PS3 Strategy/Confidence Retrospective

Compelling argument.

But a plan-b was very simple to introduce and would have cost nothing:

Mandate all first gen games be produced on DVD

It would have left them a backdoor to introduce a significantly cheaper model that in no way would interfere with their overall agenda or future plans.

By ignoring such a simple mandate, it enforces this idea that they were acting without regard for their competition or market forces (arrogant).

 

For non exclusive multi format titles it´s "ok" because the lowest common 7GB dominator will be used.

 

Chef you keep talking about dev kits - yes, they were behind, yes they were less user-friendly than MS', but to imply that the effort behind them wasn't massive I think is very wrong. As to the launch library, how is it different than any consoles launch?

Right, truuuuue... except then it would have reasonably sold at $1,000 Blu-ray numbers; so we're talking like less than 100,000 worldwide.

 

I want to comment on this. Back then, *no one* thought that the move from 90nm-->65nm, and from there 65nm-->45nm would take the time that it has. Those articles are from February 2004 for God's sake! Yes, the original PS3 was premised on 65nm being available, but by the time the console was formally unveiled, the expectation had already shifted to a 90nm launch - there's even some Kutaragi interview on it out there somewhere. So, Sony and Toshiba claiming an aggressive 45nm ramp is neither here nor there... they were hardly alone at the time (and they meant for CMOS also rather than SOI).

I really do believe that ultimately it was simply the BD inclusion that led to the jacked initial price. That, and obviously they had hoped to be on GS-only by that point rather than EE+GS+32MB RDRAM on the B/C.

A lot of us, well myself at least, were thinking that the PS3 would be around ~$450 at launch with a single SKU. A year later, Sony's more or less there, but it's a trail of tears Sony has marched to get here.

 

Not really. MS also has DirectX games for PC right ? In addition, it does not need to create software for an exotic architecture like Cell. Sony relies on third party to provide the SDKs (Too few game developers compared to general application developers to make it worthwhile).

The embedded system world generally has minimalist OS and SDK due to hardware and business model limitations. What Sony does for PS3 would be the first integrated attempt thanks to Howard Stringer's consolidation effort. The verdict is still up in the air.

The Xbox 360 plan is a natural extention of Windows media platform. Many people have tried and failed for the past 10 years. This gen is the most promising so far (Both Xbox 360 and PS3 have similar home entertainment vision although the packaging will likely differ).

Sony's plan is underwrap most likely because they know they cannot run as fast as MS in the software world, just like MS can't create advanced hardware as reliable as Sony. When the time is right, we will see the full monty. I am happy that they came up with the Game 3.0 + Playstation Home vision so far.

Yes, they have to take the "family" approach since Kutaragi has stepped down.

I don't think Sony is following. It takes time to create the hardware and software. It looks like independent effort by all 3 vendors to me.

Sony management is decisive and swift when it comes down to the crunches (Look at the IPO, semicon adjustment, the Kutaragi saga). The problem is with their unified marketing (or lack thereof). In my view, part of it has to do with the software delay, so marketing can't plan properly.

MS may have to charge more for Vista because it took them 7 years to do it. They have to make money right ?

 

Sorry, I just saw that you were the author of the first post.

So why is Microfts PR spin not ridicolous?

My theory: because everybody loves the under-dog and want the giant to fall, that is why Microsoft or Nintendo can get away with stupid PR-spin without people bickering about it.

Sony over-esitmated their sales, so did Microsoft, Nintendo under-estimated their sales. What can I say, competition is good.

 

If they knew early enough to make a difference that they were going to be in this position but chose to do nothing about, I can agree to that. If they found themselves in a difficult situation though, knowing BRD was too pricey for launch but also that costs in theory were going to drop; knowing that 65nm was 'just around the corner' but never knowing exactly how big that corner was; knowing developers weren't managing to get to grips with Cell very early but expecting them to eventually, then the choices they made were just one of a number of options all with + and - sides. They could have lost BRD at the last minute and sold at $400, but then when BRD became cheap enough to fit that price less than a year later, they've have millions of customers locking them into DVD. They could have postponed a year and now be 5 million sales down with far less titles and with an even cheaper competitor (who may have picked up some of those 5 million), all the meanwhile giving Nintendo even more space. Of all the choices they could make, I wouldn't like to have had to be the one to make them! As it is, with the price at $400 within 10 months of launch, I don't think it was too bad. If the price now isn't enough to save them, launching now at that price would have been an even worse situation to be in. Ken Kutaragi can probably receive some of the blame for being so ambitious in his choice of CPU. And they gone with something conventional the software side wouldn't have been an issue. I for one am glad they didn't go the easy route though. It's the risk-takers that eventually push things forward, and even if Cell bombs out, I appreciate the attempt to get out of the conventional processor mindset that is too legacy-bound to allow for things like Cell. And as a long-term plan it may even pay big dividends.

 

Well that 7Gb didn't stop Blue Dragon or Lost Odossey or pretty much any other game that needs extra storage. The disc size issue has been debated to death already, but there really aren't too many situations where the DVD capacity is a real problem in games. Changing a disc after E.g. 5 hours of gameplay is not a real problem, sure it's not quite as convienient as not having to do it, but it definately is good enough to warrant an ok rating?!

I'm not arguing that Blu-ray +standard HDD are not good things as they are, adding conviniency and silent operation, but great games don't need those to exist.

 

My fault. I didn't add an explanation where it came from.

They didn't just overestimate though. The SCEE guy actually said 'we can sell 5 million of these things even without software'. It was in a business article IIRC where brash-talking is to be expected, but it's stiill a bad thing to say when the internet has very big ears! That was a real slap of arrogance and seriously belittled their early adopters. It's poetic justice at this point in time for PS3 to be where it is, and for those execs to rue the day they uttered such comments.

 

I would say that statements like Xbox 1.5, games in 4d, 120fps, 2 1080p outputs simulataneously, and the hd era doesnt start till we say it does and 720p is not real hd, comes across as quite arrogant.

 

I think it's better to write a new reply as this thread is growing so fast.

Remember that Sony has PS2 still on market and I think they had no intention to sell to many PS3s at 200-300$ loss. I think they are really starting with PS3 this winter even though the price is 399$ now I think this model is no more then 200$ loss per unit and closer to 100$.

Edit: PR is not only for customers or maybe it's not for us at all. I think it's mostly for shareholders, who make their decision to buy or sell stocks. It's part of the gamble and risk you have to take. You can wait and see how the situation will look, but then you can win less, but of course lose less. So arrogance is bad term...

 

Yeah but I want you to take 4D and 120fps out of it though, because those two concepts are very much misunderstood in terms of the Sony PR lore. The former because it was just speaking to persistent worlds, and the second because Kutaragi never made that statement referring to anything other than TV sets at a Japanese CE show; it had nothing to do with PS3. It's the nature of the Internet and mis-reported news that has you believing that he said PS3 would be playing games at 120fps. The others you're fine to continue criticizing.

 

I never said they put no effort into the devkits (software), it simply wasn't enough for where they needed to be to compete with MS.

Again, on Launch software, it was there, but not good enough to compete with MS.

And same for price ...


None of it added up.

 

I've said it before, but I'll say it again - Sony should've sold the initial allotment of launch PS3's in some sort of special edition bundle/look/packaging, and sold it for a figure that would see them turn a profit on those initial 500k units. To sell that run in particular at such a loss, when they should've known it was set to be bought 95% by scalpers, set them up for a terrible situation where people not interested in games were buying the system, and reselling it at a jacked-up price that saw people lose interest in acquiring one just a week after launch. There were hardcore fans ready to buy the system and buy the games - they were just number 30 and 40 in line vs 10-20, as the profiteers were.

But what does "enough" mean? Let's say it like this: it was all it could have been at that time. It goes beyond investment at a point, and comes down simply to time. MS and Vista for example; could it have been ready sooner? If so, it certainly would have been. Investment/commitment was not the constraint.

And for what it's worth, there are several multi-plat devs on the board that will give the nod to Sony's tools over MS' as they presently stand on certain aspects of performance.

But it was never going to be either... did you expect otherwise?

 

Or they felt that the computing power is needed to make a real difference to the consumers ? Looking at Toshiba's magic mirror only within 1+ year, I am happy they went for the performance leap. May be they should be more aggressive in developer support, but we already know of quite a few Sony moves to address ease of development (ICE. SPUR, buying 3rd party developer tools, training sessions, joint development).

I have made plenty of decisions without Plan B given the circumstances. Some are rewarding, some not so. There are likely multiple configurations of PS3 before launch too. What has that got to do with arrogance ?

According to Sony, they hope that what they sacrifice today will help their future. Until I see what that future is, I will reserve my judgement. It may have nothing to do with arrogance. In any case, Kaz spoke of Kutaragi's plan to reduce cost. They have done it. Therein may lie your plan B.

See above. They are already addressing ease of development issues. Obviously they try to hit their performance target as well.

Nonsense, there are many reasons why good things don't succeed. I don't see your argument. You started with the feeling to label Sony as "arrogant", so every misfortune are due to arrogance. That's not how things work.

Peter Moore talked about luccid dreams. Does that make him a drug addict ? You are reading too much into PR. By quoting those statements, you are trying too hard to justify your argument.

if it pleases you. I deleted the rest of your post because repeating the word "arrogance" many times doesn't make it true.

 

Whoah it's been too easy for you lately, if you can just drop a light hearted smilie after you just explained those two things for the one millionth time hehe. PS2 was dominate

 

I do to and agree on the longterm benefits, but BR was not and is not key to ps3 or it's success. Yet, it is an anchor that has drown the PS3 and possibly taken Cell with it.

If cell were in a dvd based ps3 that launched 2005 and Sony got their act together with devkits and their internal studios, they would have dominated this gen and placed cell front and center. As is, BR prevented that early launch and kept the price in the stratosphere. This limited games development as nobody wants to take a big risk on exotic architecture on a small userbase.

So in a way, BR has damaged cell far more than anything. Ironic.