Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Sony And The No-Confidence Vote

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the spending-your-goodwill-currency dept.

245

Sony continues to spend the goodwill it has achieved over the last generation of consoles. As widely reported over the weekend, last Friday CEO for SCE Europe David Reeves spoke to the press. "We have built up a certain brand equity over time since the launch of PlayStation in 1995 and PS2 in 2000 that the first five million are going to buy it, whatever it is, even it didn't have games." This 'you'll buy it anyway' attitude has further annoyed gamers already rankling from the announced pricetag. Next Gen and IGN talk about the two sides of the coin, with IGN laying into the company for the lack of HDMI output in the cheaper model, and Next Generation saying that Sony is far from defeated.

cancel ×

245 comments

Pride Goeth Before A Fall (4, Insightful)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | more than 8 years ago | (#15381756)


Tying to sell a console without games is like trying to sell a gun without ammunition. Reeves' blithe assertion that their 'brand equity' will induce gamers to shell out 600 clams for their console, despite the dearth of available games, is pure fantasy. There are other consoles out there, that are far cheaper, and have games now. I personally can't imagine how Sony's going to move any of these consoles before the games become available.

That said, perhaps Sony would have a better chance of moving said consoles if it didn't take its customer base for granted in such a shockingly flippant way. The $600 price tag is bad enough, but Reeves' interview with Computer and Video Games probably cost Sony a lot of business from spite alone.

Also, from the IGN article:
In word, Sony downplayed the disparity between the $499 and $599 PS3 versions, citing the primary difference between the consoles at the time of the announcement as the difference in built-in hard drive space, namely 20 GB for the low-end and 60 GB for the high-end. Within minutes, however, journalists homed in on a variety of factors that placed the lower-end PS3 into contention for the dreaded "tard-box" classification of crippled-console.
Sony, if you've got so much frelling 'brand equity' that you can try to sell us a console for $600 without any games, why do you feel compelled to market a separate, 'tard-box'?

Re:Pride Goeth Before A Fall (1)

objwiz (166131) | more than 8 years ago | (#15381837)

My friend and I were talking about this exact topic at lunch--except we were talking about the XBox 360. I have not bought a 360 yet because there are no 360 based games that I am dying to play. I have no incentive to shell out $400 for a console that, atm, doesnt give anything better than what I currently own.

Re:Pride Goeth Before A Fall (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382478)

My friend and I were talking about this exact topic at lunch--except we were talking about the XBox 360. I have not bought a 360 yet because there are no 360 based games that I am dying to play. I have no incentive to shell out $400 for a console that, atm, doesnt give anything better than what I currently own.

Exactly. I'm still waiting for some PS3 games that will make me pay attention - I haven't heard of more than two so far, and that's not enough to buy a console with.

I did that once before, bought an xBox when it only had two games I wanted to play out of all the many hundreds - and I regretted it. Now, I never count cross-platform because ... I can get those on any console anyway.

Make the games and I'll pay attention.

Re:Pride Goeth Before A Fall (1, Informative)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 8 years ago | (#15381850)

Reeves' blithe assertion that their 'brand equity' will induce gamers to shell out 600 clams for their console, despite the dearth of available games, is pure fantasy.

Basically, Sony is making many of the exact same mistakes Sega made with the Saturn. Given that Sony was Sega's "$299" antagonist at the time, you'd think they'd know better.

Re:Pride Goeth Before A Fall (1)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 8 years ago | (#15381862)

Trying to sell a console without games is like trying to sell a gun without ammunition.
Yeah, but it's still useful for beating some sense into their head if they buy it :D

Re:Pride Goeth Before A Fall (2, Insightful)

jbreckman (917963) | more than 8 years ago | (#15381983)

It's like buying soda at a movie theater. A small is $3.25, and a large is $4.00. But a small is like 8 sips, and a large is 1000 sips. Most people will shell out the extra 75 cents. If I'm going to spend $500 on something, might as well pay the extra $100 for something a lot better. The large soda is a rip-off, but less of a rip-off when compared to the small soda.

Re:Pride Goeth Before A Fall (1)

ClassMyAss (976281) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382545)

It certainly spells disaster for Sony if the people on Slashdot are rooting against their new system (you'd think we'd be the ones itching to shell out big bucks for the next hot thing!), and looking at the polls, Sony should be worried. However, I wonder whether we might be overstating the shortage of games?

An informal Google search revealed the following numbers of games available/expected to be available at console launch:

  • PS: 35/12 (? conflicting info ?)
  • Wii: 27 playable at E3
  • PS2: 26
  • XBox: 18
  • XBox 360: 18
  • GBA: 16
  • PS3: 15
  • Game Cube: 12
  • Nintendo DS: 6
  • Game Boy: 5
  • Sega Genesis: 5
  • SNES: 3
  • N64: 2

If the PS3 actually launches with 15 games, that puts it right about the middle of the pack. Of course, it will have fewer than any of the other systems of this generation, and that may be more important than a comparison to systems more than a decade old. Add to that the fact that they've offered what appears to be little more than a PS2++ (or should I say a (PS1++)++?), priced higher than a low-end desktop computer, and the overall picture is anything but rosy for Sony.

Come on, guys, at least give us some reason to prefer your box over the other guy's!

Re:Pride Goeth Before A Fall (1)

radish (98371) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382707)

This [wikipedia.org] is a pretty comprehensive listing, it shows the PS as having 12 titles at the US launch.

As for the Wii, it's currently showing 18 titles. I didn't see 27 titles at E3 (far from it) but there were a number of tech demos (which won't be released) and each of the sub-games of Wii Sports was being shown on a different stand - I imagine this accounts for the disparity. 15-18 seems like a good average number for the new console launches.

narcissism (4, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 8 years ago | (#15381761)

Etymology

After Narcissus, the fictional Greek hero who became obsessed with his own reflection.

Pronunciation
  • 'när-s&-"si-z&m
Noun

narcissism

1. Egoism; egocentrism.
2. Love of oneself.
3. Sexual desire for one's own body.

--

I grew up on a farm. If there's one thing that pisses me off, it's people who walk around with their noses in the air. Yuppies, politicians, etc. are prone to this behavior.

Sony's elitism sure is getting underneath my skin. I enjoyed their console but anymore of this "only-the-rich-are-worthy-of-experiencing-this" attitude and I'm going to take my ball (money) and play elsewhere.

They do realize that many of their customers also buy their competitor's products, right? By stomping all over Nintendo and Microsoft, they may be alienating a large selection of their consumer base.

check out THAT reflection! (0, Troll)

RingDev (879105) | more than 8 years ago | (#15381930)

"I grew up on a farm. If there's one thing that pisses me off, it's people who walk around with their noses in the air. Yuppies, politicians, etc. are prone to this behavior."

Yes, because all of us farm boys know we are better than those big city slickers. ;)

-Rick

Re:narcissism (0, Flamebait)

bunions (970377) | more than 8 years ago | (#15381943)

I grew up in the city. If there's on thing that pisses me off, it's people that post definitions of common words, as if to imply they were imparting deep wisdom unto the masses.

bahhhhh!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15382046)

Come on now, you city boys don't know nuttin' about teh goatsex. Yer just proud of your ignorance!

Re:narcissism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15382573)

Funny that the QOTM is

Happiness, n.: An agreeable sensation arising from contemplating the misery of another. -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

=D

Re:narcissism (2, Insightful)

Ekarderif (941116) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382001)

I like pants. If there's one thing that pisses me off, it's the total irrelevance of the first statement in relation to the second.

Re:narcissism (1)

iroll (717924) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382961)

I grew up on a ranch, and believe me, farmers don't have a monopoly on "humble pie." Country folk are quite capable of breeding their own special species of snobbery.

Let's be fair, it's true.. (1)

goldaryn (834427) | more than 8 years ago | (#15381774)

"We have built up a certain brand equity over time since the launch of PlayStation in 1995 and PS2 in 2000 that the first five million are going to buy it, whatever it is, even [if] it didn't have games."

So? It's true.. everyone likes to think they aren't suckers for the latest piece of kit, but aren't we all?

Re:Let's be fair, it's true.. (1)

LurkerXXX (667952) | more than 8 years ago | (#15381840)

So? It's true.. everyone likes to think they aren't suckers for the latest piece of kit, but aren't we all?

As someone who's never been willing to shell out stupid money for the latest-greatest electronics, and always waits until it is at least 'older/mainstream' and had come *way* down in price... No.

Re:Let's be fair, it's true.. (1)

stlhawkeye (868951) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382504)

Exactly. I spend money reluctantly, especially on throwaway purchases like a console. I had an Atari 2600, an NES, a GameBoy, and never bought another console until about 2002. Even then, I only bought one because I got $3 in-store credit per used CD I brought in, which totalled up to about $120 of credit. I traded it in for a used PS/2, a second controller, a memory card, and Simpsons Road Rage. I gave the thing away about a year later. I tried a few other games but frankly they all got old pretty quick. I tried all the "hot titles" at the time in a few different genres and I came in the inescapable conclusion that nothing at all has changed since the last time I plugged in my NES, other than the graphics. Yeah, 3D world. Whoo hoo.

Re:Let's be fair, it's true.. (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382526)

We have built up a certain brand equity over time since the launch of the NES in 1987 and the SNES in 1991 that the first five million are going to buy the Nintendo 64, whatever it is, even if it didn't have games.

Re:Let's be fair, it's true.. (1)

The Warlock (701535) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382746)

And they did, and the N64 took, what, 40% of the market? Not too shabby, really. It wasn't until the Gamecube that Nintendo saw their prior good name didn't mean much anymore.

Personally, I'm predicting that they're going to be on the upsurge again, but then, back in the day, I thought the Dreamcast would save Sega, so who really knows anymore?

Yeah, everyone will buy one. Suuuuure. (4, Interesting)

PSXer (854386) | more than 8 years ago | (#15381803)

In 2000, everybody wanted a PS2 even though it didn't have any real "must have" games. That might have been because of DVD (but DVD in 2000 was a lot more popular with the mainstream than Blu-Ray in 2006) Or, it might have just been the next "must have" item and people wanted it because people who had one were "cool"

Granted I don't have my finger on the pulse of the entire world, but the people I hang around have nothing but bad stuff to say about the PS3. Sorry the market's so fickle, Sony, but 2001's "xbox is heavy" and "Gamecube is for kiddies" is this year's "PS3 is expensive"

Difference this time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15381913)

Yeah, but the X-Box weight and Cube's kiddie rep were just trashtalkin'.

The PS3 really is expensive, no matter what camp you're in. ~_^

Re:Difference this time (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15381963)

Also last time the XBox and the PS2 were both ugly as hell, and the GameCube was, well, purple and a cube. At least the PS2 could be hidden away because of its shape though.

This time around the XBox360 and Wii look good. The PS3 is a vast ugly device that's going to be hard to hide.

Ugly + Expensive + Late + Sony* == ?

* attitude, rootkits, etc

Re:Difference this time (1)

legallyillegal (889865) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382376)

GameCube was, well, purple and a cube.

Panasonic Qube [lik-sang.com]

Re:Difference this time (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15382583)

This deal with the Sony rootkit is getting old, they have learned their lesson from that as they will not try that again. Also, what does the rootkit have to do with their hardware? Personally, I have been very satisfied with Sony hardware, as I haven't had a bit of trouble out of their digital cameras, monitors, televisions, laptops, and game consoles. When the PS3 is released, I will most likely purchase it as you get what you pay for.

Re:Difference this time (1)

sqlrob (173498) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382935)

It's hidden away on my setup. Sitting on top of the PS2.

The problem was the xbox, with it's non-flat top.

Re:Yeah, everyone will buy one. Suuuuure. (2, Interesting)

joshsisk (161347) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382076)

Most people I know (including me) didn't get a PS2 until after GTA 3 came out. That's what sold it for me, I played GTA at a friends house and was like "whoa, I gotta get this!". The PS3 will sell well if it has exclusive games that have a similar "must own" factor... though, at the higher price, and more competition, I doubt it will fully replicate the success of the PS2.

Re:Yeah, everyone will buy one. Suuuuure. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15382384)

Well, I'm guilty of doing that as well. I ran out and got a PS2 (mostly to play final fantasy), but then the thing sat there for a year collecting dust.

The lesson was learned, and I won't be duped in the same way for the PS3. Hopefully others have learned as well. Obviously Sony thinks history will repeat itself.

Re:Yeah, everyone will buy one. Suuuuure. (2, Insightful)

zoney_ie (740061) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382502)

"but DVD in 2000 was a lot more popular with the mainstream than Blu-Ray in 2006"

Really? Hindsight is from the present perspective where we are all very familiar with the big benefits of DVDs over VHS.

But in 2000, most people had not seen DVD in action, players were ridiculously expensive, and more importantly, so were DVD movies. It had barely entered into the equation in PCs.

The "common sense" of choosing DVD over VHS was not a definitive indicator of DVD's success - mainly because of price.

One could even suggest the PS2 was to some degree a significant factor in DVD's success. Sure it was more important that people bought DVD players in a big way, but the PS2 was the first publicity for DVD movies for many people.

Blu-ray is very much DVD battle rerun. And this time, HD TV uptake is a far bigger driving factor than any reason people had to ditch VHS. People with HD TVs will want HD movies, whether HD-DVD or Blu-ray. Of course, this latter item is a change from the last battle - this time there are two wannabes. But it's a major point that the PS3 will have Blu-ray and be relatively cheap *as a player*.

There is no fore-gone conclusion in this battle anymoreso than the battle for DVD uptake.

Re:Yeah, everyone will buy one. Suuuuure. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15382724)

But in 2000, most people had not seen DVD in action, players were ridiculously expensive, and more importantly, so were DVD movies. It had barely entered into the equation in PCs.

Actually, DVD was initially released in 1997 in Japan and early 1998 in North America; by 2000 every major electronics store had a decent DVD movie section and carried DVD players that were in the $300 range. In 1998, when I got my lightning fast Pentium 2 433MHz pc it came with a built in DVD Drive; in 2000 you had the choice of a DVD drive, CD+RW or a hybrid DVD CD+RW drive. DVD was very much an established format by the time the PS2 arrived.

What Sony has done is priced the PS3 into a position where only about 5% of North American gamers (a yahoo Japan survey had it at 8% of Japaneese gamers, who spend more on games than americans do) are willing to pay it. The PS3 has the weakest line-up of all three platforms for the next 12 months and the only saving grace is Blu-Ray (which isn't rentable yet, unlike DVD in 2000, the movies cost $40 compared to the $20 that DVD cost in 2000 and you require an upgrade on your TV to take advantage of the format).

The PS3 is already a disaster and they haven't produced 1 system yet.

Re:Yeah, everyone will buy one. Suuuuure. (4, Insightful)

Lave (958216) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382943)

You've hit the nail on the head. A lot of the playstation generation (despite what they may claim) were not around for the sega/nintendo years.

Nintendo were full of themselves, sublimely arrogant and they snubbed everyone around them, released very expensive games, and were convinced they could do as they like. Sega was the same, pushing out cookie cutter games and walking around like nothing could hurt them.

Sounds familiar?

Within one generation their empires collapsed. Sega went bust (effectively) and Nintendo fell to 3rd place in the home console market.

There is no reason this cant happen to Sony, and as you say it based purely on popular opinion. Sony became cool and shot to number one, and now - they seem anything but.

The real question is, not whether they will fall, but if they will survive it. I doubt they will go bust (but financially they are no where near the shape the public thinks they are) but I do expect them to lose a large amount of market share.

This is the best thing that could happen to them, whilst sega dropping out of the hardware market has crippled them, Nintendo's 3rd place is the best thing that could happen to us the cosumers. The amount of innovation and free thinking thats come out of them, now they know they have to try, is outstanding.

I think Sony could do with its own wake up call.

Woah, that's weird (5, Funny)

Doomstalk (629173) | more than 8 years ago | (#15381861)

I looked up the word "hubris" in the dictionay, and there was a picture of the Playstation 3.

Re:Woah, that's weird (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15382426)

That is weird. I looked up the word "word" in the dictionary and there weren't any pictures at all

Crown isn't hereditary, really (2, Insightful)

Gadzinka (256729) | more than 8 years ago | (#15381865)

You know, it used to be that Nintendo then Sega owned the game console market, but it didn't prevent them from losing position when their next interation of console was an overpriced crap.

Don't think for a moment, that it's something completely different with Sony. The attitude they present toward their customers is just ripe for detronisation. And it's a good thing...

Nothing to see, move along.

Robert

Re:Crown isn't hereditary, really (2, Interesting)

Traiklin (901982) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382677)

that's the thing I always find funny.

everyone is suddenly thinking Sony is the only company in the history of corperations to act like they are better then everyone else.

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't Microsoft pull this off years ago (and still pulls it off today)? Didn't Apple act this way back in the 80's (and once again today)?

Nintendo did it with the SNES (going into the N64 they were acting like everyone would buy it simply because it was Nintendo), Sega did it going from the Genesis to the Saturn, Sony is doing it going from the PS2 to the PS3.

Give it a few more years and be amazed when we see "editorials" like this poping up again Complaining about Microsoft's price hiking on their latest system going from a previous one, simply because it sold better then any other system that generation.

I don't get why everyone is so suprised about this, Sony is riding high just as Sega was when they charged $400 for the Saturn, Just like when Nintendo charged $300 for the N64 (I couldn't find them anywheres around here for less) even though both their previous systems sold for $200, Sony released the PS1 for either $400 or $300 (depending where you looked, Toys 'R us charged $400 for it but everywheres else I looked it was only $300) then the PS2 was $300 because they were still trying to break into the gaming market, with the PS2 they got alittle more cocky because they had more third party's on their side then Sega or Nintendo.

Come 2000, Sega is gone, Sony is riding high and Nintendo is trying to reclaim it's crown, Microsoft comes out of nowheres with a system (just like Sony did 5 years prior) and it suprised people, They didn't really have the same support as Sony did 5 years prior but they had enough.

where did the change happen and when did I miss it? Microsoft announced $400 for a 20gb hdd version and everyone is all excited about it and doesn't think it's strange and they justify it instantly. Sony announces a $600 60gb hdd version and suddenly everyone shits their pants and can't understand why they are charging so much for it...what? A new processor is being used, a true next gen drive is in it, it can read just about every kind of card you can think of, yet no one can justify it, Yet when it comes to the 360 "oh yeah it's got that HDD that's why it's more" and that's it, that justifys the $100 higher over last generation?

What's going to be interesting is to see what Nintendo unltimatly sells the Wii at, everyone is automatically assuming it will be no more then $200, But what happens if they charge $250 or even $300 for it? will people act like they are over the PS3 or will they justify it quite nicely and act like it was to be expected?

Re:Crown isn't hereditary, really (1)

edwdig (47888) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382787)

Just like when Nintendo charged $300 for the N64 (I couldn't find them anywheres around here for less) even though both their previous systems sold for $200

The N64 launched at $200. You went to some sucky stores if they charged $300.

Re:Crown isn't hereditary, really (1)

Dance_Dance_Karnov (793804) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382789)

The N64 launched for 199$ like every nintendo console ever.

Re:Crown isn't hereditary, really (1)

tighr (793277) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382871)

Like the other two replies stated, the N64 sold at $200. But the point I want to make is, why do people continue to insist they saw it for $300? I remember getting mine for $200. When I was 12, I didn't have $300, so I know I wouldn't have bought it otherwise.

Either way, the N64 launched with some fantastic games. Super Mario 64 was literally off the shelves for weeks. The argument here is that PS3 is not only going to cost $600, but that nothing worthwhile will accompany it on launch day. Unless some fantastic new game is announced between now and November, many people simply don't see a reason to buy it opening day.

Goodwill equity does not exist in a market (4, Insightful)

dada21 (163177) | more than 8 years ago | (#15381868)

It is false to believe that a free market offers any value in "goodwill equity" of any sort. I'm a businessman, and every time I provide a product or a service for my customer, the only equity that exists is the expectation that I will perform exactly as I am supposed to for a given payment, and that customer will pay me for my performance. The believe otherwise is a quick way to end up out of business.

I see it every year -- some kid takes over pop's huge business because the old man had a heart attack. The kid (usually in his 30s or 40s) drives the business into the ground and below within 2 years. He believed that the business didn't need to constantly re-win back old customers solely because they'd been around for years. Sony is no different than the businesses I see failing every year, even ones who have been around for 100 years and are now gone.

Every time a customer makes a purchase, it is with an expectation. No law is needed to protect the customer, because the customer can destroy a business in no time -- if each and every customer who is "hurt" by a previous transaction refuses to make a future one. Does "goodwill equity" give a customer a reason to buy again? Certainly. Does it mean the customer will be willing to accept one grievance or one mistake? Absolutely NOT.

To think that previously happy customers will forgive a mistake is to think that life is all happy-happy puppy-love bubble-gum and kisses. It isn't. This is business. You give the customer what they're paying for, or you go away.

Sony, go away. Please go away. You made too many mistakes, and the only goodwill you should be seeing is the clothing charity.

Re:Goodwill equity does not exist in a market (1)

joe 155 (937621) | more than 8 years ago | (#15381973)

your comments are very true

I see it every year -- some kid takes over pop's huge business because the old man had a heart attack. The kid (usually in his 30s or 40s) drives the business into the ground and below within 2 years

Which is ironically exactly what happened to my dad's business - altohugh to be fair I wasn't involved so it wasn't me making any mistakes. Customers can be a wii (get it?) bit fickle about what they buy although I do think that an amount of brand loyalty exists. Sony has quite a bit of brand loyalty so I would expect what was said to hold true about the "we've sold 5 million anyway"; the thing is, and where your point is right on the money, is that this isn't enough to keep the company up and one bad gen of consoles can be enough to finish off a company

Re:Goodwill equity does not exist in a market (1)

pete6677 (681676) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382009)

Right on. Sony lost me as a customer when I paid a premium price for a CRT monitor that was given great reviews, but quickly died on me. It was obviously made out of crap parts and Sony had no interest in providing any meaningful warranty service (ship it both ways at my expense, yea right, its cheaper to buy a new one). So I bought a new monitor of a different brand and never again gave any thought to Sony products. I've heard only bad things about newer Sony products, like their "MP3 players" that don't actually play mp3s. This company is running on fumes and will be bankrupt in 5 years at this rate. Hopefully, they'll get new management that will turn the company around before its too late.

Re:Goodwill equity does not exist in a market (0, Troll)

the_B0fh (208483) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382223)

And you know what's the strange thing? Apparently, for some long timers who track these things, it is such a coincidence that Sony's becoming a shitty company started after an American took over as CEO. Wot a coincidence eh?

So touching a story... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15382029)

that I have to wipe away a tear.

Are you an actor by any chance?

Re:Goodwill equity does not exist in a market (2, Interesting)

ChaosDiscord (4913) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382194)

No law is needed to protect the customer, because the customer can destroy a business in no time -- if each and every customer who is "hurt" by a previous transaction refuses to make a future one.

Of course, this assumes the customer realizes he's been hurt. Or perhaps knowingly hurting a small percentage of your customers is acceptable because it's more cost effective. Or perhaps you've just taken over a business with a good reputation and are perfectly happy to destroy the business in a year or so, harming many customers in process, in exchange for a short term increase in profit. Or you've got a monopoly through some means and can generally treat your customers like crap because they don't have other viable options.

The market may self-correct, but it doesn't do so instantaneously. During the churn as the market adjusts, innocent people get hurt. A tobacco company willfully suppresses information on the danger of their products. A con artist convinces people to invest in his new company, then skips the country with the money. An automotive manufacturer ships a car with a deadly flaw because it's cheaper to pay off the occasional lawsuit that will result instead of fixing the flaw. A construction firm building a house runs massively late because once construction is underway it's extremely difficult to change companies. A software company ships deeply buggy software because its users are trapped by incompatible file formats, bad standards, or license agreements. If you wait long enough the market will correct, but in the meanwhile people get hurt. And when the market corrects, it's just time for the next dishonest businessman to step to the plate of greed.

Re:Goodwill equity does not exist in a market (1)

courtarro (786894) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382939)

"Of course, this assumes the customer realizes he's been hurt." ... "The market may self-correct, but it doesn't do so instantaneously."

Agreed, but you forgot the music industry. They've been seriously hurting artists and customers for decades, and the market still hasn't corrected.

Re:Goodwill equity does not exist in a market (1)

kenneth_martens (320269) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382198)

Does "goodwill equity" give a customer a reason to buy again? Certainly. Does it mean the customer will be willing to accept one grievance or one mistake? Absolutely NOT.

When a company has built up "goodwill equity" with me by giving me a good value, I will be likely to accept one--and only one--mistake. For example, I've had uniformly positive experiences with Panasonic brand electronics. So when my most recent purchase, a Panasonic cordless phone, turned out to be a lemon, I decided to stick with Panasonic. I went ahead and bought a different model phone from Panasonic.

That's where goodwill equity can help a company. But goodwill equity only goes so far: if my new phone stops working too, I probably won't buy Panasonic ever again.

Re:Goodwill equity does not exist in a market (1)

jthill (303417) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382937)

It is false to believe that a free market offers any value in "goodwill equity" of any sort.
I think there's a reverse sense: it isn't so much customers' goodwill towards the company, it's customers' belief that the company harbors good will towards them.

I'll buy from companies I believe are full of people working their butts off for me. I'll tolerate a fair amount of crap from such companies. The list of Apple's crap would fill a thick notebook. It bothers me, I keep running gut checks, but it isn't even that they suck less. It's what I believe they're trying to do. Fanboyism? I don't think so. I believe your customers are the same way: as long as they believe you're working for them, you'll do ok.

Companies have a bozo-carrying capacity: once exceeded, it's damn hard for them to recover. Small companies' capacities hover around zero, which produces your observations. Larger ones... well, Sony's been heading this way for a long time. People are starting to believe the bozos have hit critical mass: that Sony, as a whole, are no longer working for anybody but themselves.

They Had My Money (4, Insightful)

MBCook (132727) | more than 8 years ago | (#15381870)

They had my money. They built up brand equity. I was ready to buy it. Even if they pulled a 360 and charged $400.

Then they announced it would cost $600. And did I mention that there aren't really any games I really want to play? Just MGS4 and maybe Assassin's Creed.

Nice try Sony. You lost your brand equity. It was alredy eroeded with the PSP (how about some good games for once?). I was full-on Nintendo before all of this. I still like Nintendo best and will buy their console.

But I won't be buying a PS3 for over $400. I may even wait for $300. I won't be buying a 360 for over $300.

Three consoles, two shot themselves in the foot (as far as I'm concerned). Who will win? The expensive one, the MORE expensive one, or the reasonably priced one with about a dozen games that I want to play?

Hmmmmmm......

Re:They Had My Money (1)

dada21 (163177) | more than 8 years ago | (#15381909)

I'm not sure I agree about not buying a PS3 on the "expensive" idea. I made a post a few days ago, Is the PS3 really more expensive? [slashdot.org] offering that the PS3 is not really that much more expensive once you factor in Federal Reserve currency devaluation. The Central Bank has destroyed the dollar by almost 50% over the time since the PS2 was launched. Considering that devaluation, the PS3 really isn't that much more expensive. If you follow that thread, you see that the PS2 versus PS3 in Europe (which didn't see as much of a currency destruction as the USD has in the same time period) is NOT seeing a huge price increase in the PS3 as we are.

I still won't buy the PS3 on other grounds -- but definitely not the "its too expensive" idea. The PS3 is no more expensive than the PS2, comparing 2000USD versus 2006USD values.

In terms of the price of gold [unanimocracy.com] , the PS3 is VERY cheap.

Re:They Had My Money (3, Interesting)

MBCook (132727) | more than 8 years ago | (#15381949)

Maybe the PS3 is reasonably priced compared to previous consoles if you take inflation into account.

But Nintendo is still only charging $250 or so

And $600 just strikes me as WAY TOO MUCH. Even if it is not that bad historically. I could buy a decent laptop for that. I could buy a new HDTV. I could pay 2 months of car payments on a VERY nice car.

If MS wanted $400, Sony wanted $600, and Nintendo wanted $400 then I might be willing to pay more. But if Nintendo can sell their console (that I REALLY want) for $250, then Sony won't get me to buy their "ultra powerful do all" console (that I'm somewhat interested in) for 2-3x that.

And that assumes Nintendo doesn't go with $200 (1/3 the price of a PS3) or $150 (1/4 the price).

Re:They Had My Money (1)

timster (32400) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382424)

It's useless to value an entertainment item in relation to the price of gold for two reasons: the price of gold relative to other commodities is not stable and nobody buys consoles with gold. Try comparing the prices based on growth in expendable income instead.

I doubt you will find a 200% increase in median expendable income between 2000 and 2006.

Re:They Had My Money (1)

Babbster (107076) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382550)

...the PS3 is not really that much more expensive once you factor in Federal Reserve currency devaluation.

Oh, yeah. This is why plasma TVs are actually cheap and Mercedes is the new Hyundai. In other words, you're trying way too hard.

The bottom line for many of us is this: The PS3 is debuting at a higher price than either of its two competitors, and a higher price, even considering inflation, than all but a couple (Neo-Geo and 3DO) consoles in history. Whatever your dollar analysis says, the Xbox 360 will still be at least $100 cheaper than the "budget" PS3 and the Wii will be at least $200 cheaper...unless, of course, the Federal Reserve devalues currency spent on specific game consoles...

Re:They Had My Money (1)

The Warlock (701535) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382597)

Actually, after factoring in inflation, the only consoles that come anywhere close to the PS3 are the Neo Geo, the 3D0, and the Sega Saturn, none of which were all that sucessful.

Re:They Had My Money (1)

despisethesun (880261) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382826)

To quote Jerry Holkins, "This would be great if I were buying it with money I used to have, or perhaps spending valuable, inflation adjusted 'Future Bucks.'"

Re:They Had My Money (1)

kesuki (321456) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382125)

It was alredy eroeded with the PSP (how about some good games for once?)

the PSP won't have a whole lot of good games for another year, it will mainly be platformers and titles that lauch for everything. If you'd looked into it before buying you could have saved yoruself the trouble of buying it a whole year too early. In a lot of ways the psp is a lot like the original PSX that way. If you can manage to hold onto your psp for another year there will be a lot of decent games worth playing for it. in the case of the ps3, i think there isn't going to be enough demand for 'high definition' movies to drive the kind of sales sony is predicting. for DVDs you could use your same TV set, for HD movies you may need to purchace a new set as well, and then you want to charge $600 for the console? i just don't see the rapid flood of prople with the cash to drive the kinds of sales sony has forcasted.

another hater article? (-1, Offtopic)

mgabrys_sf (951552) | more than 8 years ago | (#15381876)

Oh it's Zonk - HI ZONK! Making up for the blowback on the Immersion article I see. Good job! Keep those haters hating!

You hear that, Sony? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15381888)

Zonk has voted you off the island! You're finished! FINISHED!

No company can possibly survive once the bloggers have turned against them!

HDCP not needed for HD? (2, Interesting)

interiot (50685) | more than 8 years ago | (#15381890)

Now that both the 360 and PS3 will offer HD DVD/Blu-ray drives without HDMI, there's a LOT of rumors going around that hardware manufacturers have brokered a deal with studios to delay turning on the ICT flag until 2010. If so, that would make the $500 PS3 more viable, IMHO.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060521-6880 .html [arstechnica.com]
http://www.engadget.com/2006/05/22/studios-wont-do wngrade-hd-video-for-now/ [engadget.com]

Re:HDCP not needed for HD? (1)

DingerX (847589) | more than 8 years ago | (#15381957)

Aye, it looks like the hardware is going to sabotage DRM, willy nilly. Sony's argument will be along the lines of, "well, there are a lot of non-HDMI HD monitors up there; we'll make HDMI mandatory in the next generation of DRM, when players are cheap. Get the foothold, then start locking it down."

The problem is that by that time, HDCP will be thoroughly defeated as well.

Re:HDCP not needed for HD? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15382159)

The problem is that by that time, HDCP will be thoroughly defeated as well.

HDCP is already cracked. The studios don't care.

The point of HDCP is not to prevent piracy, it's to lock 3rd parties out of the hardware market. They want to avoid a repeat of the flood of cheap chinese knock-off DVD players that appeared after CSS got cracked. If HDCP actually stops a few people from copying movies that's a bonus, but it's not the main reason for HDCP.

Re:HDCP not needed for HD? (1)

b1t r0t (216468) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382154)

HDMI is also completely irrelevant if you only want to play games on your games console. The HDMI encryption is not and never will be needed to play games in HD.

And for those whining "what about two years from now when I max out my credit card to get a big-ass plasma TV set?", I say buy one of the $100 BR players which will probably have better features by then anyhow. I have never used a PS2 or an Xbox as a DVD player, and I never will use a PS3 or X360 to play HD video discs.

Re:HDCP not needed for HD? (1)

interiot (50685) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382249)

To be fair, some people already have HDTV sets, and are interested in HD movie content (eg. ~5% of the TV market). Also, DVI is a higher-quality connection than component cables, even for playing games, though again, it's not a huge pronounced difference.

Re:HDCP not needed for HD? (2, Funny)

shidarin'ou (762483) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382318)

"I have never used a PS2 or an Xbox as a DVD player, and I never will use a PS3 or X360 to play HD video discs."

So if you've never used it, where do you find the authority to judge it? *rolly eyes*

Re:HDCP not needed for HD? (1)

Darth Maul (19860) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382289)

Oh, I see, so I'm supposed to buy this new DRM-crippled hardware because the studios may promise to be nice for a few years? I don't think so.

Re:HDCP not needed for HD? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15382501)

That flag will be the death of blu-ray, HD-DVD, and PS3.

I'm confused... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15381928)

FTA "...Sony's getting tired of basically giving away its products in the hope of selling games"

hope??

I didn't realize that PS1 and PS2 had such low numbers in game sales that this would be considered a risk.

Could Sony ditch the Blue-Ray? (1)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 8 years ago | (#15381935)

If sony ditched the Blue-Ray they could potentially drop the price but $200 or more. I wonder if they have considered doing it. There is no reason to expect games to need Blue-Ray for a few more years and Sony could even get away with providing it as a cheap addon in a few years. If they push out a few AA titles that require it then people will buy it too. But making people buy a blue-ray drive when noone wants one now is just stupid. Sony! Either GIVE AWAY blueray drives if its that important to you, or provide it as an option. Forcing the cost of blueray into your next gen system with be the death of both..

Re:Could Sony ditch the Blue-Ray? (2, Insightful)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382008)


They should be ditching it on at least the $499 'tard box' version, since it will not be able to play the movies in 1080p High-Def when ICP starts being implemented on Blu-Ray disks.

But of course, this isn't about marketing a useful product...this is about pushing a standard.

Re:Could Sony ditch the Blue-Ray? (1)

badasscat (563442) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382207)

They should be ditching it on at least the $499 'tard box' version, since it will not be able to play the movies in 1080p High-Def when ICP starts being implemented on Blu-Ray disks.

This doesn't make any sense at all.

The BD drive in the PS3 is being used for games, not just movies. Developers will now have 50GB of texture storage, as opposed to 4.7GB (realistically, due to streaming limitations on DVD's second layer). Sure, it's true that most games don't use up even a full DVD, but a lot of the biggest games do - including the GTA series, the last couple Final Fantasies, etc. Those games will now have much higher-res textures, and more of them (so less repeating).

Removing the BD drive in the low-end version of the PS3 would remove it as a gaming feature for both models. Developers have to develop for the lowest common denominator. This is MS's problem with the HD-DVD addon for the Xbox 360 - it can never be used for games, only movies. (You can argue that games look great on the Xbox 360 without an HD-DVD drive - though go ahead and look at FFXI sometime and come back and tell me with a straight face that it couldn't have benefited from some better textures.)

If the BD drive's gonna be in there, it only makes sense for it to be in both models. If it's going to be removed from one, it has to be removed from both. But then, Sony loses a major advantage they have over MS. So there's really no impetus for them to remove it.

Re:Could Sony ditch the Blue-Ray? (1)

chrismcdirty (677039) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382608)

You claim that they will have larger textures, and more of them so things aren't repeated. Games such as Final Fantasy can now have truly unique enemies that aren't just palette swaps of other textures.

I disagree. These games have the potential to do as you say. But whether or not they actually will is a different story. It's all a matter of capital, and how much the producers are willing to spend on the creation of the game. Creating these unique super high res textures will take a lot of hours.

Re:Could Sony ditch the Blue-Ray? (1)

NuShrike (561140) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382741)

I call bullcrap.

Even the highest textured games don't need GBs of it, you can't store enough of it in memory to make it useful, you don't have the bandwidth to stream it all off disk, the 2nd layer of DVDs can be used for game data (they control what goes where sector), any multi-DVD games currently are usually overflowing with FMV not textures, and there's this new technology called "shaders" that totally eliminates the need for a lot of static textures.

With bigger cpu/gpu resources, it's going to eliminate the need for FMVs in preference for in-engine ones which again eliminate disk space needed.

Blu-ray: its raison d'etre. Standards and Sony. (2, Insightful)

ianscot (591483) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382295)

Forcing the cost of blueray into your next gen system with be the death of both..

Sony's M.O. with the PS3 is awfully simple: they desperately want to "leverage" their existing PS/PS2 market dominance to win the next-generation DVD standard war. Sure, they needed to come out with another console, because the market expected one -- but if there's anything on Sony's corporate mind other than a win for Blu-Ray, I don't see it. Everything else about the PS3 is more of the same.

They clearly won't ditch the Blu-Ray side of things without a major, catastrophic event to teach them why they need to do it.

Even then I wouldn't expect a timely decision. We should expect Sony to have learned this lesson about standard formats why? Many decades after Betamax, this company is still trying to sell us memory sticks, different camcorder compression, and so on; they're making the same mistake over and over and over again. They always try to coerce the market using their market share, and it bites them more often than not. They just keep coming back.

What does Grandpa Sony cry about every night? (4, Insightful)

ofcourseyouare (965770) | more than 8 years ago | (#15381966)

What does Grandpa Sony still cry about every night? About losing the VHS vs. Betamax war back when he was a lad.

The way to understand Sony's otherwise inexplicable behaviour is this: games on PS3 are just a means to an end. For Sony (and for MS/Xbox), the prize is not to control gaming; the prize is to own every home's entertainment computer, and the format it uses to show movies.

As they say in the interview, Sony have clearly decided that they will still sell five million PS3s, even at this price. And let's face it, when you count the Japanese market, they're probably right.

Sell 5m PS3s and they establish a user base for Blu-Ray - and kill HD-DVD. Thus they hope to win this decade's version of the Betamax vs. VHS war. Thus Grandpa Sony can stop crying at last and young Mr. Sony feels heroic.

That may be the strategy - but of course that doesn't mean it'll work. Sony's repeated desire to corner the market with a new content formats (UMD etc) has led them to disaster before, and may do so again. Perhaps in years to come young Mr. Sony will be crying every night about destroying the PlayStation franchise...

Re:What does Grandpa Sony cry about every night? (1)

poot_rootbeer (188613) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382952)

As they say in the interview, Sony have clearly decided that they will still sell five million PS3s, even at this price. And let's face it, when you count the Japanese market, they're probably right.

This forecast I agree with. Sony will probably never come close to selling 100 million PS3's they way they did with a previous console, but five million units sold over the first couple of years seems like a reasonable prediction.

Sell 5m PS3s and they establish a user base for Blu-Ray - and kill HD-DVD.

This forecast I DON'T agree with. Not everyone who purchases a PS3 plans to or even cares about high-definition movie content. Look at the portable market -- just that the PSP didn't get killed immediately by Nintendo shows that the device is a measured success, and yet movies on UMD are showing all the signs of being a failed format. Gamers want to game, not to buy movies.

Big ships keep going by momentum (2, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 8 years ago | (#15381976)

Even with the engine blown. A brand name keeps getting revenue, even when the brand by itself turned from a bleeding-edge world leader to a mediocre copycat. It takes a while 'til customers get peed off enough to dump a brand they trusted. But they eventually do.

Sony's engine is blown. Yes, they'll sell this generation of consoles. No matter what. People loved their PS, they loved their PS2, they'll buy the PS3. No matter what. But, and here is the problem Sony has to solve, the PS4 sales will rely on the PS3 results as much as the PS3 sales will benefit from the PS2 experience.

Because a ship that's dead in the water takes an incredible amount 'til it gets going again.

Re:Big ships keep going by momentum (1)

interiot (50685) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382381)

Though Xbox debuted at #2 in the console wars, so that's not to say that a giant ship can't muster a giant amount of resources to get it going again. But yes, even if they do that, it's rather more wasteful than simply keeping the engine going the whole time, and not dragging along a heavy anchor named Blu-ray.

PS3 and Sony (1)

spamking (967666) | more than 8 years ago | (#15381978)

$500 plus for a gaming console and probably $50 or more for games? No thanks.

I'm as happy as I can be with my PS2, but I doubt I'll be buying a PS3 anytime soon.

Is anyone else wondering when the price of gaming consoles is going to come down just as the price of PCs has gotten lower over the last 5-10 years? Maybe not super cheap, but you're atleast able to get more bang for your buck these days.

If the PS3 retails for what Sony says it will that thing had better pack quite the punch.

"No Confidence Vote"?! (3, Insightful)

the_skywise (189793) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382000)

This isn't "politics". Sony is making a product that will sell or not.

Lest our gentle readers forget, a few weeks ago an analyst pointed out that Microsoft could've sold XBox360's for nearly $700 last year and the market would've purchased them all.

The XBox360 doesn't have HDMI at all! (Of course that's coming this year)
The XBox360 was supposed to have HD-DVD and it doesn't. (Of course that's coming this year though who knows what port it'll hook up to. If I'm using the wireless adaptor and have two wired joysticks I have no spare USB ports for an HD-DVD player... oops, guess I'll have to get an XBox360 branded hub.)

Given what tech they were showing at E3 (very little), the truth of the matter looks like Sony can't build enough units to meet demand at an XBox360 competitive price point. So up the price which will cut down on the demand and also maximizes revenue generation. Then, in January, if sales are sluggish (and you've weeded out the production run kinks) drop the price to match the XBox360. If sales are still strong (and they could be) keep it at that price because the market will pay that much for it.

Am I ticked about that? Yeah. I have enough spare cash floating around that I could be an early adopter, but I won't. $500 for a video game system (plus $40 for one more controller, plus $60 for ONE game so you're really looking at $600) is just ludicrous.

But then some people pay $100/month for cable TV with all the frills (not including broadband support).

But I'll pre-order a Nintendo wee-wee at $200 (maybe $250)...

But "No confidence" vote? Sony could be making the *perfect* video game system here and I still wouldn't buy it at that price point. On the other hand, if they make some really cool games for it and don't drop the price, maybe I will...

But that's what capitalism is all about Charlie Brown...

Re:"No Confidence Vote"?! (1)

radish (98371) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382768)

The XBox360 was supposed to have HD-DVD and it doesn't. (Of course that's coming this year though who knows what port it'll hook up to. If I'm using the wireless adaptor and have two wired joysticks I have no spare USB ports for an HD-DVD player... oops, guess I'll have to get an XBox360 branded hub.)
The HD-DVD drive connects to the rear USB port. It includes a couple of extra USB ports on the drive itself, so your wireless adapter would connect to that. There's even a clip on the back of the drive to attach the adapter to.

Or, of course, you can use a hub. Any hub - there are no plans (that I'm aware of) for a 360 branded one.

Re:"No Confidence Vote"?! (1)

Control Group (105494) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382818)

If I'm using the wireless adaptor and have two wired joysticks I have no spare USB ports for an HD-DVD player

The HD-DVD drive will be designed to attach to the USB on the back of the machine, and will have a pair of USB ports on it. If you let me do some figuring, here...

3 - 1 + 2 = 4 ...will result in you having a bonus USB port when you're done.

Crippled PS3 will display 1080p (1)

harryk (17509) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382036)

From the article:

The $499 PS3 model will be able to transmit games in full 1080p High-Definition via component cables without a problem, and far more surround sound receiver-amplifiers support optical-audio than HDMI.

Where the pain will set in, however, is when Blu-ray movies begin making use of HDCP/AACS copy-protection and the infamous "Image-Constraint-Token" (ICP). At the demand of the major Hollywood studios, both HD-DVD and Blu-ray standards have been developed to support this next-generation copy-protection scheme that protects Hi-Def movies from piracy and illegal digital distribution. While AACS is more or less innocuous from the standpoint of a general consumer, HDCP is destined to rain frustration and disappointment upon the masses, or at least those who purchase the $499 PS3 package.


so there you have it. 1080p, sure... Blu-Ray support...sorry I can't see how that is going to sell.

ps3 will be on top again (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15382053)

It will be 2 years before all the hardcore sony fans get done buying their PS3s, by that time sony will lower the price and all the casual gamers will buy it, nothing is going to change this generation. Sont sold 103 million PS2s compared to 22 mil xbox and 20 mil GC, anyone who thinks Sony is magically going to lose this gigantic market lead is fooling themselves.

Reminds me of President Bush in 2004... (2, Insightful)

racecarj (703239) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382072)

Remember, after the 2004 election:

"I have political capital, and I intend to spend it."

And his approval rating just keeps going down. This post is not meant to be political or anything, just it sounds rather similar. From my personal experience in the world, it seems that whenever someone is bragging about things they did *before* it's usually because they don't have anything to brag about now. maybe i'm wrong.

after reading both FAs... (1)

Churla (936633) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382106)

I came to a conclusion.

IGN has some very solid points about this.... Sony might respond to some of this and salvage the "gimp-end" of it's box offering.

And Mr Colin Campbell is a Snooty McFancyPants who doesn't realize that being "next-gen" will help you for naught if your product is also "not-purchased". There are some terrific consoles out in the mothball fleet to attest to this fact and he probably owns every single one of them.

Sadly, Sony may be right... (3, Insightful)

ThePolkapunk (826529) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382169)

When I was in Gamestop last week, the sales rep told me he had received many more people asking if they could reserve the PS3 than the Wii. Not only that, he claimed that a bunch of people were willing to put up the $600 now (plus some kickbacks to him) if they could get one promised the day it comes out.

Ironically, he said that gamestop as of this time has no plans to allow preorders for PS3 due to the limited numbers they expect to receive (he said they estimate 1-2 per store on release day).

If he wasn't lying, there's apparently a strong calling for it, at least in my neighborhood.

I thought Sony's price point was ridiculous, and I have no plans to buy the PS3 when it's anywhere near $600, but perhaps Sony is right in believing their fans will buy anything with the "Playstation" name, no matter what the cost.

Re:Sadly, Sony may be right... (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382497)

When I was in Gamestop last week, the sales rep told me he had received many more people asking if they could reserve the PS3 than the Wii. Not only that, he claimed that a bunch of people were willing to put up the $600 now (plus some kickbacks to him) if they could get one promised the day it comes out.

If he wasn't lying, there's apparently a strong calling for it, at least in my neighborhood.

An alternate explanation: the would-be PS3 buyers want to profit off a likely shortage. I mean, wouldn't you like to have had a couple of 360s listed on eBay on premier day? I don't recall any huge Nintendo shortages in the recent past, so maybe people expect to be able to amble in to their local store on premier day and pick up a Wii for MSRP.

Re:Sadly, Sony may be right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15382757)

It's not exactly comparable, but the Playstation Portable hasn't done incredibly well (it's doing OK, but it's not the Nintendo-pulverising behemoth it could have been) and it has the magic "playstation" branding. The PSX (Japanese PS2 DVR) also didn't take off in the market. I don't think the brand itself is as strong as they reckon, their success so far has been due to having killer game lineups.

It's a lot stronger than "Wii" or "Xbox" though, and probably has a lot fewer haters than Nintendo or Microsoft amongst the teen market.

Re:Sadly, Sony may be right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15382835)

If he wasn't lying, there's apparently a strong calling for it, at least in my neighborhood.
He works at Gamestop you say? I imagine he's as honest as Henry Gale.

People just keep forgetting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15382890)

Insofar as the launch period is concerned,

Sony doesn't need you to buy a Playstation 3.

Sony just needs six million people to buy a Playstation 3.

Sony claims they can ship four million PS3s by the end of this year, and six million PS3s by March. In truth they can probably ship significantly less than that.

Let's say Sony's price nonsense drives away 95% of their market.

Then that's great. Because Sony can only make enough PS3s to serve 5% of that market anyway. Sony sold 100 million PS2s. They've got five million-ish PS3s to sell in the launch period. In the absence of something idiotic like a $600 price tag, demand is probably significantly larger than supply.

So now Sony's announced their console will cost more than God. Demand is now much, much lower than it was the week before E3. But that doesn't necessarily mean that demand is lower than supply. And as long as demand stays just ahead of supply, it doesn't matter all the people that Sony's turned off. In a shortage scenario like we saw with the PS2 and 360, those people couldn't have gotten a unit anyway. Sony doesn't need to sell to everyone. They just need to sell out.

The only real risk to Sony is the possibility that people will be so pissed off by Sony's launch hubris that they'll refuse to buy a PS3 not just now, but even after the price drops. This is a real possibility. But I'm not so sure that everyone's raging anger in may of 2006 will matter anymore once it's october of 2007 and tantalizing images of DMC4 and MGS4 and FFX13 and various other acronyms are dancing on the television screen...

Personally, I'll be too busy playing my Nintendo to notice. But I think by the time the games start coming out and the price has dropped a little bit, people will be willing to forgive Sony for Sony's terrible, terrible crime of selling a product for $600 at launch. Historically video game systems have been sold by games, and all other concerns fall before that. Even the concern that people really, really, really hate Sony. Everything that happens in the PS3 launch period is irrelivant compared to what Sony does once people actually start getting PS3 games out.

Xbox 360 price cut (4, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382224)

Fry's in Palo Alto just announced a price cut on the XBox 360. The base machine is still $299, but the higher-priced bundles just dropped over $100. This makes sense; some of the accessories were way overpriced, and there's a huge glut of unsold XBox 360 accessories left over from the holiday season. eBay prices are now slighly below retail.

With that happening to the XBox 360, Sony is going to have real trouble at a higher price point.

On the developer front, the general reaction to the Cell processor is "groan". (Except for audio guys, who finally get their very own CPU.) The Xbox 360 is a 3-CPU shared memory multiprocessor driving a conventional graphics chip, something well-understood by developers. Porting from an x86 PC (or an original XBox, which is an x86 PC) to an XBox 360 is straightforward. The Cell is a new, wierd architecture, little limited-memory CPUs with bulk DMA access to main memory. (Architecture people will remember unsuccessful supercomputers of the past organized like this.) In fact, Sony already has had a huge architectural disaster. Originally, the Cell was supposed to do the rendering. That was a dud, and Sony had to put a conventional graphics chip on the back end, running up the cost.

It's certainly possible to develop good games for the thing, but the extra work required means the games willl be out later. It took about two years before the PS2 hardware was really being used effectively. The PS3 is completely different from the PS2 and will require new techniques. So Sony is launching late on a machine you can't just port to. Not good.

What's really going to happen is that the early PS3 games will be doing most of the game work in the main CPU and the graphics engine, mostly ignoring the Cell processors. If the game talks to the network, one of the Cell processors will be handling that. Audio work will be in a Cell processor. PS3 games will probably have really good sound, because there's plenty of extra Cell CPU capacity to devote to audio. As Lucasfilm people like to point out, good audio will compensate for lousy graphics, but the reverse isn't true.

Re:Xbox 360 price cut (1)

BecomingLumberg (949374) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382920)

t's certainly possible to develop good games for the thing, but the extra work required means the games willl be out later. It took about two years before the PS2 hardware was really being used effectively. The PS3 is completely different from the PS2 and will require new techniques

To be fair, this is one of the reasons that the PS2 has been a quite dominant console for such a long time- it has hardware capacity to spare for growth. Even if developers cannot use all of its muscle today, its capabilities will grow in time.

Personally, I wouldn't take the course Sony has chosen. But I don't think they are going to hell in a handbasket either.

Sony will never get a dollar from me again (1)

WCMI92 (592436) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382246)

After the rootkit fiasco, and the downright abuse of players and Mad Magazine worthy mis-management of SWG by SOE, I wouldn't buy a dollar for a nickel from them.

Sony and SOE both are collapsing from incompetent management and their complete disregard for their customers.

They're forced to issue this statement (1)

HalAtWork (926717) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382392)

They're forced to issue this statement. We already know that there won't be many high quality launch games because according to SEGA and THQ [joystiq.com] , most developers haven't received PS3 devkits yet. Many developers may choose to release their games on the PS2 instead of doing a half-assed attempt at converting it to a PS3 game because they'll simply make more money on the PS2's larger established user base than they would by making it a lackluster PS3 title with a small installed base at launch.

And he might be right. (1, Redundant)

Sarusa (104047) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382495)

This is like the old slam on Apple fanboys, where Steve could crap in a box and call it iShit and people would buy it in droves. Please don't flame on whether this is 'accurate' or not about Apple users, it's just the insult that immediately came to mind when I read this.

He's basically saying they could crap in a box, label it PS3, and you'd pay $600 for it.

And he might be right.

Re:And he might be right. (1)

jandrese (485) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382695)

Except that even in Apple's case that just isn't true. There have been plenty of Macs that have just bombed in the market (MacTV, the Cube, Newton, etc...).

A $600 price point is well into the "what are they thinking?" category for me. It's going to take some seriously killer games to convince me to drop that kind of cash on a console.

Re:And he might be right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15382922)

Except that even in Apple's case that just isn't true. There have been plenty of Macs that have just bombed in the market (MacTV, the Cube, Newton, etc...).

Which one came after the iPod?

And thus history repeats itself... (0, Redundant)

nmaster64 (867033) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382499)

I seem to remember another big game company that had unbridled consumer loyalty and ruled the video game industry practically uncontested...where are they now? Oh yeah, last.

Guess what Sony? Your don't have near the success and loyalty Nintendo did in it's hayday. If Nintendo can go from "taking over the world" to last place in the console race in a mere decade, then your in a position now to be completely shrugged off within a few years. Your arrogant and your screwing over what a good thing you had going, not unlike Nintendo in the past, and if you keep going this way you'll be doomed to repeat your competitors mistake. Nobody's invinicble in business, and there's no such thing as a permanent success.

Next-Gen = Sony Fanboy? (2)

tighr (793277) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382769)

From the Next-Gen article:

What Sony needs are a couple of games that really stand out, and that are guaranteed for launch. Over the next six months, an elite set of PS3 launch titles will begin to emerge that puts the product back on the radar of all those people you just know will be lining up on PS3 day.

What, like the titles announced for the Wii? Or titles that are currently coming out for the 360? This entire piece read like a fanboy article in favor of Sony. Not just a pro-Sony article, but a fanboy's glossy-eyed stare. The only concrete evidence given for why the author thinks the PS3 will win out or at least do well is because he wants it to. Hell, the Wii is also six months out, but consumers aren't waiting for its elite list of games, because those games are already announced.

Also, his 18-month claim seems to backfire for him. He claims that Sony won E3 2005, but then goes on to say that 18-months later the real E3 champion is realized? I hate to break it to him, but 18-months after E3 2005 is PS3 launch day, and if Sony wasn't the real winner a year ago, who will be the real winner in November 2006?

"Brand Equity": Rootkit (1)

sehlat (180760) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382909)

That's all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

Not buying the Sony defenders. (1)

ZombieRoboNinja (905329) | more than 8 years ago | (#15382955)

A lot of people taking Sony's side on this one - including Next Gen - seem to me to be missing the point. "The price will eventually go down," they say, "and this allows Sony to profit off the early-adopting suckers in the meantime!" Everyone predicts that in a year or so PS3 will be competitively priced and widely available, and Sony hegemony shall be restored.

But... isn't this kind of a competition for third-party developers? A year from now, if Xbox has 10 million installed users and Sony a fraction of that because not many people are willing to pay $600 for a console, won't developers migrate to Xbox? Won't GAMERS migrate to Xbox, because that's what their friends play? And if everyone's on Xbox, who the heck is going to spur this widespread late adoption of PS3?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...