Beta
×

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 Shifting PS3 Marketing to Focus on Blu-Ray

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the facepalm dept.

Media 151

Tabernaque86 writes "What started as joke among gamers Sony is now using as a Christmas advertising campaign. Kaz Hirai, president of the games unit, has been quoted as saying that the PlayStation 3 'makes a great Blu-Ray player'. That theme will be central to a wave of ads in North America and Europe. From the article: 'Sony on Thursday disappointed analysts by failing to cut the PS3's price, but Mr Hirai did not rule out a future price cut. "Going aggressive only on price without being able to back it up with content doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me," he said. A price cut would have a "real impact" on sales only if there were enough software titles to support the PS3. But analysts were skeptical and said Sony could miss its shipment targets for the year. "Without a price cut close to Christmas, reaching 11m shipments is going to be very tough," said David Gibson, analyst at Macquarie in Tokyo.'" This is regrettable, too, because there really are a number of strong titles coming out for the console this year.

cancel ×

151 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Cheapest, and possibly upgradeable (4, Interesting)

Shabbs (11692) | more than 6 years ago | (#20722883)

Well, it is one of the cheapest Blu-ray players out there, and possibly one of the ONLY ones that is upgradeable to Profile 1.1. All other Profile 1.0 players are most likely not upgradeable. So, while it's not "hi-fi looking" it is not a bad buy if you want a Blu-ray player. You can always fall back on it as a gaming/media platform.

Cheers.

shutupfanboys (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20723089)

Sonyroolz fanboys suck. Please go away and die. Everyone knows that PC gaming has more titles. So go trip over your game controller and break your neck you fucking fanboy.

Re:shutupfanboys (0, Troll)

Shabbs (11692) | more than 6 years ago | (#20723267)

Heh. Shows how much you know punk. I chose the red pill but am objective enough to realize that the PS3 is a good option for those considering being early adopters. Take your format-war tripe over to Bill Hunt's blog and make noise there.

Cheers.

Re:Cheapest, and possibly upgradeable (2, Interesting)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 6 years ago | (#20725595)

The problem with that stance is that the vast majority of the market wouldn't pay much more for a BRD player than a DVD player and realistically the hi-def formats won't become dominant until you can buy a player for ~50$ so going with a HD player isn't a big decision anymore. Even if I had a HDTV I wouldn't pay 10x the price for a movie player just to up the resolution.

Re:Cheapest, and possibly upgradeable (1)

donaldm (919619) | more than 6 years ago | (#20727661)

Actually the vast majority of people who do buy a HDTV do want to display movies at the higher resolution and currently the PS3 is one the cheapest and best High Def movie players in the market. Since it also can upscale DVD's as well, your DVD's will look quite good on a HDTV although don't think they are going to look as good as a BD movie, whereas a US$50 DVD player will only play SD to a HDTV set. Personally I would get a HD/DVD recorder rather than a cheap $50 DVD player since it is much more flexible and I can record a show then play it back via my recorder at 578p on my HDTV which actually smooths the picture. If I really like and wish to keep a show I can burn it to a DVD and can play it back via my PS3 which makes the picture look so much better again on my HDTV.

Currently the Standard Definition (SD) market consists of 480 (NTSC) and 576 (PAL) while the High Definition (HD) market consists of 720p (1280x720 pixels) and 1080p (1920x1080 pixels) a good primer is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_television [wikipedia.org] . Once people get a HDTV they don't want to go back to SDTV.

The only way BD and/or HD-DVD will become dominant is when the Movie industry decides to drop DVD and I can't see that happening yet. It will happen but when I don't know.

Re:Cheapest, and possibly upgradeable (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 6 years ago | (#20727837)

Actually the vast majority of people who do buy a HDTV do want to display movies at the higher resolution

Yes but do they want it 500$ (or 600€) worth? If the HD disc player was a free upgrade for their DVD player of course they'd take it, at 50$ most will probably still pay but at 10x that price it's something you really need to save up for (unless you have a really large amount of disposable income which few people do). I really don't see this selling many units, especially not enough to close the gap in sales to the XBox 360 and Wii.

Re:Cheapest, and possibly upgradeable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20725839)

It may be upgradeable and some other players are upgradeable, but the PS3 doesn't have enough ram for full Blue Ray 1.1 support. So it will be crippled in some way unless those new units also sneak in more ram.

Uh yeah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20722885)

Because being an incredible value for the hardware and one of the (if not the) cheapest Blu-Ray players on the market is a bad thing. I should really hate the PS3, and Sony, for this.

Strong Titles? (2, Insightful)

voidstin (51561) | more than 6 years ago | (#20722919)

"This is regrettable, too, because there really are a number of strong titles coming out for the console this year."

Really? In 2007? Like What? Looking at the release dates [ign.com] , I don't see a decent exclusive before LittleBigPlanet or Killzone, both of which are in February.

Re:Strong Titles? (1)

Loadmaster (720754) | more than 6 years ago | (#20722973)

Haze. The PC and 360 versions have been shelved at least for awhile. The game should be great since it's made by Free Radical, but with the 360 getting Halo and PC gamers being consumed by UT3 the PS3 is probably the best place for it.

I know PS3 gets UT3 this fall as well; however, Haze should fair better against it on the PS3 over the PC.

Swi

Re:Strong Titles? (3, Funny)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 6 years ago | (#20723003)

but didn't you read the story saying like 40-something percent of owner didn't know it played blue ray? Hurray for Sony marketing lol.

Re:Strong Titles? (2, Funny)

click2005 (921437) | more than 6 years ago | (#20723079)

but didn't you read the story saying like 40-something percent of owner didn't know it played blue ray?

It does something else besides play overpriced movies?

Re:Strong Titles? (2, Informative)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 6 years ago | (#20723107)

He didn't say exclusive, he said strong. The PS3 needs -any- good title at this point. I loved DW Gundam, but that's it so far... It's really sad.

I cancelled my pre-order of Stranglehold because the PS3 demo didn't play as well as the 360 one... The controls felt off, and I'll probably rent the 360 one instead.

Folklore's demo sucked. I was looking forward to it until I played that.

Looking forward to Ratchet & Clank and Bladestorm, though I pre-ordered Bladestorm on the 360 before I had my PS3. Might change that.

The Orange Box... I really only care about Portal, though.

Uncharted looks neat.

So there's plenty of 'strong' titles, just no 'strong' exclusive titles. I'm guessing that's why Sony has decided to push the Bluray player thing harder again. As a player -and- a game machine, it's very nice. As just a game machine, I could get away with just a 360.

BTW, the PS3 is the best media player (DVD, Bluray, streaming) that I've had yet. The original XBox modified with XBMC is the second. Sony finally got that aspect right, and the remote is very nice.

Re:Strong Titles? (1)

InSaTiAbLe231 (735034) | more than 6 years ago | (#20725991)

Check out the open beta of Team Fortress 2 in the Orange box, it's awesome

Re:Strong Titles? (1)

Diginosis (1132933) | more than 6 years ago | (#20727353)

I would have to agree with you on this one, with heavenly sword and lair being a partial and total letdown. Uncharted is the only exclusive that will appeal to most people, but the controls and weapon issues have been up to some debate. Singstar looks good but like I previously said won't appeal to most. People who bought the PS3 need to look towards the future, and Sony needs a blockbuster hit by Q2 2008 or its sunk. 2008 will make or break the PS3

Re:Strong Titles? (1)

p0tat03 (985078) | more than 6 years ago | (#20723113)

Heck, even Killzone has been disappointing. According to all the press out there the game is extremely pretty, and showcases the PS3's processing power, but its gameplay is uninspired and bland. So really, Little Big Planet is going to be the first truly fun game (at least it looks to be fun) with great graphics to boot.

Re:Strong Titles? (1)

krotkruton (967718) | more than 6 years ago | (#20724513)

(at least it looks to be fun)

And that's a whole other problem. Heavenly Sword looked awesome back when it was a potential launch title and no one new it was only 6 hours long. I was excited about Warhawk as a launch title as well, but it's been a year and there's no single player. FIFA '08 was half a game, along with some other EA titles. There's still a lot of time between now and LBP's release date for the game to be changed for the worse. I don't even want to think about what might happen to GTA.

Sony seems to do a great job of hyping all the new games, but then fails to deliver... miserably. It's so damn disappointing.

Re:Strong Titles? (4, Insightful)

king-manic (409855) | more than 6 years ago | (#20725247)

Heavenly Sword looked awesome back when it was a potential launch title and no one new it was only 6 hours long.

I bought it on friday and am about 1/2 -> 2/3 done. It's a good 6h. No filler. I guess you take it as you will. Some 30h games are mostly filler. This is a 6h game that is very good without filler. It's well paced, somewhat difficult. Frustrating but fair. Very polished. But short. IT's been more then 6h right now. I think they mean 6h if your good at god of war. I'm not that good and I keep trying to play it like ninja gaiden so I'm only 2/3 of the way through after about 12h.

Re:Strong Titles? (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 6 years ago | (#20725617)

Killzone or Killzone 2? I recall that being the case for Killzone 1 and was wondering why people were still assuming KZ2 would be a great game.

Re:Strong Titles? (1)

renegadesx (977007) | more than 6 years ago | (#20723655)

Agreed. The PS3 was not a good early adopters machine, most of the good games on the PS3 at launch played better on the M$'s cheaper console and without any decent exclusives this year, makes the PS3 deserve its last place position right now.

Blu-Ray will not save this box, price cuts and good exclusive content will.

The Wii is in 1st place in large part because of its price. hy wont they get that through their thick skulls?

Re:Strong Titles? (4, Insightful)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 6 years ago | (#20723711)

"The Wii is in 1st place in large part because of its price."

You make a good point, even if it's wrong. The price is part of why the Wii is on top. The majority of the reason is because Nintendo says it's a Game Console first and foremost. It's not a Blu-Ray player. It's not a media center. It's a low priced game console that offers strong gameplay and a unique controller.

Re:Strong Titles? (1)

iainl (136759) | more than 6 years ago | (#20725843)

Actually, I'd disagree. All of the consoles are Game Consoles first and foremost, really. Sure, the 360 can do lots of media things, but that's because it has the memory and CPU oomph to handle them. That power is there because they're genuinely useful for making videogames.

The same goes for Sony's machine. I know a lot of people have questioned the additional cost of the BluRay drive, myself included, but as with the format in general that's just because it was rushed to market a bit too soon as a panicked rush to catch the competition. As the thing settles down, that extra space is actually turning out to be rather useful.

What's causing the whole Wii boom for me is, as you said in your last sentence, is the comparatively low price and the fun controller. But I believe the vast expense in the other machines is there for game reasons, not just because they want a media box. And it's not like there isn't a web browser in the Wii, either.

The PS3 and the Wii (1)

LKM (227954) | more than 6 years ago | (#20725895)

All of the consoles are Game Consoles first and foremost, really.

In what sense? If I turn on my PS3, all the media stuff is in the crossbar before the gaming stuff. The PS3 ads don't emphasize gaming. Sony constantly rolls out new media stuff, for example allowing the PSP to play media stored on the PS3. Personally, I sometimes use my the PS3 as a DVD player since it has a pretty good upscaler.

Sure, it's a gaming machine, but "first and foremost" seems debatable.

The PS3 is a neat console, but personally, I think the media stuff is dilluting the message. On the other hand, with the lack of games on it, there's not a lot of gaming stuff Sony could advertise.

What's causing the whole Wii boom for me is, as you said in your last sentence, is the comparatively low price and the fun controller.

I think it's simpler. What's causing the Wii boom is Wii Sports. There's no other game that anyone can play, and everyone wants to play. Everyone I've shown Wii Sports to has gone from "Oh, I don't play games, I'm not good at it" to "Wow, where can I get this?"

Re:The PS3 and the Wii (2, Interesting)

Diginosis (1132933) | more than 6 years ago | (#20727567)

The holiday season will be pretty big again this year for the wii, even with what I believe is a lackluster library of games. Why? Because of the parents and the non-gamers it appeals to. The less violent games (let's leave resident evil out of this for discussion sake) make parents happier about their decisions and allows even 5 year olds to play the games. In addition the non-gamer appeal makes it a good gift for couples, and I can personally vouch that I am considering getting a wii just to play with my girlfriend. Lastly its september and you STILL can't get a wii easily, the madness will continue for another holiday season...

No idea why the parent is a troll (1)

goldcd (587052) | more than 6 years ago | (#20725911)

I've got exactly the same feelings. I've got the money to buy a PS3 - but I find I just haven't. Megadrive/Genesis onwards, I've owned pretty much every console going - some better than others, but there was usually a pretty good reason for each one of them.
I'm aware of a few PS3 games - the dirt-racing one looks fun... erm.. the FPS with the 3-eyed skull on the front... there's that online thing which is forever delayed....
Blu-ray movies would be nice, yes, but if I wanted to watch them I'd make a cheapy little media centre PC (which I keep on meaning to get around to) and put a £133 Blu-Ray drive into it (for less than the price of the £400 PS3 console). Not that I would buy Blu-Ray, buggered if I'm going to rebuy all my DVDs again.

Re:No idea why the parent is a troll (1)

Frostclaw (1006995) | more than 6 years ago | (#20726829)

I'm in the same boat. I know one day I'll own a PS3. There are plenty of good titles in the works for it that will make the system a must-have -- eventually. Right now, however, the 360 suits my needs and I have enough trouble trying to jugle my game playing between the 360, PC and Wii as it is. The reality is that even if the PS3 had a couple really good exclusives, I just wouldn't have the time for it. :(

I'm blu :-( (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20722929)

I'm bored....I need to talk to spark my life up.
call me!!!
(740) 354-2095
(740) 352-0322 (Private Celly)

Mention my myspace page, and I just might show you my (.)(.)!!!!

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=108370887 [myspace.com]

Self Infliction (0, Redundant)

kjzk (1097265) | more than 6 years ago | (#20722935)

Sony reminds me of the Bush administration; their own worst enemy.

Re:Self Infliction (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20723053)

Thats not fair. Nobody ever died from buying Sony. Bush is responsible for over 100,000 deaths.

Not entirely true (-1, Offtopic)

Chmcginn (201645) | more than 6 years ago | (#20723233)

A friend did lose his house to a fire, probably started by his (original, early-release) PS.

Re:Self Infliction (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20725571)

No he isn't. That figure has been widely discredited. Just because you want it to be true doesn't make it true.

Sony CEO to VP Marketing (0, Flamebait)

JeromeTheMetronome (1157701) | more than 6 years ago | (#20722939)

CEO: People just aren't buying this beefy, expensive, non-hd incompatible gaming machine.

VP: I know, lets advertise the blu-ray feature, one that most of our current owners aren't even aware of!

CEO: Ha, we'll beat Microsoft and Nintendo for sure! A video game console is advertised best by showing how well it watches movies!

Talk about putting holes in a sinking ship...

Re:Sony CEO to VP Marketing (1)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 6 years ago | (#20723187)

It's been argued that the Wii is dominating the current generation of gaming consoles simply because Nintendo advertises the Wii as a gaming console while Sony and Microsoft advertise their consoles as media centers.

Re:Sony CEO to VP Marketing (2)

dank zappingly (975064) | more than 6 years ago | (#20723719)

A few questions: 1. In what way does Microsoft advertise its console as a media center? 2. Isn't this article about how Sony is going to start advertising its console as a media center? (because it is not currently advertising it in this way) 3. Who has made that argument? While both 360 and PS3 have media center capabilities, I haven't seen any advertisements that tell consumers that. They're all game advertisements. I think people like to be able play movies on their consoles. There are many reasons why the Wii is selling well, but I don't think one of them involves people saying, "Gee, I really want that one because it doesn't play movies."

Re:Sony CEO to VP Marketing (1)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 6 years ago | (#20723767)

"because it is not currently advertising it in this way"

That's actually not accurate. In the European market, the ads I've seen say "BUY A PS3 THE BLU-RAY PLAYER! (also plays games)"

Microsoft's pushing the 360 as a media center and a gaming console, but they're still trying to push it as a media center. And if people liked playing movies on their consoles the Wii wouldn't be selling as well as it is.

It's not "it doesn't play movies" but more of a "It plays games."

Re:Sony CEO to VP Marketing (1)

morari (1080535) | more than 6 years ago | (#20723779)

There are many reasons why the Wii is selling well, but I don't think one of them involves people saying, "Gee, I really want that one because it doesn't play movies."
I'm one of those people. I have a nice DVD player, I don't need some sub-par console decoder. I never played audio discs on my Saturn or Playstation either, nor did I ever surf the internet on my Dreamcast more than once to see what it was like. A game console should be focused on *gasp* gaming. Anything else is at best a nice extra, but more than likely a needless extra that adds to cost.

Re:Sony CEO to VP Marketing (1)

king-manic (409855) | more than 6 years ago | (#20725319)

It's been argued that the Wii is dominating the current generation of gaming consoles simply because Nintendo advertises the Wii as a gaming console while Sony and Microsoft advertise their consoles as media centers.

And I'd say it's exclusively because the price point is where it's not a huge deal to get one while the other two you have to budget for. I'm fairly certain thats the case because the Wii commercials are pretty dumb.

Pricing and Marketing (1)

LKM (227954) | more than 6 years ago | (#20725907)

And I'd say it's exclusively because the price point is where it's not a huge deal to get one

If that was the "exclusive" reason, people would only buy Tiger LCD games for their gaming needs. No, there are many reasons why the Wii is a success. Price is one of them, but only one of them.

while the other two you have to budget for. I'm fairly certain thats the case because the Wii commercials are pretty dumb.

Yeah, because in bizarro world, showing people who have fun playing with your product is dumb advertising, while showing chicks on a toilet is intelligent advertising.

Another great concept: (1, Funny)

Eponymous Crowbar (974055) | more than 6 years ago | (#20722989)

The PS3 holds down loose papers like an F-in' CHAMP!

Games, games, games (4, Insightful)

vlad_petric (94134) | more than 6 years ago | (#20723013)

... which are made by developers, developers, developers.

The main problem with PS3 is not the price, it's the games. There are a few good ones, but certainly not enough. With respect to developers, developers, developers, Sony made a few wrong moves:

  • The CELL is perhaps the most difficult platform to develop for. Instead of a clean SMP interface, they opted for a two-instruction set asymmetric architecture. They took a relatively complex problem—developing for a multi-processor—and made it much, much, worse. I always hear that current generation games don't fully utilize the PS3 ... to which I reply "D'oh, if you only knew what it takes to fully utilize it ... "
  • They did not release proper tools and libraries. Our developers are smart people, we'll let them figure it out ... That worked out well for the PS2, but it certainly doesn't work for PS3
  • Their arrogance (most likely) alienated quite a few developers that'd have produced exclusives.

Conclusion: bad moves -> few games -> third place as a console

Re:Games, games, games (4, Informative)

MBCook (132727) | more than 6 years ago | (#20723171)

It didn't work out very well for the PS2 for quite a while. Games were a bit slow at the start. It took quite a while. The best thing Sony had with the PS2 was the huge demand. Coming off the PS1 (which took Sony from not in the market to #1 by far), developers wanted to be on the PS2. They were willing to put up with the tough times until tools got better and middleware started to appear. I've read things by developers that said that was a HUGE screw-up on Sony's part. If they had tried to pull that with a new console (say the PS2 was their first video game console) they may have failed.

The XBox had (from what I've heard) fantastic development tools. But that's what you would expect from MS and from someone trying to woo developers. I seem to remember reading that the dev tools for the PS1 were very good and one of the reasons the platform took off as it did (N64 cartridge prices and the Saturn multi-CPU setup being some of the others).

The PS3 doesn't have the momentum this time. The 360 had a head start. The XBox put up a very good fight in the last generation (relative to how well the Saturn or Dreamcast did). The 360 is simpler to develop for (thanks to the CPU and tools). The PS3 is very expensive (down from incredibly expensive). At $300 tons and tons of people wanted to get a PS2 for their kids. At $600, the PS3 was.. to put it charitably... a little more of a luxury item. Compared to the cheaper and already out 360 and the yet cheaper and innovative Wii... the PS3 didn't have the golden-boy status that the PS2 had.

The PS3 may end up doing quite well, and may turn out to be the most powerful. But if it does, it will take quite a while to hit it's stride the way the PS2 did.

Re:Games, games, games (3, Informative)

Osty (16825) | more than 6 years ago | (#20723481)

It didn't work out very well for the PS2 for quite a while. Games were a bit slow at the start. It took quite a while. The best thing Sony had with the PS2 was the huge demand. Coming off the PS1 (which took Sony from not in the market to #1 by far), developers wanted to be on the PS2. They were willing to put up with the tough times until tools got better and middleware started to appear. I've read things by developers that said that was a HUGE screw-up on Sony's part. If they had tried to pull that with a new console (say the PS2 was their first video game console) they may have failed.

The (lack of) PS2 developer tools was a case of Sony not seeing the forest for the trees. They had shipped some decent developer tools for the PS1 early in its life cycle, but after 6 years or so on the market every developer had either built their own specialized set of tools or moved to middleware that provided more functionality "out of the box" than the Sony tools. Upon seeing that nobody was using the PS1 tools any longer, Sony decided not to invest in tools for the PS2. That was a mistake, because there was nothing to bootstrap PS2 development. They tried to apply the end-game state of the PS1 to the start of the PS2 without realizing that it takes time to build up a proper library of specialized developer tools. Apparently they failed at this again with the PS3.

The PS3 may end up doing quite well, and may turn out to be the most powerful. But if it does, it will take quite a while to hit it's stride the way the PS2 did.

Unlike the PS2, the PS3 doesn't have a year on the market to itself. The Xbox and Gamecube shipped a year after the PS2, giving developers time to work on their tools before fighting strong competition (the Sony marketing machine had already killed the Dreamcast). This time around, the 360 was out for a year before the PS3 and Wii shipped, which means that "another year until really good games make it to the PS3" is really two years into the "next generation". Sony was banking on momentum from the PS2 without realizing that they had killed a lot of that with their arrogant attitudes (show of hands for people who got a second job in order to buy a PS3? There ya go, Kutaragi).

Re:Games, games, games (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 6 years ago | (#20723961)

"the Sony marketing machine had already killed the Dreamcast)"
A shame really. The Dreamcast was every bit as good as the PS2 and had better development tools. I think the ease of piracy did a lot to kill the Dreamcast.

Re:Games, games, games (1)

samkass (174571) | more than 6 years ago | (#20724113)

Yeah, I call shennanigans on Sony's "marketing machine" being the Dreamcast's downfall. As we can plainly see, Sony's "marketing machine" sucks. The PS2 just had tons of mindshare momentum coming off the PS1, a good performance-per-dollar factor, large library of PS1 games it was (mostly) compatible with, and some good exclusive games.

Re:Games, games, games (2, Interesting)

Osty (16825) | more than 6 years ago | (#20724441)

Yeah, I call shennanigans on Sony's "marketing machine" being the Dreamcast's downfall. As we can plainly see, Sony's "marketing machine" sucks. The PS2 just had tons of mindshare momentum coming off the PS1, a good performance-per-dollar factor, large library of PS1 games it was (mostly) compatible with, and some good exclusive games.

People hadn't yet fully seen how arrogant Sony can be (they were just coming off the successful PS1, and though they promised the world with the PS2 just like they did with the PS3, nobody knew yet that they couldn't deliver). Sega didn't have the money to compete against Sony in terms of marketing dollars, and they were not as successful in getting third-party developers on the Dreamcast platform (the EA sports games were notably missing). Things are different this time around because:

  • We've already been through one round of Sony's lies. The PS2 never really lived up to the claims that it could render Toy Story in real time, so we took what they said about the PS3 with a huge grain of salt.
  • Microsoft replaced Sega in the console wars, and they have more than enough money to meet Sony blow for blow in a marketing war.
  • EA has all of their sports games on Xbox, and this time around the 360 is the premier console while the PS3 gets the shitty ports (rather than the other way around last time).
Sony's burned too many bridges and they have very strong competition this time around, with the Microsoft juggernaut out of the gates early with Xbox 360 and the breakout success of the Wii. Sony will need a miracle if they want the PS3 to become something other than another 3DO.

Re:Games, games, games (1)

LKM (227954) | more than 6 years ago | (#20725923)

As far as games go, the Dreamcast had (and still has!) an impressive library of games. Compared to its short lifespan, probably one of the best libraries of any console.

Re:Games, games, games (1)

grumbel (592662) | more than 6 years ago | (#20724449)

The main thing that killed the Dreamcast was that Sega stopped making them *before* XBox and Gamecube hit the shelves. Kind of hard to win a fight when you give up before it has even fully started. EA not supporting the Dreamcast of course kind of helped of course too.

Re:Games, games, games (1)

king-manic (409855) | more than 6 years ago | (#20725265)

the Sony marketing machine had already killed the Dreamcast

It;s much more "SEGAs incompetence machine had already killed the dreamcast". The saturn and the 32x left such a bitter pill in their fanbase that event he really well put together DC wasn't enough to revive their mojo. That along with the ease of pirating, the poor SEGA marketing, and Sony's looming threat is what sunk the DC. I'd place sony as a very small reason.

Re:Games, games, games (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20723605)

The CELL is perhaps the most difficult platform to develop for. Instead of a clean SMP interface, they opted for a two-instruction set asymmetric architecture. They took a relatively complex problem--developing for a multi-processor--and made it much, much, worse. I always hear that current generation games don't fully utilize the PS3 ... to which I reply "D'oh, if you only knew what it takes to fully utilize it ... "
I was under the impression that the PPE was to be used solely for managing the SPEs, which would do the real work. Most of the code runs on just the SPEs. The management code goes on the PPE.

And developers are attracted by marketshare (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 6 years ago | (#20724877)

If you give people even more reasons to buy a PS3, then it only helps expand the market which in turn helps Sony maintain developer interest. As the PS2 showed, absolutley none of the items you mentioned mattered to dvelopers really, when the number of consoles is large enough to make it worth their while.

Re:And developers are attracted by marketshare (1)

p0tat03 (985078) | more than 6 years ago | (#20725303)

Which is what made the Xbox competitive in the first place. MS knew that developer support and install base are mutually reliant. How did they solve it? By spending oodles of cash and buying enough exclusive first-party titles to jump-start the console. Halo is the most memorable, though not the only one.

This is what Sony failed to do this generation: they have thus far failed to provide must-have first party titles to the world. As soon as they do they will see sales rise, and developer support follow it. But at this point the PS3 is as good as two years behind the 360, having totally flopped for the first year of its existence.

Re:Games, games, games (1)

mycroft822 (822167) | more than 6 years ago | (#20725183)

Their arrogance (most likely) alienated quite a few developers that'd have produced exclusives.
The overall impression I have taken in recently is that most developers are avoiding exculsive titles because of the increasingly high development costs of games. They need to make their titles available to as wide a market as possible to be able to recoup those costs.

Heavenly sword -- killer app? (1, Insightful)

religious freak (1005821) | more than 6 years ago | (#20723067)

I just finished Heavenly sword. If they need to sell more PS3s, build a few more games like that, and you'll take over MS again in no time.

Good software... good hardware sales. Just got to figure out if you need to make the chicken or the egg first.

Re:Heavenly sword -- killer app? (1)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 6 years ago | (#20723215)

"Heavenly Sword is, as you will soon discover, the very definition of a rental title. Clocking in at somewhere between five and six hours (depending on your appetite for overwrought cinemas) it's a decent game saddled by impossible expectations. It has silly ideas and grandeur in close proximity to one another." - http://www.penny-arcade.com/2007/09/12 [penny-arcade.com]

Re:Heavenly sword -- killer app? (1)

MMaestro (585010) | more than 6 years ago | (#20724043)

If Heavenly Sword is a killer app, then the Killzone series is the next Half-Life series.

In all seriousness, the game wasn't received (too) well by most reviewers, professional and casual (too short, lack of gameplay, too easy, nothing but eyecandy: take your pick). The game holds its own as a game, but its by no means a "killer app". I've played through and beat the game in a single day and I kept thinking how much the game felt like a God of War clone whenever I wasn't sniping with the crossbow.

If you want to see how a "killer app" really affects the overall success of a console, just watch what happens when Halo 3 is released (or for a more realistic benchmark, MGS4, any Final Fantasy game in the US or Europe or any Dragon Quest game in Japan.)

Casual gamers liked it. (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 6 years ago | (#20724865)

Actually from reports I read, casual gamers really liked it because it was a great interactive movie and also kind of short - just the thing hardcore gamers hate.

The parent post I think is witness of this.

*IF* I were sony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20723091)

and I had the guts, I would just integrate it into an HDTV. Mark-up aside, they'd beat their competitors as having a blu-ray compatible gaming machine built in, and chances are the price of both together would be the price of them separately. This would literally catch microsoft and nintendo with their pants down as none of them have a home electronics brand!

Confused (4, Insightful)

Ajehals (947354) | more than 6 years ago | (#20723135)

I'm not a gamer and I don't own a console, so I may be missing something but does

Going aggressive only on price without being able to back it up with content doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me,
mean what I think it means? i.e. "We are not dropping our prices because we have don't have much content as yet, but when we do have more content we will drop our prices".

I mean I can see the sense in the fact that more games will drive sales, but I don't see why people would pay more for a console when there are only a few titles* why not drop the price, have people buy it as a blueray player and then *not* drop the price again when the titles are out (after all it will already be as cheap enough as if they dropped the prices when the titles came out). Wouldn't that mean that more people would consider buying the console before the content is available (albeit at a lower price)

Anyway,makes no sense to me, but as I said I'm not a gamer.

*I have no real idea how many titles are available for the PS3 or how it stacks up against its rivals, so take that statement at face value rather than assume I am insinuating that the platform is not as good as or worse off than $otherplatform.

Re:Confused (2)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 6 years ago | (#20723237)

I mean I can see the sense in the fact that more games will drive sales, but I don't see why people would pay more for a console when there are only a few titles* why not drop the price,
Because if you sell at a lower price you take a bigger loss on the console which means you need to sell more games (of which there aren't many of) to recoup the loss and actually make a profit.

That's probably why a blu ray focus makes at least some sense. Producing a reasonable amount of game content is going to take a lot more effort and time than putting out a Blu-ray version of already existing movies. It therefore makes sense to try and sell to a market that will buy the content that you are actually in a position to sell content to.

Re:Confused (1)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 6 years ago | (#20723251)

"Because if you sell at a lower price you take a bigger loss on the console which means you need to sell more games (of which there aren't many of) to recoup the loss and actually make a profit."

Actually, Sony also gets money from the Blu-Ray sales. Which are moving about as fast as.. something that doesn't move fast at all.

Re:Confused (2, Funny)

SuperMonkeyCube (982998) | more than 6 years ago | (#20723449)

Speaking as a gamer - as my handle might imply,
"A lack of games? Appalling! - and the price is much too high!
We just got rumble back last Thursday after much outcry.
We do much love our Sony - Hope this Blu-Ray thing will fly."

"The games? Well, I'd say they're not that much alike,
You won't find much FPS on Nintendo's little tyke -
Unless some Wiimote Metroid or RE4 is what you like.
And, of course, M$ has got Halo's new Third reich."

OK, enough verse. My personal philosophy for purchasing a game machine since the SuperNintendo/Genisis days was - and still is - 'It's about the games, stupid.' Sony does have some catchup to do here. They're going to have a hard time in a couple of days. They're not going to carry the day on price, so they better have some games lined up to even things out.

Re:Confused (1)

ClamIAm (926466) | more than 6 years ago | (#20723475)

Well, Sony executives have been using ridiculous angles to spin the bad points of PS3. I think he's just using the "no games" angle as an excuse, which is rather novel: use bad point A to spin bad point B! It's almost like the universe these guys live in is beginning to collapse on itself.

I'm not a "Sony is t3h d00med" guy, either. To me, it seems like most nerds on the Internet have forgotten the PS2 launch. It too had Sony execs boasting about their uber-powerful machine (and spewing FUD about MS), and developers bitching about how hard the thing was to work with.

Obviously, things are different this time. The PS3 costs much more (even when adjusted for inflation) than any Sony console to date. The US economy is much worse compared to '95 or 2000. And so on.

But I have faith that Sony know what they're doing...or at least have some sort of plan. I'm guessing part of it is based on the PS2, as they certainly have a huge margin on that thing by now. I also bet the backward-compatibility team will make damn sure all PS2 games released from here on out work on PS3.

Re:Confused (2, Insightful)

7Prime (871679) | more than 6 years ago | (#20724207)

Oh, I don't doubt that Sony have a plan. But Microsoft and Nintendo also have plans, and currently, they're already way ahead.

Sony is already playing catchup against two companies that ALWAYS have tricks on their sleaves. Sony hasn't ever had to pull Aces out of their asses before now, where-as Nintendo, and to a lesser extent, Microsoft, are well versed in the ace-ass-pulling.

Re:Confused (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 6 years ago | (#20724281)

I tend to agree with you here. I don't can't imagine Sony having anything significant to dramatically reveal.

Consoles tend to be a numbers game, studios want to make money, and so the more potential customers they can have with a system the more likely it is that they'll put there best games on a given console.

Large numbers of games being sold coincidentally enough has been for quite a while the way that console manufacturers make most of their money.

In this iteration, all of the consoles, except the Wii I believe, are capable of playing movies. Both the Xbox and the PS3 are capable of doing high def.

It really isn't a surprise that Nintendo is able to sell the kind of units that it is selling with a low price, large market, and a knack for selling the Wii as fun to play. That's a tough thing to beat in general, more so if you're already behind and don't have the content to fight back.

A good system is of very, very little value if it doesn't have any good games after all.

And to make matters worse for Sony, The 360 isn't a bad system either, from what I gather. Apart from some hardware problems if memory serves.

Re:Confused (1)

More_Cowbell (957742) | more than 6 years ago | (#20726229)

Not trying to disagree with you, but could you elaborate a bit?

Nintendo...versed in the ace-ass-pulling.

I do not recall Nintendo ever really needing to pull anything from their butt. They certainly have not held the same market share since the beginning, but then they have always sold well, no?

Re:Confused (1)

king-manic (409855) | more than 6 years ago | (#20725287)

Obviously, things are different this time. The PS3 costs much more (even when adjusted for inflation) than any Sony console to date. The US economy is much worse compared to '95 or 2000. And so on.

In the US. Adjusted for inflation it's within $50 of the PS2 launch price in Canada, indeed in most markets it's close to the launch PS2 price after inflation, only int he Us is it massively more expensive. I'd chalk it up to bad aim from Sony. They aimed at roughly the same "relative" price as the PS2 but the US economy tanked so hard and the currency dropped so much it seemed like a ridiculous price. Nintendo knew better and priced lower and Ms cut corners and subsidized.

Re:Confused (1)

cowscows (103644) | more than 6 years ago | (#20728069)

It's probably because if they dropped prices right now, sales still wouldn't massively increase because there's no games, and the PS3 would look even more stagnant than it does already.

but it runs linux (5, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 6 years ago | (#20723229)

they ought to advertise linux compatibility. A lot of people are interested in linux but don't want to reformat their computer. Selling a PS3 with ubuntu installed would be pretty popular.

Re:but it runs linux (1)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 6 years ago | (#20723271)

"they ought to advertise linux compatibility. A lot of people are interested in linux but don't want to reformat their computer. Selling a PS3 with ubuntu installed would be pretty popular."

What universe do you live in? Just because on /. there are a bunch of people who are interested in Linux doesn't mean that people in the real world are. Go to a Gamestop and ask random customers if they'd buy a PS3 to run Linux. I guarantee you that the majority of them will ask if it's a new game coming out.

Re:but it runs linux (4, Funny)

revengebomber (1080189) | more than 6 years ago | (#20723357)

I feel a haiku is the proper way to express your misunderstanding:

Subtle jokes are made,
But sometimes not even seen.
You can hear now, WHOOSH.

Re:but it runs linux (0, Offtopic)

neonmonk (467567) | more than 6 years ago | (#20723883)

Mod parent insightful!

Re:but it runs linux (4, Informative)

Chandon Seldon (43083) | more than 6 years ago | (#20723339)

It runs Linux like crap because it doesn't provide access to hardware accelerated graphics. And by "hardware accelerated graphics", I don't just mean 3D games and Compiz. It doesn't even have 2D acceleration, so you'll see redraw lag just scrolling in Firefox.

Basically Linux compatibility was just a scheme to get into a different import tax bracket in the European Union (where computers have a lower tax than video game consoles or media players). Actual usability wasn't a design goal.

Re:but it runs linux (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 6 years ago | (#20724121)

It runs Linux like crap because it doesn't provide access to hardware accelerated graphics. And by "hardware accelerated graphics", I don't just mean 3D games and Compiz. It doesn't even have 2D acceleration, so you'll see redraw lag just scrolling in Firefox.

Basically Linux compatibility was just a scheme to get into a different import tax bracket in the European Union (where computers have a lower tax than video game consoles or media players). Actual usability wasn't a design goal.


Heck, Linux isn't even running on the bare metal of the PS3. The tax bracket difference must be pretty huge for Sony to actually design and implement a hypervisor and virtualization system for the PS3 so it can run "Other OS" but not cripple the gaming and security aspects of the PS3.

The hard disk, card slots, etc. are all virtualized. That's why WiFi, RSX and Bluetooth don't work - the hypervisor doesn't allow access to that hardware, or offer virtualized interfaces.

Also adds to the latency in updating the display - you modify the framebuffer, then call into the hypervisor to update the display. Heck, everytime I use it, "ps3fb" is one of the tasks that's always consuming CPU time...

Re:but it runs linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20725353)

WiFi and Bluetooth do work.

Re:but it runs linux (1)

Eponymous Bastard (1143615) | more than 6 years ago | (#20727607)

The tax bracket difference must be pretty huge for Sony to actually design and implement a hypervisor and virtualization system for the PS3 so it can run "Other OS" but not cripple the gaming and security aspects of the PS3.
There's another less acknowledged reason. A some of the work put into cracking the xbox and 360 consoles was done by people who wanted to run Linux on them, which incidentally helped those running homebrew and piracy.

By giving the community a half-assed Linux environment, they quickly cut down on the number of people who would work on cracking the PS3. People who want the processing power of the Cell can already use it. People who want to run Linux just because can already do it. That leaves a smaller number of people who want to actually do something with it, and they can use a 360.

Sure, there might be projects out there to crack the PS3 to run Linux without the hypervisor, but who has heard of them? That leaves only the homebrew and piracy crowds.

Re:but it runs linux (1)

king-manic (409855) | more than 6 years ago | (#20725305)



It runs Linux like crap because it doesn't provide access to hardware accelerated graphics. And by "hardware accelerated graphics", I don't just mean 3D games and Compiz. It doesn't even have 2D acceleration, so you'll see redraw lag just scrolling in Firefox.

Basically Linux compatibility was just a scheme to get into a different import tax bracket in the European Union (where computers have a lower tax than video game consoles or media players). Actual usability wasn't a design goal.


I assumed you never tried it and just rolled with here say. Ubuntu runs fine on mine. I get no lag scrolling with firefox. Perhaps it was the flavor they used versus anything explicit about the machine. Or I did some freaky setting swap no one else has tried? The GPU is restricted but if someone was clever they could use a SPU or two to do some simple frame buffer enhancements to compensate.

Re:but it runs linux (1)

morari (1080535) | more than 6 years ago | (#20723345)

My spare Dreamcast runs Linux. In fact, I had it set up as a simple router there for a while. Still the best overall console I've ever seen.

Re:but it runs linux (0, Flamebait)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 6 years ago | (#20723565)

Are you serious?

I know exactly one person who talks about Linux more than once a year. Other than myself. But I mostly talk about Linux because of the crappy experiences I've had with it.

Re:but it runs linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20724385)

sir, you are funny.

your last name is bagina, great success!

PS3 as a Blu-Ray Player (4, Interesting)

Dr Cool (671556) | more than 6 years ago | (#20723243)

I bought a sweet 47" 1080p LCD TV about a month ago. Of course, I had to get some kind of HD movie source and I don't watch cable TV. I prefer to rent movies. Since Blockbuster is now stocking Blu-Ray movies, it was a natural choice that I choose a Blu-Ray player. I looked around at prices and all the players are fairly expensive. Sony sells a standalone Blu-Ray player for $499. Imagine my surprise when I walked around the Circuit City store and noticed a 60 GB PS3 for... $499! I intended on buying a Blu-Ray player. But I walked out with a PS3. I haven't owned a console game machine since the Nintendo back in the day. And my roommate is the only one who's played games on it so far but I do enjoy watching him play it. So yes, I'm one of the few who bought a PS3 specifically because it's a Blu-Ray player. But I'm sure that if a killer game comes out that I'm dying to play and I know it's not coming out for the PC (my preferred gaming platform), I'll definitely drop $60 on it for my PS3. But for now, it's my HD movie machine.

Re:PS3 as a Blu-Ray Player (1)

PrvtBurrito (557287) | more than 6 years ago | (#20723441)

You could have gotten an hd-dvd player for $199 (1080i) or 299 (1080p)....

Re:PS3 as a Blu-Ray Player (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20723491)

Dr. Kool PhD, is that you?

Re:PS3 as a Blu-Ray Player (1, Funny)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 6 years ago | (#20724255)

"I bought a sweet 47" 1080p LCD TV about a month ago."

And that's the problem with this new advertising gimmick:

"PlayStation 3: for people who have cash to blow on 47" 1080p LCD HDTVs."

Heck, they might get more sales if their slogan was "It still works on SDTVs too!"

Re:PS3 as a Blu-Ray Player (1)

Jello B. (950817) | more than 6 years ago | (#20724465)



Crisis averted!

Re:PS3 as a Blu-Ray Player (1)

toolie (22684) | more than 6 years ago | (#20725119)

The Samsung Blu-Ray (BD-P1200) player has been $449.99 since before the PS3 price cut. Even now the Sony BDP-S300 is $439.57 (on Amazon).

Re:PS3 as a Blu-Ray Player (1)

BarneyL (578636) | more than 6 years ago | (#20726563)

The Samsung Blu-Ray (BD-P1200) player has been $449.99 since before the PS3 price cut. Even now the Sony BDP-S300 is $439.57 (on Amazon).
So you can save $60 wow!
The parent has a good point, at $499 the PS3 is still far too expensive. But if you are going to buy a Blu-Ray player then at that point you can get a PS3 thrown in extra for $50. I'm no PS3 fan but if it was going to cost me $50 I'd already own one.

Re:PS3 as a Blu-Ray Player (1)

toolie (22684) | more than 6 years ago | (#20727583)

There is also a earlier generation Samsung (BD-P1000) listed for $319.99. Where is the limit that people stop thinking the PS3 is the cheapest player on the market? Spending the extra money if you are interested in games is understandable. Spending the extra money when you have no interest in games but hope that the 'killer app' comes out isn't.

ummm (2, Funny)

nomadic (141991) | more than 6 years ago | (#20723459)

This is regrettable, too, because there really are a number of strong titles coming out for the console this year.

Uhhh..and now this marketing plan will somehow prevent those titles from coming out? I don't get it.

just saw an advert today... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20723465)

they mentioned blu-ray, which is all well and good, but it also said something about the ps3 being able to predict my every move. If i believed sony's bullshit i'd be scared by that

If the PS3 platform is going down in flames... (2, Funny)

Gavin Scott (15916) | more than 6 years ago | (#20723703)

...at least those flames will be beautifully rendered at incredibly high resolution and we'll all go "oooohhhhhh! ahhhhhhhhh!" as it plows into the ground and erupts in a huge fireball.

G.

Re:If the PS3 platform is going down in flames... (2, Funny)

revengebomber (1080189) | more than 6 years ago | (#20725815)

The PS3 will just sort of sink into the mud. The 360, on the other hand, would explode in a brilliant display of silicon fireworks after the GPU reaches critical heat and collapses into a hunk of raw, fissible uranium.

'Course they're not saying they're dropping prices (2, Insightful)

r_jensen11 (598210) | more than 6 years ago | (#20723837)

Why the hell would they say that they're going to drop prices November 23rd when it's only September 23rd? That's still two months away. Once you announce a future price cut, sales temporarily slow down until said price cut occurs. Then you see a spike in trading volume, followed by a trailing off toward your new equilibrium.

Re:'Course they're not saying they're dropping pri (1)

minvaren (854254) | more than 6 years ago | (#20724241)

...to win the xmas sales season?

Power Hungry (-1, Offtopic)

The_Dougster (308194) | more than 6 years ago | (#20723841)

I was going to get a PS3 to make a nifty little webserver out of it by loading up Linux. I figured that even if I couldn't get Linux to use the graphics acceleration, it wouldn't matter. I could run a little webserver on it on my lan and stick it out in the DMZ. Perhaps I could learn how to program the nifty SPU's and rack up lots of points on something like Distributed.Net.

Heh, these things draw like 200W on idle. Thats more than a typical PC. $14 a month for electricity (estimated). I think I'll keep my little old 300MHz StrongArm Netwinder that draws 18W max. Thats about $1.30 a month!

Still, I'd like to get one to play with the cell processor in Linux, but it is kind of limited as a workstation not having 3D acceleration, burns too much electricity to be useful as a 24/7 server, and I'm lucky if I have time to play WoW a few hours a week, so its not like I want it for console gaming. For the price of a PS3, I could plug a AMD Phenom into my motherboard when they come out and see some serious performance boots.

Phooey. It really sucks when I want to buy a toy but can't find an excuse to do it.

It's not "what's the best value in BRD players?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20724363)

The real question is, "Are BRD players a good value?"

PS3 might be the cheapest Blu-Ray player, but that doesn't really mean shit if every player is so insanely overpriced compared to existing technology. It's the whole early adopter scenario again. Sony is trying to push the "value" argument on people who ordinarily take a wait-and-see approach, and it's not significantly helping PS3 sales. That's because the PS3 is perceiveed as a video game console. Reality might be the reverse right now, but that is still the perception. Sony only have themselves to thank for that, due to the schizophrenic way they have tried to market PS3. They thought they could push PS3 the same way they pushed PS2, and they're failing.

Then again, even the low rate of PS3 sales has pushed Blu-Ray beyond HD-DVD in market share and installed base, so at least one half of Sony's approach (try to force Blu-Ray and PS3 to drag each other to the top) seems to be working, albeit slowly.

HD-DVD (-1, Flamebait)

Criffer (842645) | more than 6 years ago | (#20725975)

I want an HD DVD format - why would I want want to buy one called blurry-disc? I want higher-resolution, I don't want it blurry! Surely I should just go and buy this one called "HD-DVD", which is well, High Definition DVD?

In any format war between a cool-sounding name and a (extended-)three-letter-acronym, bet on the TLA. VHS beat betamax. DVD beat laserdisc. MP3 and AAC beat Ogg Vorbis.

The only reason blurry-disc is even a contender is Sony's bundling with the PS3. Nobody actually wants a blurry-disc player; they want High Def DVDs. Normal people understand that HD-DVD is an upgrade from DVD, whereas blurry-disc is no such thing. It's an incompatible format as far as the masses are concerned, just like betamax. Not better, just different and more expensive (see betamax). The HD-DVD TLA is understood, the name blurry disc is not. That's why it will fail, and why Sony should just give up - they've yet to win a format war anyway (see MemoryStick, Betamax, Betacam, MO-disc, MiniDisc, ATRAC, SDDS, SACD, UMD).

Simple solution... (1)

denzacar (181829) | more than 6 years ago | (#20726675)

I see what you mean there.
"The Moron" population is a very significant part or the market.
And once you get the morons to use your product (and like it), you are set for life.
Because... morons... in large groups... They do wonders.

But.

There is simple solution to your problem.

They should simply market it as BDD (Blueray Disk Drive).

And when a moron comes along and asks what does BDD stand for sellers should be instructed to answer "Better Disk Drive" or "Bigger Disk Drive" or "Best Disk Drive".
And Better beats HD every time.

High Definition - ours is Better.
Hyper Drive - ours is Better.
Humongous Dude - ours is Better.

Sony Australia, stop ripping us off like its 1999 (1)

cheekyboy (598084) | more than 6 years ago | (#20727051)

Dudes, in Sony OZ, the US dollar is not at .52 cents.

If your stupid execs made a bulk purchase of 100000 units at 72cents, then you guys should be FIRED!!

Any one in the finance industry would tell you the dollar is falling, expect 82-86 average rates.

I know your real secret Sony Australia, you are protecting your 'buddies' in the HIFI world from not killing their BluRay player market.

If every BR player is $1200+ and ps3 is sitting there for $699, they would scream murder!

So Sony..... why is it you can sell a ps3 in Singapore for $799 ($640AU) but cannot drag your self to sell the same package here for us people.

Is it because Singapore has better anticompetive rules, and because its harder to rip people of there where its easier to grey import?

It surely isnt the shipping costs since they are marginal of 20tonne containers, and dont tell me its tax, because 10% GST vs 4% in Singapore is hardly a 40% difference.

Why is it IPODS can be sold in AU with in 15% US prices (though they should drop, Apple, since each new shipment is raking in you more profits if sold in the same AU$)

What the f...? (2, Interesting)

shoptroll (544006) | more than 6 years ago | (#20727843)

Sony, for the love of all that is holy please have your right hand talking to your life hand.

http://blog.wired.com/games/2007/09/kaz-hirai-plays.html [wired.com]

Please please please adopt some consistent marketing and executive speak.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>