who came here with a specific agenda and nothing to suggest he had any other reason on this forum then to spread misinformation and marketing speak, they usually stand out so clearly, that the moderators here pick up on the issue and deal with it appropriately.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Arwin...you actually attempt to argue that the benefits for consumers going from DVD to BR are equal to that of people going from VHS to DVD???

As if there is any difference for this whatsoever for DVD support. Even if DVD and BluRay have slightly different accents when it comes to strengths and weaknesses,

"Slightly different accents"?? WHAT? DVD was far more desireable to consumers across the board...

It's not even close, and it's an issue that has been beat to death, yet you honestly try and debate that point?? Nobody's going to bother debating that point because
a) It's extremely weak argument which can be put down in a number of ways (form factor, cost of hardware, existing dvd libraries, upscaling dvd players, overall difference in quality) and has been debated ad naseum
b) it sounds like a PR statement. One that everyone sees right through.

Another example, you attempt to argue that Sony's decision to include BR was similar to their decision to include DVD. When in reality, everybody knows that BR was MUCH more of a risk at the time.

The technology was not ready, and the costs were much higher, and this was obvious in 2004/2005. DVD was launched in 1997, two years before the launch of PS2, and sold over 4 million units in the US by the launch of PS2.
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/cemadvdsales.html

At best BR would've been launch in 2005, 6 months before the intended release of PS3. Even if it wasn't delayed at all, it still woudl've been far more of a bleeding edge technology than DVD ever was.

Now, are we going to have a serious debate, or are you going to continue this revisionist history and excuse making?

This is probably the kicker for me:

Another important difference is while DVD offered more advantages, there is also a much smaller threshold for people to go from DVD to BluRay. They can still use their existing library of DVDs with the added bonus of things looking better on HD tvs because of impressive upscaling, when the change to DVD meant you had to throw away all your VHS stuff, with the added downside that for a long time VHS was your only method for recording video as well

The reality is that the threshold should be much lower, because the benefits are not even close to being in the same ballpark.

Most people have built up huge DVD libraries, and HD media offers no significant form factor, or usablity benefits. That right there eliminates the single most compelling selling point that DVD had over VHS. Done.

No-one wants to spend a ton of money, buying the movies they already own, for a marginal increase in image quality. You could justify DVD over VHS, because the discs and packaging were much smaller, and it had MAJOR usability benefits like instant rewind, and chapter skipping.

The difference in quality is also smaller, and most consumers would be challenged to tell the difference between an upscaling DVD player and a $400 HD movie player.

None of these factors should have come as a surprise for Sony. It was clear from day one, for most objective people, that BR would never have mass appeal even close to that of DVD. Anyone who thought it would even come close was wearing Rose-tinted glasses from day one...

 

[scooby_dooby]

Depending on which region you are looking at. I'm willing to bet there were a fair number of people (like me, and certainly in Europe and Japan where other formats did well) that didn't have a DVD when they bought my PS2, and no matter how hard people argue that this isn't the case, and no matter how hard they scream that the PS2 sucked as a DVD player, the PS2 has, in fact, been used as a DVD player a fair bit. In Japan, the PS2 was key to establish the format, because they had both Video CD and LaserDisc. Of course, in terms of percentages, initially that would have been relatively high, and then it would have dropped off quickly as the mainstream picked up DVD players that were more specialised and/or they weren't interested in games at all.

No, it doesn't matter what region you look at.

By the time PS2 saw a WW release, DVD had sold 9million players in the US alone.

The format was already established, and was well on the way to mass market success without any help from PS2.

DVD was a selling point for the PS2, and allowed people to justify the $300 pricetag, but saying that the PS2 was a major factor that helped drive DVD adoption is ridiculous. It was nothing more than a drop in an already rapidly filling bucket...

It's arguments like these that make it hard for me to take you seriously. You accuse others of being off balance in their perspective, and then attempt to argue that PS2 had a major effect on DVD adoption in certain regions (nevermind the original argument was about the impact on WW sales, not small niche markets...).

 

[TheChefO]

Cost of Cell is primarily a function of die size...Lots of problems arise, more so the smaller you go...

Hence, why they should not have counted on or planned for 65nm in their cost structure at launch.

HDD adds ~$20. I don't see an argument against it at the high price.

Agreed, I think that was partly their reasoning for throwing everything but the kitchen sink in the ps3 as they knew brd would push costs through the roof. Might as well add "value" by including things their competitor charges big bucks for and potentially gain profit via dl content. however, this mindset would have been different without brd as a standard hdd will keep costs significantly higher late in the consoles life. $100 vs $120 = 20%

If PS3 launched with 65nm and BRD at $420, would you be complaining?

Nobody would, not even their stock holders. But fact is they didn't and they should not have expected to as there were too many variables.

I don't think the correlation between BRD and previous discs is instant proof costs were gonna be stratospheric when PS3 launched.

BRD launched in April 2003 with the first PC drives, ~4 years before PS3 was to release. It had about the same time-frame to make the same massive price drops as DVD.

Now I know what you're thinking! "DVD was a mass produced item which drives costs down!"

Looking at the current state of the blue laser market, we see that costs have dropped significantly.

I think you've covered this one pretty well yourself. yes it was experimental technology available 4 years prior, but over time and mass production with r&d, those costs will come down. Costs weren't anywhere near ready for including into a mass market device like a games console.

I agree, they created, or rather chose, they're current situation. But the choices weren't necessarily overoptimistic.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. IMO there are too many factors which coincide here on their part which point to an obvious conclusion. Your opinion differs. While I understand how and why you could come to this conclusion of yours (very well laid out argument I'd say) I don't believe all these factors to be one big coincidence. Though you may want to look into studying law as you would be one heck of a lawyer!

 

[DuckThor Evil]

Well in my opinion Joshua paints little too dark and Arwin paints little too rosy. The middle ground sounds about right to me. Sony ran into trouble with some of their decisions and it most likely cost them the lead in NA this gen, however they are still in a good position to get the crown worldwide. This is naturally a step down from the PS2 era, but that's what stiff competition does, plain and simple.

 

[NavNucST3]

To get back to the perception viewpoint (before we all start calling each other names ).
I haven't decided if I consider the PS3 a CE success or not (from the movie sales perception), the only reason I say that is that given the sheer number of units sold the video sales don't seem to be on par with deeming it a success. Of course, I guess it would be helpful if the average consumer even realized their gaming consoles played movies at all, let alone HD movies

*For sake of full disclosure I have owned a stand-alone HD DVD player, and currently own the 360 HD DVD drive and have about 40+ HD DVDs, and will probably be purchasing another HD DVD Player once I re-order my new TV

 

[Arwin]

Arwin...you actually attempt to argue that the benefits for consumers going from DVD to BR are equal to that of people going from VHS to DVD???

"Slightly different accents"?? WHAT? DVD was far more desireable to consumers across the board...

I know my posts are long, and I sincerely apologise for that inconvenience, but if you read more carefully, you'd have picked up on that I was talking about a very specific use for DVD and BluRay ...

Now, are we going to have a serious debate, or are you going to continue this revisionist history and excuse making?

You're missing the point completely.

The reality is that the threshold should be much lower, because the benefits are not even close to being in the same ballpark.

Most people have built up huge DVD libraries, and HD media offers no significant form factor, or usablity benefits. That right there eliminates the single most compelling selling point that DVD had over VHS. Done.

Even if Windows 98 would be only a small improvement over Windows 95 (which we all know it isn't, right?), or even if BluRay is only DVD 2.0, enabling support for HD (not completely useless for large TVs or better sound systems), capability for more interactivity and internet features, or have 50GB discs to burn HD home movies on, the fact remains that while initially it may be only really beneficial for a smaller group of consumers, not having their current library of Windows Applications or in DVD 2.0's case movies invalidated counts for something.

And all that comes irrespective of the discussion of the benefit of BluRay for games, for which, well ... see previous posts.

Anyone who thought it would even come close was wearing Rose-tinted glasses from day one...

But nobody is wearing green tinted glasses here, right? You wanna go for a spin on the new Motegi track? Or maybe challenge me for a round of Lumines?

I'm not constantly pro-Sony. In this thread, though, I'm finding myself defending Sony, because I find BluRay to be a very important decision and a big reason for having a lot of confidence in the long term viability of Sony's platform. I've given my reasons, but suffice to say I care more about being right than about winning an argument. I got both and Xbox and a PS2 last gen, and I got a PS3 and a 360 this gen. I have no personal allegiances (though ok, I do own a few BluRay discs). Ironically I've probably been a Live member longer than you.

Simple fact is though, I'm getting more use out of my BluRay player in the PS3s first year than out of my DVD player in my PS2s first year. I have my regional blind spots, but I'm trying to keep them in mind. People in the U.S. very clearly have their own regional blind spots, and if you're interested, then keep listening to people from Europe and Japan, just as they are listening to the other two regions.

 

[-tkf-]

In previous debates on this matter I think it was clearly proven that PS2's impact was quite minimal.

It was debated but never proven, i remember i digged out an old link that pointed to 50% of the PS2 owners using it for DVD playback. The story was debunked with an "who did this analysis and why should we believe it" attitude.

However if you think it was proven i guess you can link us?

 

[TheChefO]

It was debated but never proven, i remember i digged out an old link that pointed to 50% of the PS2 owners using it for DVD playback. The story was debunked with an "who did this analysis and why should we believe it" attitude.

However if you think it was proven i guess you can link us?

Hmmm, According to digitalbits courtesy of the CEA
These are YEARLY US totals NONE of the numbers include the PS2 or DVD-ROM drives!

1997: 315,136
1998: 1,089,261
1999: 4,019,389
2000: 8,498,545
2001: 12,706,584

I think this proves the point pretty clearly. (posted on the previous page)

 

[Arwin]

What was sufficiently shown I think is that DVD would have made it on its own in the US. The other regions, but especially Japan, less obvious. That was all I was saying. You can fairly accuse Sony of sometimes having viewed things too much from a Japanese perspective, but the reverse is equally true.

 

[mrcorbo]

What was sufficiently shown I think is that DVD would have made it on its own in the US. The other regions, but especially Japan, less obvious. That was all I was saying. You can fairly accuse Sony of sometimes having viewed things too much from a Japanese perspective, but the reverse is equally true.

What competing format could have prevented DVD from making it in these other regions, as well?

 

[-tkf-]

I think this proves the point pretty clearly. (posted on the previous page)

Januar 2003 the PS2 had sold 21.5 units in NA.

The DVD players were at some 44 million.

You don´t think that an additional 21.5 million dvd players matters?

As i said in the old thread where we aparently came to the conclusion that the PS2 as DVD player never mattered, the PS3 matters even more for Blu-Ray than the PS2 did for DVD because it´s introduced earlier.

The PS2 didn´t make the DVD format happen, but i think it mattered. In Blu-Rays case the PS3 might have a bigger impact since it´s right now making a difference.

 

[Mintmaster]

Januar 2003 the PS2 had sold 21.5 units in NA.

The DVD players were at some 44 million.

You don´t think that an additional 21.5 million dvd players matters?

No, because:

A) Only a fraction of those 21.5M people used the PS2 as a DVD player
B) Only a fraction of people in the US who were in the market for a DVD player bought a PS2 instead
C) DVD established itself as the replacement for VHS way before PS2 had a significant user base.

 

[TheChefO]

the PS3 matters even more for Blu-Ray than the PS2 did for DVD because it´s introduced earlier...

Indeed, but it's competition is much stronger (hddvd vs ... nothing) and it's usefulness/ability to replace the old format (dvd) is a much tougher battle than dvd had over vhs.

I saw an article researching the understanding of hd tv's and media by the general populous and it was pretty surprising. Most not only don't think hd-dvd/brd is an advantage, most think the tv they have is hd (when it isn't) and think dvd is hd as well.

I'll have to see if I can dig it up.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Januar 2003 the PS2 had sold 21.5 units in NA.

The DVD players were at some 44 million.

You don´t think that an additional 21.5 million dvd players matters?

As i said in the old thread where we aparently came to the conclusion that the PS2 as DVD player never mattered, the PS3 matters even more for Blu-Ray than the PS2 did for DVD because it´s introduced earlier.

DVD was already success if ps2 never happened, period. Did it increase the adoption rate slightly? Probably.

The PS2 didn´t make the DVD format happen, but i think it mattered. In Blu-Rays case the PS3 might have a bigger impact since it´s right now making a difference.

They've barely sold more BR movies in NA than they've sold PS3 units (I'm uncertain as to the adoption of movies in other territories), if its going to win the format war for Sony, its going to have to work harder. Right now you could make an argument than the PS3 is keeping blu-ray on life support, the only thing that's encouraging for Sony is that HD dvd isn't doing any better. Sales of all HD media is best described as pathetic, the best selling HD titles are being outsold 40:1 on dvd.

 

[-tkf-]

No, because:

A) Only a fraction of those 21.5M people used the PS2 as a DVD player
B) Only a fraction of people in the US who were in the market for a DVD player bought a PS2 instead
C) DVD established itself as the replacement for VHS way before PS2 had a significant user base.

A) as i mentioned 50% used their console for DVD playback but that report got debunked here by "common sense".
B) But those that bought a PS2 were in the market for DVD movies.
C) Januar 2003, 33% of all DVD players was a PS2.

D ) There is no E

 

[-tkf-]

Indeed, but it's competition is much stronger (hddvd vs ... nothing) and it's usefulness/ability to replace the old format (dvd) is a much tougher battle than dvd had over vhs.

I saw an article researching the understanding of hd tv's and media by the general populous and it was pretty surprising. Most not only don't think hd-dvd/brd is an advantage, most think the tv they have is hd (when it isn't) and think dvd is hd as well.

I'll have to see if I can dig it up.

You don´t have to, i talk to them every day

And i read it myself, the HD war is a small scale war but like so many small wars the outcome will have ripples into the next 10-20 years.

 

[Mintmaster]

A) as i mentioned 50% used their console for DVD playback but that report got debunked here by "common sense".
B) But those that bought a PS2 were in the market for DVD movies.
C) Januar 2003, 33% of all DVD players was a PS2.

A) By "used" I don't mean all people who have put a DVD in their console. I mean people who use it regularly enough to buy a remote.
B) Sure, but they were in the market for far fewer movies than standalone DVD player owners.
C) Who cares. DVD disc sales did not have even close to the same ratio, i.e. of all DVDs bought by people who owned a player before Jan. 2003, only a fraction were put into a PS3.

Unfortunately we don't have data, but PS3 and BR data is enough to illustrate that my statements are in the right ballpark.

 

[Nesh]

A) By "used" I don't mean all people who have put a DVD in their console. I mean people who use it regularly enough to buy a remote.
B) Sure, but they were in the market for far fewer movies than standalone DVD player owners.
C) Who cares. DVD disc sales did not have even close to the same ratio, i.e. of all DVDs bought by people who owned a player before Jan. 2003, only a fraction were put into a PS3.

Unfortunately we don't have data, but PS3 and BR data is enough to illustrate that my statements are in the right ballpark.

Since the PS3 though is the cheapest, one of the best BR players around and one of the first BR players to be released in a broad scale, people who have a PS3 will eventually start using their PS3 BR playback abilities too once BR movies start to replace DVD's as the new HD movie format.

The PS2 wasnt a good DVD player and it came long after DVD disks and DVD players started to establish their selves in the market. PS2 was another DVD player in many people's homes when first bought and one that didnt work all that well.

PS3 might be used just as much for both BR movies and games in the future. BR playback in the PS3 is not a small extra feature. It is a complete functional BR playback that a consumer might use without feeling the need of another BR player in the house.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Since the PS3 though is the cheapest, one of the best BR players around and one of the first BR players to be released in a broad scale, people who have a PS3 will eventually start using their PS3 BR playback abilities too once BR movies start to replace DVD's as the new HD movie format.

Assuming that ever happens, its still only a maybe, as the price and abilities of standalones will eventually surpass the PS3 and this would be well before BR ever becomes dominant over DVD, because it would pretty much be required for widespread adoption.

The PS2 wasnt a good DVD player and it came long after DVD disks and DVD players started to establish their selves in the market. PS2 was another DVD player in many people's homes when first bought and one that didnt work all that well.

There were people who considered DVD part of the package when they bought a ps2, (without knowing they kinda sucked) but that said, yes ps2 was more a beneficiary than a factor in the success of DVD.

PS3 might be used just as much for both BR movies and games in the future. BR playback in the PS3 is not a small extra feature. It is a complete functional BR playback that a consumer might use without feeling the need of another BR player in the house.

In the short term yes, but if BR is to become the dominant format, (cheaper)standalones will surpass it in quality. The thing to remember is that as of right now, HD movies account for a very small portion of unit sales. If Sony really wanted people to use it as a player they should have included the remote. Also the lack of ability for the PS3 to be controlled by a universal remote would be a deal breaker for a lot of people in the long long term.