Some thoughts on the PS3

[SugarCoat]

The sweet spot is holiday 2007. Both the CPU and GPU will be fabbed at .65 nm by then. Also Ram price declines as time goes on just like all semiconductors do.

The goal is to provide a platform that people want to purchase software on, while at the same time not losing more than needed on the hardware. The problem is the PS3 doesn't exist in a vacumm. It has competion from the XB360 and Nintendo to contend with.

If Sony is concerned with hardware price points, they shouldn't even stick Blu-Ray in the machine. As it stands Sony has welded Blu-Ray to the platform, thus increasing its pricepoint to a much higher level. The SEGA Dreamcast was almost 1/3 less in cost than the PS2 and Sony crushed it. Under my SKU scenario the premium XB360 at $399 would be 1/3 less than the cost of the $599 PS3. It would set up the conditions to repeat a Dreamcast hardware situation. PS2 had more RAM than the Dreamcast, and the PS3 would have more RAM with the proposed SKU setup. PS2 had a next-gen optical format, the Dreamcast didn't. Obviously this time around the PS3 will have a next-gen format, and the XB-360 won't as a standard feature.

So in essence, my suggestion would be trying to recreate the conditions that allowed the PS2 hardware to be percieved as totally superior compared to the competion. While the price differences wouldn't exactly mimic what happened between the PS2 and Dreamcast, it would be close.


There are tons of examples of how price of a product isn't a primary concern as long at the public agrees that the product is better than the competion. Sony already proved it once with the PS2. Recently the Motorola Razr was a smash hit. Everyday Starbucks proves it with every cup of coffee it sells.

If the public percieves the PS3 as the equivelent of XB360 hardware, but with a Blu-Ray drive bolted on, Sony is in deep trouble. The power level needs to have a certain mystique to it.

Consoles dont make their biggest sales until after the second or third year out. Early adoption numbers are always a joke. For example if we cut off the Xbox360 sales now, do you think that would be a successful console with all the users who bought it over the last year (soon to be)? The stuff you're talking about would keep the PS3 at a very high cost and thus a lower yearly sales quite significantly. No previous console did that, including the PS1. Price is always a concern, you and too many others have just been brainwashed into thinking it isnt. Go take a poll on what people would rather spend, $600 for a PS3 or $550 and then an option for "i dont care". If price isnt a concern then whats $50 bucks right, by your logic most everyone would simply say "i dont care". Fortunetly people do care.

The PS3 will win its sales just like the Wii and Xbox360 do, by their games library, not by the trash inside. Xbox was arguably a failure, yet it was significantly advanced over the PS2, more so then the Xbox360 vs PS3 we have now. Hardware does not sell. Dont forget 3D consoles were born out of the need of people who just want to plop in a disc and play. Fast, cheap, and it just worked. No expensive hardware, no installation, no complex control schemes, no mess, no fuss.

 

[PiNkY]

Get "rumble" in the Dual Shock 3. Not having it is one of the dumbest things possible for a console bearing the "Playstation" brand. Heck, even the hertiage of the name "shock" stems from "rumble technology". License the technology from Immersion and let the animosity go.

If it comes with their quality battery technology, it probably has more rumble than most of us can handle...

 

[PiNkY]

Consoles dont make their biggest sales until after the second or third year out. Early adoption numbers are always a joke. For example if we cut off the Xbox360 sales now, do you think that would be a successful console with all the users who bought it over the last year (soon to be)? The stuff you're talking about would keep the PS3 at a very high cost and thus a lower yearly sales quite significantly. No previous console did that, including the PS1. Price is always a concern, you and too many others have just been brainwashed into thinking it isnt. Go take a poll on what people would rather spend, $600 for a PS3 or $550 and then an option for "i dont care". If price isnt a concern then whats $50 bucks right, by your logic most everyone would simply say "i dont care". Fortunetly people do care.

The PS3 will win its sales just like the Wii and Xbox360 do, by their games library, not by the trash inside. Xbox was arguably a failure, yet it was significantly advanced over the PS2, more so then the Xbox360 vs PS3 we have now. Hardware does not sell. Dont forget 3D consoles were born out of the need of people who just want to plop in a disc and play. Fast, cheap, and it just worked. No expensive hardware, no installation, no complex control schemes, no mess, no fuss.

Very much agreed. I'd like to add that your average joes hardly comprise the early adopting, preordering half a year in advance and standing in line at 0:00 am crowd. They'll probably swallow the first 2m units worldwide. What comes after that makes or brakes your console and you have to have it priced competitivly. VE3D had a poll on whether people would rather buy ps3 or wii. They had close to 7000 participiants and 70% went with the wii. And I doubt that most of that site's frequenters are the "buy a game once every two years" crowd either.

 

[_xxx_]

This must be the millionth thread with the same bull coming up over and over. Headache.

THERE WILL BE NO G80 IN THE PS3. Live with it.

 

[Brimstone]

Consoles dont make their biggest sales until after the second or third year out. Early adoption numbers are always a joke. For example if we cut off the Xbox360 sales now, do you think that would be a successful console with all the users who bought it over the last year (soon to be)? The stuff you're talking about would keep the PS3 at a very high cost and thus a lower yearly sales quite significantly. No previous console did that, including the PS1. Price is always a concern, you and too many others have just been brainwashed into thinking it isnt. Go take a poll on what people would rather spend, $600 for a PS3 or $550 and then an option for "i dont care". If price isnt a concern then whats $50 bucks right, by your logic most everyone would simply say "i dont care". Fortunetly people do care.

The PS3 will win its sales just like the Wii and Xbox360 do, by their games library, not by the trash inside. Xbox was arguably a failure, yet it was significantly advanced over the PS2, more so then the Xbox360 vs PS3 we have now. Hardware does not sell. Dont forget 3D consoles were born out of the need of people who just want to plop in a disc and play. Fast, cheap, and it just worked. No expensive hardware, no installation, no complex control schemes, no mess, no fuss.

Of course people care about price. The value they percieve is a totally different thing. The creation of a console is an art and science where many factors are juggled. If something is cheaper, it doesn't mean a person acknowledges that as better option. The old adage "you get what you pay for" comes to mind. Why do people spend so much money on sneakers endorsed by athletes? Why do people spend so much money on a shirt that has a Tommy Hillfiger label?


Sony is already committed to a high price point with PS3. They made Blu-Ray and the hard disk drive standard. The high price point is fine as long as the entire package is put together well. In other words, if Sony is going to talk the talk, they have to walk the walk. The danger is people see it as a XB360, but with a Blu-Ray drive.



Early adoption numbers are not a joke. Look at the stunning software sales on the XB360. Not even a full year into a hardware cycle and it already has multiple titles enchroaching on million seller status.

 

[SugarCoat]

Sony has committed to a high price already yes, that doesnt mean they want to make it even more of a royal pain in the ass for them to reduce that price as much as possible yearly or bi-yearly.


Its quite silly to think people will think it a Xbox360 with BRD. Couldnt that same statement be said about the Sega Genesis vs the SNES, N64 vs the Dreamcast vs the PS1, PS2 vs the Xbox/Gamecube and so on?


Its the hot/unique game titles that get the attention of buyers. The only reason i went running toward a PS2 was for GTA3. When i picked up an Xbox you know what my first title was? Halo. Games will always dominate as what seperates the consoles in priority to consumers, it always has.


And early adopter numbers are a joke when you compare them to what happens 2 or 3 years down the line. There is a HUGE spike in console sales, especially around the holidays after a price cut. More consoles=alot more games sold.

 

[Platon]

Maybe value is different than price but there is a limit to how far you can take it. No doubt what you have described is of great value but with that price it will never become mainstream. If the difference is 100$ maybe lot of customers would go for the more valueable offering but when we are talking about differences of $300+ vey few would go for the expensive alternative.

And Sony can not dissregard marketshare, that has been their "thing" since PS1. Why would developers keep developing or atleast keep games as exclusive as now for the PS3 if the market share would drop from 70% to 20%, because for the life of me I could never see them gaining more if they would keep their console for 600$ more than 3 years...

 

[rabidrabbit]

You know, I'd never thought PS3 was that expensive had I not read it in the internet
Well, I still don't think it's that expensive, despite the internet, but occasionally I get a little nervous thinking if I really can afford it, until I come to my senses and realise I have more income now than I had when I bought my PS2 for the same price at launch.

When I bought my PS2, I expected to pay about the same for my next console, and it seems I'll be doing just that.
Funny when you think about it.

 

[Platon]

You know, I'd never thought PS3 was that expensive had I not read it in the internet
Well, I still don't think it's that expensive, despite the internet, but occasionally I get a little nervous thinking if I really can afford it, until I come to my senses and realise I have more income now than I had when I bought my PS2 for the same price at launch.

When I bought my PS2, I expected to pay about the same for my next console, and it seems I'll be doing just that.
Funny when you think about it.

For Europeans maybe it is not so "expensive" since we have always paid more for our consoles, although I do think that the PS3 in certain places atleast will be in the range off €100 more expensive than PS2, but for the people over the pond this time they will have to pay twice as much to get a new console, that is quite a bit...

 

[Sonic]

There was no Dreamcast/Playstation/N64 comparison. Replace Dreamcast with Saturn and then you have the real comparison.

The price of the machine will sure turn most consumers away just at the thought of spending $500 - $600 on a console when there is another machine with similar graphics and capabilities for $200 less. The only thing that is really different is the underlying architecture and BRD, and only one being really noticeable to the consumer. The BRD could definitely have an impact on those consumers looking to get a new HD player for their TV's as well. Since that is not the majority of consumers at this point in time then BRD probably will not play a big factor. Sony has to do what Sony does best, and that is to hype the PS3 as if it is the next best thing since PS2/sliced bread. The early adopters will definitely be there to pick up a machine, but that doesn't mean they have an easy hand from there on out. They need to focus on lowering the price of the machine as quickly as possible or else they will be facing very tough challenges in convincing the mass market that its machine is the one to go for.

Basically, Sony is in a really tough spot with the PS3. Depending on how it plays its cards the thing could turn sour rather fast especially if MS plays its cards right and manages to sell just as many 360's this Christmas as Sony does PS3's. If Microsoft manages to sell more for some odd reason then Sony faces a tougher time.

This of course does not even count Nintendo...and my own belief is they have a good chance of coming out with a much larger userbase than they had with Gamecube, but it will be different all the same.

But back to Sony. They shouldn't aspire to be the Tommy Hilfiger of consoles, because if they do that then they already lost the majority of the market. Sony isn't Apple, so they will not get away with selling the PS3 at an exorbitant price for an extended period of time. I sure hope there is a price reduction on the machine by the holiday season of next year because if it remains the same then I am going to have to wait another year before I can pick one up.

One good thing about all this, is that when they do lower the price to an acceptable level for the simply games machines that it is...the mass market may eat it up if it isn't too late by that point.

When I refer to it as a simple games machine I mean what it is for me. It is nothing more than a gaming system for me to play games on.

 

[Titanio]

The only thing that is really different is the underlying architecture and BRD, and only one being really noticeable to the consumer.

If you're looking at just the hardware, but consumers evaluate 'platforms', not just the bits and bobs in the box. A key part of that is content and games. If Sony can, for example, keep key games exclusive for long enough then that's another differentiating factor, perhaps the strongest. Now I know someone's going to hop all over me screaming GTA and PES, but it's interesting to zoom out and look at the broader picture of hits in the last generation. Someone linked to a wiki a while back with the best selling franchises on PS2/Xbox etc. and of the 20-odd 'exclusive' PS2 best sellers (those which had a game break 1m), only 2 thusfar are known to be coming to 360 (and both were already on Xbox, if belatedly). That surprised me at the time, since everyone goes on and on about new-found multiplatform-ism, but looking at a broader cross-section of games, I don't see how so much has changed compared to the last generation..yet. (That is, westerns are still very multiplatform, easterns not so much).

The BRD could definitely have an impact on those consumers looking to get a new HD player for their TV's as well. Since that is not the majority of consumers at this point in time then BRD probably will not play a big factor.

Looking at the present to predict the future isn't necessarily a good idea. I think Sony is banking on the hope that they'll be able to effectively market BD to people who've already invested in HDTV. They're probably good candidates for seeing BD (or more broadly, HD movies) as desireable if the BDA does a good job with the marketing, even if they don't yet. The thing is, such people (HDTV owners) seem to be well represented in the market for these consoles right now. And conveniently for Sony, it's this end of the market that'll be paying the initial high price, not the wider market that'll enter in a couple of year's time. It all comes down to Sony/BDA blitzing BD to HDTV owners and making it something on their list of things to get, so that if and when they subsequently go out looking for a games console, they'll see PS3 has it and it's a big value-add for them. That's the theory anyway, but it's not without merit at all, given how the market for HDTVs and the market for next-gen consoles right now quite nicely coincide.

 

[Sonic]

Sony is allowed to play this game and market their machine as they wish. BRD will be of great value to those who currently have HDTV's and wish to pursue getting HD movies and use that. But is this market the very same who are interested in video games? While they may overlap each other to a certain extent I doubt it is all that high. The market for BRD movies may indeed be much larger than that of the video games and it could be one of th emain driving factors for Sony selling the machine at such a high cost...yet chea for a BRD player at this current point in time.

And yes, there is the matter of content and that does help shift sales of a system to a great degree. Sony had better hope they can keep these exclusive games for a long time if they intend to keep the price of the console at a high price, because they will not get the mass market at that price. It would be great for the exclusive games to be one of the main driving points of the sales of the machine, but I think we can both agree that these exclusive games would be more effective at selling machines at $400 than at $500 or $600.

All I'm really saying is that it would benefit Sony to play their cards in a good way. They are in a different position than they were with PS2. The market conditions are very different and both Nintendo and Microsoft have a very good chance at increasing their markets and marketshares in the gaming realm. The main point I'm trying to make here is that the PS3 will not be the dominating console the PS2 and PS1 were during their times. I believe the PS3 will be highly successful for Sony and because they are including Blu Ray in it they have a good chance of securing the HD format as well.

It's just different than it was before and they're facing much stronger competition. But in the end, we can only see in the coming years what happens. All this speculation about a console that hasn't even been released yet is a little futile, but still fun none the less.

I'm glad we are able to discuss these topics in an intelligent manner on these forums. Now I'm off to bed. Goodnight.

 

[PiNkY]

I guess we can all pretty much agree that the chicken and egg circle of the video games industry is more console buyers <--> more titles or in more abstract words more demand <-> more offerings. The key question with the BD gamble (for the lack of a better word) is, whether there is enough overlap between those that seek primarily a gaming machine and those in the market for an affordable bd player. If a large chunk of the initial ps3 shipments goes to movie fans not interested in buying games, publishers may just move a larger part of their portfolio to wii and 360. I think this already happend to a certain extend. One or two years ago it was "PS3 is strictly our lead plattform" in interviews with all major publishers. This year it was more like "we expect it to be 50:50 between PS3 and 360". MS did extraordinarly good with game sales in NA, especially when considering the rather small userbase and publishers certainly took notice.

 

[Black Dragon37]

All I want is for the $499 SKU to have HDMI.

 

[stuart_r]

Info about HDMI :- http://www.hdmi.org/about/faq.asp

Listed is infomation about it and that it transmits video and audio on ONE Connector & lead a bit like scart

 

[Brimstone]

Maybe value is different than price but there is a limit to how far you can take it. No doubt what you have described is of great value but with that price it will never become mainstream. If the difference is 100$ maybe lot of customers would go for the more valueable offering but when we are talking about differences of $300+ vey few would go for the expensive alternative.

And Sony can not dissregard marketshare, that has been their "thing" since PS1. Why would developers keep developing or atleast keep games as exclusive as now for the PS3 if the market share would drop from 70% to 20%, because for the life of me I could never see them gaining more if they would keep their console for 600$ more than 3 years...

Sony shouldn't do an extreme pricing model never reducing price. Of course as component costs go lower, they can decrease the price. My point is even with a G70 RSX and 3.2 Ghz CELL, it will take a long time to get down to $300 for a base model. Take the current $499 SKU, even if they can manage to lower the price $100 by holiday 2007, it still will be priced at $399. So even if we except this situation as possible, we have to assume this is with both the CPU and GPU being fabbed on .65nm, with .45nm years away. Now by 2008 to lower the cost another $100, that would be tough to achieve, and if possible it will come from lower optical drive costs more than anything. Even if this is accomplished which I highly doubt, you have a base price of $299 at the end of 2008. How will consummers even percieve the PS3 in 2008 compared to the competion?

The PS3 is going to be a upper echelon priced piece of hardware no matter what. A lot of this has to do with Blu-Ray. I'm saying thats fine as long as it performs like a upper echelon piece of hardware compared to the competition. Sony was on a roll with the X-Box 1.5 marketing hype, but it lost steam when became excepted that the GPU was a G70. Actually a lot of things started to conspire to work against Sony such as a poor E3 presentation, lack of rumble (its a game machine for crying out loud) and terrible picture quality Blu-Ray movie releases just to name a few.

The good aspect about Blu-Ray, is it will provide a second revenue stream if it the format becomes the next-gen optical standard. My personal opinion is that average consumers will be more impressed with the format if the PS3 is cranking out graphics head and shoulders above the XB360. The processing power of the GPU and Blu-Ray will have a symbiotic relationship, even though they don't directly correlate with each other at first glance. CELL, RSX, and Blu-Ray make the PS3 the first ever console chimera, where the sum is greater than the parts.

Sony needs to reinforce that next-gen hasn't started until they launch. As it stands right now with a G70 RSX, the perception is they are late to the next-gen party rather then the catalyst to make it start. Oh and they forgot to bring "rumble", they left it on the kitchen table at home.

 

[ZiFF]

Trying to make a console lower cost is not a winning strategy by itself. Sony shouldn't be focused on trying to drive down cost to the $300 dollar level.

Are you insane? They want to bring PS3 to people who buy PS2s now.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

For a hundred bucks you want to double V-RAM, add another HDMI port, and swap the G70 for the G80?

Umm... ok.

No.... for a $100 would be adding a HDMI port, adding more cost to their GPU fabrication, and doubling the v-ram pool.

Erm... ok.

So I did understand what you thought could be added for a hundred bucks. Umm... ok, I still think that is ludicrous like a fox.

 

[Tahir2]

still think is ludicrous like a fox.

OT: Crazy like a fox.

 

[scooby_dooby]

OT: Crazy like a fox.

Which means the opposite of crazy.

Crazy like a fox, means it looks crazy, but is actually very cunning.