PS3 Strategy/Confidence Retrospective

[scooby_dooby]

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.

This is an interesting scenario.

Certainly launching now, with the current PS3 would be worse. But what if it had an extra 256MB of RAM? A strong lineup of exclsuive games, which looked undeniably nicer than the 360 lineup. At $450, and the full force of the PS3 hype-train intact??

Really hard to say, but I think they would at least have momentum, which they don't right now, and momentum is extremely important in this industry.

 

[TheChefO]

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.

Nobody knows when they started developing their kit or software, but bottomline, they knew who the competition was.

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.

And with this, it tells me they had the capability, they just started to work on the tools too late.

Props anyway to Sony.

But it (software library) was never going to be either... did you expect otherwise?

Yes.

Anyone looking at ps2's library and Sony's internal studios (compared to others) could have told you that! In fact, even knowing many titles were cgi in 2005, I was under the impression Sony was aiming higher than MS. Their history on ps2 paints a clear picture of a team of devs that are some of the best this industry has to offer.

Question:

What were these devs doing in 2004?

More direct question: If Sony wanted to establish ps3 as an elite platform that ps2 gamers should migrate to, why didn't they push GoW2 on ps3 instead of ps2?

Short term profit on ps2 in the big picture is peanuts compared to establishing a new platform in a heated battle with MS.

 

[dobwal]

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! .

Even Intel's early estimate for 65nm during 2004 was late 2005 and yet Sony and Toshiba is talking 45nm at the same time. They don't even have 65nm, yet announce they going to outpace Intel by two nodes to one. At this point AMD is still at 130nm and IBM is have major problems with its 90nm yields.

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)

They were alone as everyone's roadmap other than Sony and Toshiba has 45nm no where near the end of 2005. The PS3 is being finalized at this time as BluRay was announced for the PS3 during 2004so its easy to assume that the PS3's high cost is related to Sony inability to accurately estimate its future manufacturing abilities during 2004.

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.

I think Sony had plans for BluRay to be further along then it was at the time of the PS3 release.

 

[patsu]

Question:

What were these devs doing in 2004?

Some were prototyping Playstation Home.

Some were busy making and saving money to prepare for launching games to a small nextgen user base ?

Some might be helping in PS3 development ? (ICE)

...

More direct question: If Sony wanted to establish ps3 as an elite platform that ps2 gamers should migrate to, why didn't they push GoW2 on ps3 instead of ps2?

Make more money to sustain the large PS3 investment, for their better future ?

Short term profit on ps2 in the big picture is peanuts compared to establishing a new platform in a heated battle with MS.

Er... I don't think things are that simple. Even if they want to, there may be restrictions. For example, the GoW2 engine is optimized for PS2. To do a PS3 game, would require a rewrite and another long wait. But they may gain more by using the GoW2 profit to fund other PS3 activities.

The PS3 game library is actually pretty interesting you know. Have you played any yet ?

 

[TheChefO]

Really hard to say, but I think they would at least have momentum...

I don't think so.

MS and Nintendo would basicly own this gen if Sony decided to sit out until now.

Devs would have seen explosive growth for Wii and seen many 3rd party games selling like hotcakes on a very sizable and growing install base of xb360 ... just so happens the dev tools are pretty nice too.

If Sony would have waited to launch now, they would have been done before they hit the shelf.

It would have been worse than xbox1 hitting the market.

 

[Carl B]

Nobody knows when they started developing their kit or software, but bottomline, they knew who the competition was.

Yeah but just because you know who your competition is, doesn't mean you can outclass them. One of XNA's key selling points is that it abstracts the 360 and makes it approachable from the traditional PC-dev experience. Sony simply wasn't in a position to exploit that with the architecture they were working on.

Question:

What were these devs doing in 2004?

Well, working on PS2 games obviously!

More direct question: If Sony wanted to establish ps3 as an elite platform that ps2 gamers should migrate to, why didn't they push GoW2 on ps3 instead of ps2?

I think that was probably a tough question inside of Sony actually; ultimately I think they probably made the right choice, but I can understand all arguments saying they should have migrated it to PS3.

 

[TheChefO]

Some are prototyping Playstation Home.

Some are busy making and saving money to prepare for launching games to a small nextgen user base ?

Some may be helping in PS3 development ? (ICE)



Make more money to sustain the large PS3 investment, for their better future ?



Er... I don't think things are that simple. Even if they want to, there may be restrictions. For example, the GoW2 engine is optimized for PS2. To do a PS3 game, would require a rewrite and another long wait. But they may gain more by using the GoW2 profit to fund other PS3 activities.

The PS3 game library is actually pretty interesting you know. Have you played any yet ?

Like I said. The short term profit off this game on ps2 is peanuts compared to establishing a new platform in a heated battle with MS. By Sony ignoring this threat, they essentially gave up this gen.



I'm sure many of you think I want to see Sony fail, I don't. I want to see a competitive marketplace that is innovating and moving forward. Selling $600 systems trying to establish movie formats does little to innovate or move games forward.

I love what Sony stood for with things like EE and Cell and many of their leading technologies of the past, but this is a situation where greed overruled engineering. Blueray = anchor.

 

[scooby_dooby]

I don't think so.

MS and Nintendo would basicly own this gen if Sony decided to sit out until now.

Devs would have seen explosive growth for Wii and seen many 3rd party games selling like hotcakes on a very sizable and growing install base of xb360 ... just so happens the dev tools are pretty nice too.

If Sony would have waited to launch now, they would have been done before they hit the shelf.

It would have been worse than xbox1 hitting the market.

How could it really be that much worse than they are now?

They have only sold 4million units, since launch, so it's not like the gap would be that much larger.

And, they would have:
a) Hugely positive buzz
b) A dominant holiday
c) Momentum that would probably see them outsell MS for the duration of the next year
d) The platform of choice for 3rd party ports (KEY!)

Right now, they've sold 4million units, but they've lost almost ALL their positive buzz, and they have nothing to look forward to next year other than months after month of being outsold by 360, and very little chance of building up sustained momentum until the end of next year at best.

And, the kicker, 3rd party ports don't look as good, meaning most people are buying the 360 version of games, which makes 3rd parties even less likely to support the system. How different would the situation be going forward, if PS3 was the preferred platform for 3rd party ports instead of 360??

 

[Carl B]

They were alone as everyone's roadmap other than Sony and Toshiba has 45nm no where near the end of 2005. The PS3 is being finalized at this time as BluRay was announced for the PS3 during 2004so its easy to assume that the PS3's high cost is related to Sony inability to accurately estimate its future manufacturing abilities during 2004.

Nah I don't think so... and I say this because the silicon that ultimately went into the PS3 was simply less ambitious than what was being tossed around back in 2004 anyway. As the awareness of the launch node changed, so did the target silicon. There's nothing in PS3 from a silicon perspective at 90nm that to me says: "out of control." So, I don't see the exhorbinant cost as related to that (beyond the B/C provisions at the time vs the newer 80GB units).

I think Sony had plans for BluRay to be further along then it was at the time of the PS3 release.

Well, obviously!

 

[TheChefO]

Yeah but just because you know who your competition is, doesn't mean you can outclass them. One of XNA's key selling points is that it abstracts the 360 and makes it approachable from the traditional PC-dev experience. Sony simply wasn't in a position to exploit that with the architecture they were working on.

See here's the thing. If Sony knew (they should have) that they couldn't compete on this level,
they should have known they couldn't wait a year and let MS get a foot in the dev's door with better tools which leads to xb360 = lead platform.

They should have known they couldn't add a higher price onto an already late launch.

Further, they should have known they couldn't leave their dev teams working on ps2 games trying to squeeze out a little bit more profit when they were going to need their top help pushing out quality ps3 games to help establish it in it's early years.

Well, working on PS2 games obviously!

Exactly. (see above)

I think that was probably a tough question inside of Sony actually; ultimately I think they probably made the right choice, but I can understand all arguments saying they should have migrated it to PS3.

In hindsight it's very obvious now, but even then, many knew they would have problems selling a $600 system. (I got blasted for the suggestion but hey!)

They should have known they would need all they help they could get to help get a solid foundation under ps3 ... instead they sat on ps2.

 

[Carl B]

How could it really be that much worse than they are now?

They have only sold 4million units, since launch, so it's not like the gap would be that much larger.

And, they would have:
a) Hugely positive buzz
b) A dominant holiday
c) Momentum that would probably see them outsell MS for the duration of the next year
d) The platform of choice for 3rd party ports (KEY!)

Right now, they've sold 4million units, but they've lost almost ALL their positive buzz, and they have nothing to look forward to next year other than months after month of being outsold by 360, and very little chance of building up sustained momentum until the end of next year at best.

I don't disagree with this. Obviously hindsight is 20/20 and put in Sony's shoes back then, the reasons to launch "earlier" were obvious. But putting BD's fate for the past year aside, I think there would be something to be said for Sony's positioning vs the present situation.

Of course, it's that same critical role that PS3 has filled in the format war that has me wondering whether Sony themselves would re-do the launch for Fall 2007 if given the opportunity. But a G80/G90-based chip, potentially more RAM, and cost-effective components... there's something to be said about a console that could actually have matched the hype Sony built around it.

 

[dobwal]

Make more money to sustain the large PS3 investment, for their better future ?.....

Er... I don't think things are that simple. Even if they want to, there may be restrictions. For example, the GoW2 engine is optimized for PS2. To do a PS3 game, would require a rewrite and another long wait. But they may gain more by using the GoW2 profit to fund other PS3 activities.

The PS3 game library is actually pretty interesting you know. Have you played any yet ?

Profit generated by GOW2 on the PS2 is dwarfed by investment required for the launch of PS3. GOW2 on the PS3 within its first year would have had a greater impact on the viability of the PS3. It can be argue that a PS3 GOW2 would have been the best selling PS3 game coming out of the console's first year.

Hind sight is 20/20 and back when the decision was made, I doubt anyone could have predicted the current situation of the PS3.

 

[TheChefO]

How could it really be that much worse than they are now?

They have only sold 4million units, since launch, so it's not like the gap would be that much larger.

And, they would have:
a) Hugely positive buzz
b) A dominant holiday
c) Momentum that would probably see them outsell MS for the duration of the next year
d) The platform of choice for 3rd party ports (KEY!)

Right now, they've sold 4million units, but they've lost almost ALL their positive buzz, and they have nothing to look forward to next year other than months after month of being outsold by 360, and very little chance of building up sustained momentum until the end of next year at best.

And, the kicker, 3rd party ports don't look as good, meaning most people are buying the 360 version of games, which makes 3rd parties even less likely to support the system. How different would the situation be going forward, if PS3 was the preferred platform for 3rd party ports instead of 360??

Good points and really the bottom line I think is; if you're going to be late, be better.

I still think a two year delay would have been disasterous. Right now they look bad, but at least they have dev support. If devs knew they'd have to wait 2 years to profit from ps3 ... I'm sure many would have thought twice.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

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.

I can see that point, and maybe it's true, but I wouldn't call that arrogance. That's just a business choice that didn't pan out. If it does work, Sony have helped build up the BRD market to their benefit (and all the other BRD team-members that everyone forgets about!). If it doesn't, it was a bad call, but one you can't predict with certainty. One can just as readily say it was a bad choice for both Sony and MS not to go with cheap, low-spec'd hardware and a waggle controller. Do you attribute MS's design decisions and subsequent much inferior sales to arrogant expectations of dominating the market through developer-friendly powerful hardware?

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.

Why do you associate problems with devkits (actually in a better initial position than MS's efforts, which were really behind schedule) and internal projects taking their time, with arrogance? Why is that the only explanation for not having perfect devkits from day one (something MS didn't manage) and not having loads of 1st/2nd party titles at launch (something no console has ever had)?

 

[Carl B]

See here's the thing. If Sony knew (they should have) that they couldn't compete on this level, they should have known they couldn't wait a year and let MS get a foot in the dev's door with better tools which leads to xb360 = lead platform.

They should have known they couldn't add a higher price onto an already late launch.

Further, they should have known they couldn't leave their dev teams working on ps2 games trying to squeeze out a little bit more profit when they were going to need their top help pushing out quality ps3 games to help establish it in it's early years.

The problem with all of this Chef-O, is that you always talk about what Sony should have done in a way that's absent of any ramifications. A lower price (in fall of '06) was not an option. No BD was not an option. Releasing earlier was not an option.

*These* are the parameters you should base their decisions on, and then we can discuss whether those parameters should have been there to begin with. But saying that Sony should have perceived MS as a great threat to their business based on ease of programming alone - I mean hell, what could be easier than XBox 1 afterall? - I just don't think is something Sony had any reason at that time to fret over.

If we take BD to be the single most important decision related to the PS3, even now we cannot say whether it was the right or wrong choice for Sony - not SCE, but Sony - it's too early to tell. All we can say is that more than any other component it is what is responsible for their current situation. But insofar as the problem is not price per se but games, I agree that God of War 2 - with some guaranteed great reviews - would have been a strong launch title.

 

[TheChefO]

Hind sight is 20/20 and back when the decision was made, I doubt anyone could have predicted the current situation of the PS3.

{waives hand}

 

[patsu]

Like I said. The short term profit off this game on ps2 is peanuts compared to establishing a new platform in a heated battle with MS. By Sony ignoring this threat, they essentially gave up this gen.

Probably, I can't comment since I don't know further details.

I'm sure many of you think I want to see Sony fail, I don't. I want to see a competitive marketplace that is innovating and moving forward. Selling $600 systems trying to establish movie formats does little to innovate or move games forward.

It's cool, but I'm just bewildered why all these obsession with arrogance. Real life is richer and full of surprises (and disappointments), so we should just embrace it and see what comes next instead of branding people using only partial information.

I love what Sony stood for with things like EE and Cell and many of their leading technologies of the past, but this is a situation where greed overruled engineering. Blueray = anchor.

Blu-ray. I think we will see more next year.
I am sure Microsoft is planning something for HD-DVD, so HD might bring pleasant surprises next year ;-)

 

[Acert93]

Sony sold a $600 console because they knew people would buy all they could make at that price, and they kept selling out for many months at that price. Since they started sitting on the shelves, Sony dropped their prices to attract a larger market. That isn't arrogance, it is just smart business.

Not in NA. Widespread reports within the first month of availability were reported on the net. I know firsthand in my local area PS3s were available immediately by walking right into Walmart. Their January sales (244K) were below both the Wii (436K) and 360 (294K), and February dropped to 127K (and tailed off to 82K a couple months later). Remember, Sony strongly indicated they could produce 1M units a month and would have 6M units sold by March. Nearly 12 months later and they still aren't at 6M units sold.

So not only were they "not selling out for many months" they also didn't respond very quickly with a price drop. Instead they did SKU alterations at their same price points.

And the arrogant part was claiming they could sell 5M-6M units without any games. And they weren't alone--I know a lot of us (raises hand) thought they would sell every one of those first 6M units. Sony, and many of us, overvalued the PlayStation brand and the other industry factors facing it.

 

[one]

Like I said. The short term profit off this game on ps2 is peanuts compared to establishing a new platform in a heated battle with MS. By Sony ignoring this threat, they essentially gave up this gen.

The install base of PS2 is far larger. More people can buy the game. More people take an interest in the franchise and those people will buy the next one on PS3. Now, if they choose to rush a game on PS3, it would have tarnished the franchise just like the past E3 version of Gran Turismo HD did. This must be a very easy choice for them. GoW2 was not a cheap game to produce even on PS2. Anyway PS2 is still a growing platform that sell profitable hardwares. I'd like to hear what your "peanuts" evaluation is based on in strictly monetary terms.

 

[RobertR1]

Sony got blindsided by Nintendo. The PS3 became background noise in the wake of the Wii's popularity. We can argue that they don't compete in the same segment etc etc but in the end, they do. They're both trying to get the mass consumer to buy them. Had the Wii bombed the PS3 would have done better. Having poor software and missing features vs their high end competitor didn't win many people over either.

You can add the Wii to the perfect storm. Stealing buzz really does hurt a product.

As for Sony's arrogance, it wasn't in what they said, it was what they belived. The belief that people are ready for high end products in the name of "HD" and they can shotgun BR with it. They wanted to fight on multiple fronts with the assumption that their name and marketing power would allow them such. That plan has failed miserably to date. Yes, miserably. It's very hard to justify sub 100k sales for 3months in the biggest market.