Wired: Gloom and Doom for Sony

[TheChefO]

That doesn't hurt the industry, only Sony's earnings. There's two other consoles in this industry for those who want to be part of gaming and don't want to pay Sony's prices. That's two other consoles for developer and publishers to work on if PS3 is too expensive to get a market for itself.

And if PS3 does reach wide adoption, it shows that the population would rather pay more money for what Sony were offering, than less money for the rivals. This would mean the population have been offered a product they want, and had Sony stayed more cconservative in their plans, a product people wouldn't have had the chance to buy into.

The industry goes where the people go. If that means becoming a more expensive luxury item, so be it. Existing console gamers may be put out, but if for the industry it means better sales and services and income, who cares about existing gamers? Sony can't harm the industry. They can only play their part in it and leave it for the market's voting dollars to decide what works and what doesn't.

True there are two other console players in this industry however they are not Sony. If you were an exclusive Playstation gamer for the past ten years then you probably have a few favorite game series that Sony owns. So as a casual fan of gaming (not hardcore) who does not have $500-600 to drop on a console (or don't value the entertainment at that price) what do you do? either a) wait and hold on to your ps2 or b) choose another console. Not everyone who wants a next-gen playstation but can't afford/justify the cost will buy an alternative. In the meantime these people will be out of the industry as far as their contribution to it financially. So how is it beneficial to the industry to have these people sitting out for the first few years to maybe the entire generation. And if Sony is successful (enough) what does this mean for the pricing of ps4? Will it help the industry to have this pricing trend continue upward? If this were Sega or some other small player in the industry I would agree but because there are so many casual gamers out there that associate "gaming" with "playstation" it is hurting the industry if these people can't afford/justify it's cost.

Arwin - the cost of ps3 being more expensive than ps2 in the US can be associated with a weaker dollar now compared to then but one must ask, how is it Nintendo and MS were able to keep their prices in check in this economic dilemma? Compare the prices region to region and you'll see a big gap between 360 and ps3. Why? well ...honestly it really doesn't matter because to the casual gamer they just want their favorite few titles to play on their favorite console and when their favorite console is priced outside of their range what do they do? Buy the competition or sit it out. Gamers sitting it out isn't helping the industry.

"Really not true. It's the same pattern again that we are always seeing. Lots of interested parties, lots of skepticism, lots of stories, and it gets worse and worse as (cheap) internet press gets bigger and bigger. "

This is anything but the same pattern. Sure there were some people who questioned this or that back then but umm ... by and large most everyone expected ps1 to do very well and it did. Ditto for ps2. Ps3 ...

That's the thing though. Even if they do well and sell like ps2, guess how much ps4 is going to cost. Is that good for the industry?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

True there are two other console players in this industry however they are not Sony. If you were an exclusive Playstation gamer for the past ten years then you probably have a few favorite game series that Sony owns. So as a casual fan of gaming (not hardcore) who does not have $500-600 to drop on a console (or don't value the entertainment at that price) what do you do? either a) wait and hold on to your ps2 or b) choose another console.

If Sony aren't shifting platforms, who's going to be developing for it? Those franchises will move to other platforms. The exceptions will be 1st party, and if people want similar games then the industry will find developers to develop simlar games on other platforms that people are buying. I may have played GT for two console generations, but if I can't afford to play GT on PS3 but there's a very similar experience elsewhere, I'll move. I don't think anyone is that tied to a game franchise that they'll miss out of gaming altogether rather than buy alternatives. If there are any such people, they're bound to be the most miniscule of minorities.

"I love gaming, and I love racers and shooters and JRPGs, and I've owned PS for two generations. Now PS3 has these games I like but it's too expensive. I'll just stop playing computer games altogether and take up mountaineering instead..." I think not

Considering you yourself have adamantly spoken out that exclusives will be few and far between this gen, and there's no reason to think PS3 will hold onto the greater range of software as it has done the past two generations, how do you then go on to argue that PS3 will be the home of essential exclusives and gamers will just stop gaming if it's priced too high, hurting the whole console industry?

 

[patsu]

TheChefO, Sony is actually trying to expand the gaming market to the next tier.

Before I begin, you must also remember that MS is still not making money from the Xbox division. So whatever they do may or may not be viable. Not every company has that kind of cash and market position to lose money like them.

Ok, this is how I see it...

Nintendo tries to grow the market by introducing casual games and gaming platform. They are succeeding so far and I'm really happy for them. Nintendo is a true game company..

MS is a development and OS platform company. It is trying to unify console gaming with PC and cellphone gaming. Through the act, it hopes that developers have a larger market to write games for (DirectX and XNA). If you follow J. Allard, you'll notice that he's been tasked/associated with all the key MS moves including the launch of Xbox 360 and now XNA.

Console hardware to MS is only a step to get there, and so they will try to minimize loss here. If MS holds true to its words, Xbox 360 will be phased out in 4 more years (And "Xbox 720" news may come on the 3rd year). This gels well with MS's plan because they still hold the DirectX development platform *and* the Xbox Live subscribers. The latter allows them to have some bargaining power vis-a-vis a game publisher (Remember MS had trouble getting EA onto XBL initially ?)

With more cross-platform titles, this means that the developers can port the same game easily to PS3 also. Nintendo cleverly escaped this and that's why Sony introduced more hardware features to differentiate itself or risk being commoditized. I'll leave it to you to decide whether this is good or bad for the gaming industry *from the consumer's point of view*. Your closest examples are the PDA market (Palm vs MS), the PC market (Apple vs MS), and to a certain extent, the cell phone application market (Docomo vs rest of cell phone world).

Sony tries to use its clout in the entertainment industry, and economy of scale in its electronics division to get casual gamers into the market.. Unlike hardcore gamers, the casual gaming crowd need time and more convincing to consume games. So a larger number of them is needed to realize and sustain the growth.

To do this effectively, Sony will need a mainstream behaviour (e.g., watching movies, listening to music, ...) to capture these people. It will also need the capacity and capability to drive a much larger volume of PS3 to the market (compared to what you see previously). Finally of course, the likes of Nintendo are needed to create great games to draw the crowd into the gaming market.

To address these requirements, Sony chose to combine Blu-ray and PS3. It also acquired a few more studios to make sure they can deliver the exclusive (gaming) draw. If all goes well, the hardcore gamers will eventually end up buying a PS3 as prices fall. And more casuals are exposed and got into the gaming world because they have been put so closed together by Sony.

The high PS3 price actually looks palatable when compared to a HD player (That's one of the reasons why Blu-ray was chosen as an entry point). The risks are many, including...

Sony may alienate the hardcore gamers in the process because of the high initial price when PS3 is perceived solely as a game console. Traditionally, convergence is a difficult proposition.

Again whether this benefits consumers at large, your call. I can assure you these are hardly desparate moves.

In summary, Nintendo and Sony are trying to grow the gaming market. MS is trying to consolidate it. You tend to hear more gamers complain about Nintendo and Sony because they are trying to redefine the gamer profile and norms to include new comers. MS serves the existing gamers "as is" but sell to the developers. There will be time for MS to impose its rules, but just not right now.

 

[TheChefO]

If Sony aren't shifting platforms, who's going to be developing for it? Those franchises will move to other platforms. The exceptions will be 1st party, and if people want similar games then the industry will find developers to develop simlar games on other platforms that people are buying. I may have played GT for two console generations, but if I can't afford to play GT on PS3 but there's a very similar experience elsewhere, I'll move. I don't think anyone is that tied to a game franchise that they'll miss out of gaming altogether rather than buy alternatives. If there are any such people, they're bound to be the most miniscule of minorities.

"I love gaming, and I love racers and shooters and JRPGs, and I've owned PS for two generations. Now PS3 has these games I like but it's too expensive. I'll just stop playing computer games altogether and take up mountaineering instead..." I think not

Considering you yourself have adamantly spoken out that exclusives will be few and far between this gen, and there's no reason to think PS3 will hold onto the greater range of software as it has done the past two generations, how do you then go on to argue that PS3 will be the home of essential exclusives and gamers will just stop gaming if it's priced too high, hurting the whole console industry?

I'm sorry if I did not speak this point clear enough - My point is:
1) Sony has the market lead with ~100Million ps2's sold.
2) A portion of the gamers who bought ps2's are casual fans
3) A portion of these casual fans are fans of Sony titles (1st party) such as God of War
4) this subset of casual gamers (unknown quantity) want to continue their ps gaming experience
5) ps3 price is substantially higher than ps2 (in the us)
6) A subset of the subset of casual gamers (unknown quantity) cannot afford ps3
7) the subset of the subset of casual gamers will choose to either stay with ps2 (contribute nothing as they buy nothing or look at alternatives
8) the subset of the subset of casual gamers who decide to not buy an alternative (for whatever reason) will not contribute to the industry.

Hopefully this is clear enough. I don't know how big this subset of ps casual gamers is that will not buy a ps3 (or will wait till it hits $150) but I know that it exists and ps3's high price is the factor that contributes to this subset not financiall contributing to the industry. Hence, Sony is hurting the industry.

For many games, yes I have stated in the past and it is being proven everyday; we will see very few exclusives this gen from 3rd parties. However the gamers who have a ps2 just to play God of War or Rachet and Clank or any other 1st party title that are only interested in those titles will have no desire to buy a system that does not offer them. The industry will either lose these gamers or wait for them to be able to afford a ps3 before they contribute financially this gen.

My other point is where is this pricing model taking us and is it beneficial?

 

[patsu]

I don't know how big this subset of ps casual gamers is that will not buy a ps3 (or will wait till it hits $150) but I know that it exists and ps3's high price is the factor that contributes to this subset not financiall contributing to the industry. Hence, Sony is hurting the industry.

In the near term, yes. In the long term, no. If Sony executes well, there may be a larger market because of Blu-ray. There will also be more ways for game developers to express themselves and make money.

My other point is where is this pricing model taking us and is it beneficial?

The pricing model is used to fund market growth using the traditional "Crossing the Chasm" approach. You can google for the phrase. And the price will not stay high forever.

 

[Black Dragon37]

I don't think faceless corporations can have "balls".

I thought balless corporations had no "balls". I thought faceless corporations had no "faces"...

I think I'm high on LSD...

 

[TheChefO]

Patsu: I agree Sony and Nintendo don't want to become commodities and their hardware helps in this regard however it will eventually boil down to one standard (kinda like the video market used to be) as it just makes sense when no hardware advantage can be proven to a consumer it becomes a question of software. We are very close to this stage currently and I suspect next gen will be even closer as a new media format shouldn't be a consideration. I see where some think that consumers desiring a cheap bluray player will buy a ps3 and perhaps be intrigued by this whole "videogame" concept and see what they have to offer in this regard. Honestly I'd be surprised if this makes up for the lost sales of people who clearly are interested in gaming but can't afford/justify the one they want and are familiar with.

 

[patsu]

Not necessarily one. The video market has VC-1 and H.264.
Usually people prefer to go open standards rather than totally proprietary ?

Also back on topic, Sony is not "doomed and gloomed", but just trying to integrate vertically and grow the market.

Honestly I'd be surprised if this makes up for the lost sales of people who clearly are interested in gaming but can't afford/justify the one they want and are familiar with.

TheChefO, it's a 2 way street. Developers need to learn the taste of newcomers too. That's why I said there will be more ways to express themselves and make money.

 

[blakjedi]

even if casuals stayed with PS2... they are still contributing as PS sales are virtually all profit now...

The thing I want to see is faced with the same circumstance MS was faced with last generation (particularly the fixed HW cost of HDD in every sale) can Sony ever really reduce teh price of the console to teh point where they profit?

Would the answer to this question really lay in attach rates for software and media services? How does "free" internet impact their ability to fund and support a global "live" like infrstructure?

 

[TheChefO]

TheChefO, it's a 2 way street. Developers need to learn the taste of newcomers too. That's why I said there will be more ways to express themselves and make money.

True but game type has little dependance on hardware. In otherwords what is it that Sony could do game designwise to lure in newcomers to gaming that could not be done on 360? Honestly the only one I see making an effort to truly grow the market is Nintendo. They may fail and they may only replace a large portion of their prior userbase with newcomers because of their HW decisions with Wii but at least I see an effort in this regard. I've seen nothing from Sony to indicate this new direction of reaching out to nongamers so far but I'm not exactly an insider either.

 

[patsu]

The thing I want to see is faced with the same circumstance MS was faced with last generation (particularly the fixed HW cost of HDD in every sale) can Sony ever really reduce teh price of the console to teh point where they profit?

Would the answer to this question really lay in attach rates for software and media services? How does "free" internet impact their ability to fund and support a global "live" like infrstructure?

On the manufacturing front, yes I agree Sony is in similar situation as MS (Although MS faced a much tougher fight last round on the market front. Kudos to them). It is said that Sony has tighter manufacturing control, much larger economy of scale and also can source parts internally. So it can shave much overheads and middlemen cost away.

As for whether Sony can profit from this gen, I have zero idea because the PS3 picture is not complete yet.

If I were to hazard a guess, I can only guess that the secrets lie in reusing PS3 parts elsewhere (even reselling when the production capacity is there). PS3 components, including Blu-ray, may have to be weaved into the very fabric of Sony's manufacturing empire to achieve the capacity needed.

The software, media services and online infrastructure may stand on their own. Free online is in exchange for a potentially larger audience to sell to. In general, I agree with this concept because there is already a PS3 hook (similar to iTunes).

Of course I can be totally off here.

True but game type has little dependance on hardware. In otherwords what is it that Sony could do game designwise to lure in newcomers to gaming that could not be done on 360? Honestly the only one I see making an effort to truly grow the market is Nintendo. They may fail and they may only replace a large portion of their prior userbase with newcomers because of their HW decisions with Wii but at least I see an effort in this regard. I've seen nothing from Sony to indicate this new direction of reaching out to nongamers so far but I'm not exactly an insider either.

It doesn't matter by that time. They bought a PS3 (perhaps because of Blu-ray ?), and would be able to enjoy whatever casual games made available to them from that platform via Blu-ray or digital distribution. I believe Sony's war cry last gen is "Gaming is Entertainment".

 

[Crayon]

8) the subset of the subset of casual gamers who decide to not buy an alternative (for whatever reason) will not contribute to the industry.

That's perfectly clear, but I would say it's a bit of a stretch. That subset of a subset you speak of actually contains a few contradictions:

They are casual, yet so dedicated to certain series that they would not consider alternatives.

They have a serious desire to move up to a newer console, but unwilling to pay the asking price for it.

They are consuming enough to be important to the industry, but will suddenly stop that consumption pattern for the reasons above.

Considering that these are no more than thought experiments, my view on it carries no more weight than yours. But to me, the picture you paint just doesn't make sense.

Sony is taking a stab at a different kind of market. They are neccessarily leaving some of their customers behind. Those customers are convienently served by Microsoft who has taken a paint-by-numbers "Playstation Too" path. The core 360 does exactly what a new $299 should do and does it well. That includes providing quality alternatives to it's competitor's franchises. The likelyhood of existing gamers not being served by either MS OR Sony's offering and just giving up on gaming is unrealistic, imo. As Shifty pointed out, if such a gamer exists in any meaningful quantity, I'd be shocked.

If anything, I'd say Sony is helping the industry -and not for the first time, might I add- by taking a chance and reaching up market to capture people who don't even know they like gaming yet. I hope they pull it off -again- because the introduction of the origional, expensive PS1 back in 95 and it's marketing to the tender 17-35 demo was hugely beneficial to all of us.

Except Sega.

Oh and Nintendo.

Hell, maybe it was good for them, too.

 

[Crayon]

True but game type has little dependance on hardware. In otherwords what is it that Sony could do game designwise to lure in newcomers to gaming that could not be done on 360? Honestly the only one I see making an effort to truly grow the market is Nintendo. They may fail and they may only replace a large portion of their prior userbase with newcomers because of their HW decisions with Wii but at least I see an effort in this regard. I've seen nothing from Sony to indicate this new direction of reaching out to nongamers so far but I'm not exactly an insider either.

No no no! It's the hardware, brother!

HD media, wirelless and gigabit networking capabilities, multitasking os, open development, standard media ports and espansion.

Please don't engage me tit for tat on the features above, it's unimportant... The point is that they're offering a bunch of non-gaming services that expand the appeal beyond the existing audience. The stuff is not all anounced yet but just use a bit of imagination and think of what can be done with the little they've allready shown:

Video mail, VOIP, ditital media cashing sharing and purchasing, chitting/chatting, online dating, REMOTE INTERNATIONAL STRIP KARAOKE PARTIES BABY!!!!

It's a new kind of product. It's a networked media appliance. Just re-associate that idea with the name "Playstation" in your head and it all makes alot of sence.

Can you tell I'm excited about it?

 

[TheChefO]

That's perfectly clear, but I would say it's a bit of a stretch. That subset of a subset you speak of actually contains a few contradictions:

They are casual, yet so dedicated to certain series that they would not consider alternatives.

They have a serious desire to move up to a newer console, but unwilling to pay the asking price for it.

They are consuming enough to be important to the industry, but will suddenly stop that consumption pattern for the reasons above.

Considering that these are no more than thought experiments, my view on it carries no more weight than yours. But to me, the picture you paint just doesn't make sense.

Sony is taking a stab at a different kind of market. They are neccessarily leaving some of their customers behind. Those customers are convienently served by Microsoft who has taken a paint-by-numbers "Playstation Too" path. The core 360 does exactly what a new $299 should do and does it well. That includes providing quality alternatives to it's competitor's franchises. The likelyhood of existing gamers not being served by either MS OR Sony's offering and just giving up on gaming is unrealistic, imo. As Shifty pointed out, if such a gamer exists in any meaningful quantity, I'd be shocked.

If anything, I'd say Sony is helping the industry -and not for the first time, might I add- by taking a chance and reaching up market to capture people who don't even know they like gaming yet. I hope they pull it off -again- because the introduction of the origional, expensive PS1 back in 95 and it's marketing to the tender 17-35 demo was hugely beneficial to all of us.

Except Sega.

Oh and Nintendo.

Hell, maybe it was good for them, too.

Have you never heard of people who have a console and only a handful of games? Some even less than that? It might come as a surprise but those people exist and are a portion of those 100million ps2 owners. If you know very little about a subject you will stick to what is popular because you don't know better. If you're a casual gamer and you don't have much money to waste on the hobby you don't want to buy "the wrong" game and get something unsatisfactory. Same thing for the console itself. And yes surprise surprise if you don't value something very highly you're not going to dump loads of money into it and you're probably going to stick with what you know and what has worked in the past.

And how is charging more beneficial again? By "reaching up" to people? So if I'm a 30 something male and I have a shiny new hdtv and I want a hd movie player I'm gonna go buy a bluray player because the movies look much better than hddvd ones right? oh umm maybe I wouldn't and I'd just get a hd-dvd player instead and have a superior picture for the same cost as the BRplayer/gameplayer hybrid that my non-gaming buddies in my age group would laugh at.

I get the concept but the execution doesn't add up as BR has proven itself inferior to hddvd and a hddvd player can be had for the same price (or less) than a ps3 that would double as a BR hd movie player. Why would people buy into this game/movie player hybrid again if their not interested in games and it's cost prohibitive?


edit - and your above post translates to what advantage over their competitor?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I'm sorry if I did not speak this point clear enough - My point is:
...

So a subset of a subset of a portion of a portion of the market leader, who represents something like 70% of the market (so 30% is unaffected) are going to be responsible for hurting the industry such that the multi-billion dollar industry feels the pain of these casuals not spending their $60 dollars a year on games... And that's if Sony maintains a 70% market share. I thought your own expectation was something more level, where Sony would be more around the 40% mark, where you still think a subset of a subset of a portion of a portion of 40% of the market will hurt the industry if they don't buy Sony consoles because they cost too much.

However the gamers who have a ps2 just to play God of War or Rachet and Clank or any other 1st party title that are only interested in those titles will have no desire to buy a system that does not offer them. The industry will either lose these gamers or wait for them to be able to afford a ps3 before they contribute financially this gen.

1) Do these people really exist (outside of Nintendo fans)? Are there any gamers who only buy 1st parties, who won't buy any games if their favourite franchises cost too much to play? If you look up somewhere like here, you see Sony 1st party best-sellers aren't that numerous on PS2, and only repesent a tiny part of the market. The number of fans of Crash and Spyro certainly didn't care to buy into the PS2 iterations of those franchises, which doesn't support your idea that there's fans of franchise who only care to follow those franchises. If you then consider that those who bought those titles include gamers who buy multiple games from different companies, you see Sony's 1st party influence is minimal. Furthermore, in the example of GOW, it's not really a franchise. Those who bought PS2 just to play that one game (if anyone) did so without any prior exposure to the game. Are you saying that they won't ever find another game they like on another platform, and the only game the whole of existence that they'll buy into is GOW? We don't even know if GOW is going to appear in a next-gen format! You're saying that neither XB360 nor Wii will produce title to appeal to these GOW fans?

2) How much do they contribute to the 'industry'? They only give money to the console manufacturer, so why the heck would the rest of the industry care? I mean, why would EA or Ubisoft care if Jonny Nopants who only plays 1st party Sony titles doesn't get a PS3 because it costs too much, when he was never going to buy an EA/Ubisoft games? The only industry they'll be hurting is Sonydom, and seeing as Sony likely make a loss on early console sales, these people who don't spend on games will be doing Sony a favour and saving them money by not buying PS3 at least until it's in the budget price-range!

My other point is where is this pricing model taking us and is it beneficial?

The pricing model is one of three tiers, and it will take us either to more expensive devices if sales show that's what's valued, or will take us to a point where only cheaper devices are released. But this will be decided by people buying the devices, and not by any one company setting a price that everyone else will blindly follow. For gamers who only want the cheapest, barest gaming experience, higher prices would not be beneficial to the market as gamers buy less. For consumers who want widely versatile CE goods and are willing to pay for it, this move will be beneficial.

True but game type has little dependance on hardware. In otherwords what is it that Sony could do game designwise to lure in newcomers to gaming that could not be done on 360?

So Sony aren't even reaching out to new audiences nor creating valuable exclusives (if only they'd come up with something like a camera to interact with games, or a Karaoke type game, or something like that with wider appeal...), and they're pricing everything too high, and yet offering no better options than the rivals they're still going to command the pricing and market direction? Your argument is making no sense to me at all. If people are going to buy PS3 or nothing, surely there's a reason why in the 1st party exclusives, and if the rivals can duplicate those successes, those who won't buy PS3 because it costs too much will move to the other platforms. What you're saying is Sony don't do anything other companies can't do, but developers are dependent on Sony to provide a platform that's affordable.

A subset of a subset of a portion of a portion of an expected 40% share of the market will hurt the industry when they don't buy PS3 because it's too expensive, and won't buy alternative consoles because they lack the Sony exclusives, even though Sony don't do anything the other companies can't do. What am I missing here for that to make sense to me? Because it most certainly isn't at the moment!

 

[blakjedi]

Crayon - I would submit to you that all the services you are excited about... already exist on the MS platform (what OS are you using to access this board? ) and can be integrated just as or more easily than the Sony platform and can follow you... from your 360 to your phone, PDA, desktop and laptop.. thats is WAY more reach than the PS3-PSP combo...

What were you saying again?

 

[TheChefO]

A subset of a subset of a portion of a portion of an expected 40% share of the market will hurt the industry when they don't buy PS3 because it's too expensive, and won't buy alternative consoles because they lack the Sony exclusives, even though Sony don't do anything the other companies can't do. What am I missing here for that to make sense to me? Because it most certainly isn't at the moment!

Shifty - you're blowing my posts way out of proportion. I never said Sony has not innovated and offered anything to the industry nor did I say that this portion of loyal Sony gamers who only bought a handful of games would crash the industry if they couldn't buy a ps3. I merely stated that losing them (however many they are) is not a good thing for the industry. Higher pricing is indeed a culprit in whatever marketshare they lose and while I agree they may pickup some new gamers that buy a ps3 for BR capabilities I don't think these new gamers will expand the market in any meaningful way. My opinion of course.

 

[patsu]

And how is charging more beneficial again? By "reaching up" to people? So if I'm a 30 something male and I have a shiny new hdtv and I want a hd movie player I'm gonna go buy a bluray player because the movies look much better than hddvd ones right? oh umm maybe I wouldn't and I'd just get a hd-dvd player instead and have a superior picture for the same cost as the BRplayer/gameplayer hybrid that my non-gaming buddies in my age group would laugh at.

Charging more will only fetch Sony enough cash to bridge it to the next phase as the production ramps up. From consumer's point of view, it will keep a large number of people away.

As for Blu-ray player, yes all plans boil down to execution. As long as PS3 is a robust, hi-quality player and priced similarly to a standalone HD player, then it should perform well regardless of whether your friends laugh at you or not.

Crayon - I would submit to you that all the services you are excited about... already exist on the MS platform (what OS are you using to access this board? ) and can be integrated just as or more easily than the Sony platform and can follow you... from your 360 to your phone, PDA, desktop and laptop.. thats is WAY more reach than the PS3-PSP combo...

When Apple releases iPod, MP3 players were on the market for about a year. They were also not the first to setup an online music store. However no one could stop them today in digital distribution.

Besides reach, it's also about relevance, brand, context, quality, price, content, user experiences, etc. I'm not saying Sony will definitely succeed. It is a very difficult fight but Sony is well on its way executing their plan (same for MS !). If they fall flat, that's too bad.

To ChefO, whether the newcomers buy games or not... it's something that the industry has to work together to expand. But Sony can do its part to bring them a few steps closer.
I'm one of those in your post. I bought 5 PS2 games and 5 Xbox games, then stopped for the past 2 years while I continue to watch DVDs. If Sony had not released PSP, I would be out of it. Today I continue to buy PSP games (LocoRoco !), whenever I got sick of viewing photos and home videos while travelling.

The best case scenario is the current launch price continues to attract a large enough segment of hardcore gamers to buy PS3. The initial buzz sustain enough interests and momentum to bring price down for the other hardcore and casual gamers.

Hopefully we are able to tell this November.

 

[blakjedi]

When Apple releases iPod, MP3 players were on the market for about a year. They were also not the first to setup an online music store. However no one could stop them today in digital distribution.

Slightly OT but Myspace is WELL on the way to outstripping itunes... as one of the worlds top three trafficked sites and the new base of digital distribution for many bands and even established players... itunes' relevance may only be for those who absolutely want to be forced into apple's formats...

 

[patsu]

Slightly OT but Myspace is WELL on the way to outstripping itunes... as one of the worlds top three trafficked sites and the new base of digital distribution for many bands and even established players... itunes' relevance may only be for those who absolutely want to be forced into apple's formats...

But it's not about traffic/reach alone. How much is MySpace earning per page view (i.e., How effective are they) ?

I have a photographer friend who set up a presence on MySpace to refer traffic to his studio. While there are more traffic and referals compared to a wedding site or a model site, he was not able to close any of them for various reasons. Most of the traffic he got are under 18 years old.

As for new base of digital distribution... are artists releasing full albums and songs without DRM today ? Any DRM, including MS's, is a proprietary lock-in.