Internal sabotage sounds over the top to me. Screwing up from the launch period? Yes, but for fucks sake why would Sony INTENTIONALLY undermine their business interests. They are looking to make money. It's a combination of misreading the market before this gen started, confusing launch, inadequate effort to get the PS3 in the minds of average consumers, and other poor decisions.
As for being the Gamecube of this gen, wasn't the Gamecube at least profitable? I expect Sony will gain some money back before their next machine, but never break even on the PS3's losses. If anything I think the PS3 is this generation's XBox. Released a bit later, didn't have the best catalog of games for awhile, and couldn't sell enough units really.
The hard drive thing is curious, my first thought is to agree with the writer that they should stop making SKU's with larger HDDs. But it depends on how much they're spending on buying these drives in bulk. If it doesn't really cost them much to get tons of 160GB HDDs, then why not use them? Either way, I think they'd be fine sticking with 80-120 GB drives because most people won't need tons of space IMO.
To me the almost full hardware backwards compatibility was a great feature to have, and if they had kept it, it was an advantage over the competition. But I think while many gamers on sites like this want it, most consumers probably didn't even know the PS3 had it in the first place. I think most probably aren't holding out due to BC alone. The price, poor awareness, and other factors are doing more to hold the PS3 back.
Releasing the PS3 after the XBox was fine, Sony doesn't need to live by Microsoft's timeline. But doing so put the PS3 at a disadvantage to some consumers, because they jumped at the 360 with their friends, why would they want a fancy system that didn't offer enough unique games at the time. And then their launch was confusing and inadequate. They pushed the console as a movie player, multimedia powerhouse, and game machine at different points, and to be fair the PS3 can do all of the above. But you have to give the public a simple message, tell them why your product must be bought above others. One of Sony's major failings this gen has been advertising in the US, because to the public it seems the PS3 isn't even on their radar, or they don't know what it does, what great games it has. And that's a damn shame for the developers who have actually put out great exclusives.
Overall, I think the PS3 can still get better and sell more in the coming few years, depending on how well Sony sells the PS3 to the public and if they can lower both manufacturing costs and retail prices. Personally I'd like to see both a limited re-introduction of the original 60GB PS3, and a new, stripped down, cheap as possible model. Take out whatever isn't necessary to play games, go online(wired), play movies, etc. Even if its a gimped PS3, Sony needs an entry level model to put out there.
@superdynamite: PS3 owners have been "waiting until then" for two fucking years now and Sony consistently lets us down.
Last year was going to be the "year of the PS3" and then 2008. Well, what they meant was 2009, because that is what they have changed their marketing spin to now.
Why do most overlook the controller as a weak point for the PS3? First Sony went with the ergonomically incorrect, outdated PS1/PS2 controller instead of the boomerang and then they took out the rumble -- only to add it back in after taking out back-compat on the console.
The controller is too small, designed for a different generation of games and doesn't work well with most current releases (IE -- the ones that have become popular since side-scrollers and fighters).
I sold my 60 gig PS3 because I was sick of the cramps in my hands and shooting pain in my wrists caused by trying to claw my adult hands around that tiny controller. I didn't buy one back because I felt -- and still feel -- that backward compatibility should be included in the price of the console.
The PS3 doesn't have a huge library of amazing titles. But combined with PS2 titles? Plenty of gaming goodness. And Sony knew this, as they used back-compat as a selling point before deciding to dump it. In a way, Sony is sabotaging the console -- I just don't think they know it.
@Sloopydrew: I'd say most "overlook the controller as a weak point" because most people don't have the problems you do. Just because you get cramps and don't like the controller means it's a poor design. Not trolling, but just reminding you of a bit of perspective. I have an over 9" span on my hands, and the PS3 controller feels fine. The placement of the 2 analogs works exceptionally well for current games. I can't stand the 360 controller, compared to the PS3 one, but I'll never claim it's ergonomically incorrect, or infer that it's garbage. That's just dumb.
"I'd say most 'overlook the controller as a weak point' because most people don't have the problems you do."
This is a early fifth generation controller that had a couple of analog sticks wedged on in haphazard fashion after being designed. Imagine Nintendo sticking with the SNES controller with two analog sticks glued to the base for their newest console. Ridiculous, right? It's not all that far from what Sony is doing with the PS3 controller. That may be my opinion, but when an opinion is as widely shared as mine (do a search for "Playstation claw"), a company that cares about gaining new customers and retaining old customers needs to listen up and do something about it.
@Sloopydrew: The controller issue is a matter of preference and comfort. For many people the DS3 is fine and not awkward really, but maybe Sony, or 3rd parties should look into an alternative model to sell.
Funny. I don't really give a rip about how many units Sony has sold. Mine works, there are still great games for it and I enjoy playing it. All this rhetoric about console wars and winners and losers just gets so old after while.
Yes,a price cut is needed though. This guy doesn't really have any idea what is going on at Sony.They aren't going after Netflix(which isn't all that great,lets be honest.The movie selection is pretty low)They are allowing people to actually own their content if they want and not rent. Besides,he should probably look on a more global scale. Meh,I still play mine more than the 360(gotta finish Banjo/Fable 2 someday)
The way I see it, the only reason to get an ps3 over a 360 is:
a) You have a gaming capable pc.
b) You care about blu-ray
c) You're a sony loyalist.
So to me, it's no surprise that sony only had 30% of the HD console sales this November. For most people the value is just not there. It's been said a billion times, but they need a price cut! Unfortunately they didn't get one in on time and that's really going to screw them going forward.
@220: Exclusives maybe? I've yet to purchase a 360 because there are few exclusives that interest me on the system and the ones that do have been/will be available on the PC, whereas the PS3's lineup is much more interesting to me.
Add to the fact that I don't buy products that have such a high risk of breaking on me (I don't care how good the repair service is) and that I don't do online gaming much (and if I did it would be strictly with friends as Live is filled with fucktards.) Plus, I really don't care for Microsofts bussiness model (or MS in general). Purchasing a PS3 over a 360 was a very easy decision for me.
The problem with the PS3 has always been with what Sony tried to do with it. The PS1 and PS2 were strictly game machines. Meaning when they were created they only really had the intention of making games on them and selling it as a gaming console.
When the time came for them to design the PS3 the other divisions of Sony wanted to get their hands inside of it. So it became more about using the PS3 to help Sony make more money on other devices. So lets add Blu-Ray. We'll sell a new form of media and people will want to buy new Sony HDTV's to fully enjoy their entertainement experience.
But what happened was they forgot what the PS3 was supposed to be and thats a gaming machine and alot of the people who buy games still don't have HDTV's so buying the PS3 was more of a luxury item than it was a gaming machine. Why do I need a PS3 when I don't have an HDTV? I can go buy an Xbox 360 for half the price and play most of the same games and not pay the extra money for things I can't use anyway.
So now Sony sits at a crossroads. They have a system that is essencially a niche item. Only the people who have HDTV's are really buying them and those people have probably already bought one or have decided they don't want one. So the PS3 will never be the machine they envisioned and they have to try again with something else. Most likely you will see further stripped down versions of the system in the coming year so they can introduce new "casual" price models. Meanwhile they are most likely already working on a PS4 that they will need to bring to market sooner than they wanted to and it will most likely go back to being just a gaming system so they can try and recapture the market share they lost with the PS3.
I currently own a Wii and an 360. I have an HDTV but I do not own a PS3 because I can't justify it's cost. I want Blu-Ray but I don't care for the games that are exclusive for the system. So I will wait until the PS3 has a price tag around $200 or $250 and then I will get one mostly for the Blu-Ray feature and then I'll get bargain bin prices on any games I missed over the years.
@Qik: But if Sony would have left our the Blu-ray player, they would have sold FAR less than they have now. Everyone of my friends that owns a PS3 bought if firstly as a DVD/Blu-ray player and a VERY distant second as a game machine, including myself.
T'was a difficult month for the PlayStation brand. Despite the recent releases of some hotly-anticipated titles AND the Christmas rush, they still fared poorly.
I blame money. Not just the bad economy forcing everyone to pinch pennies, but also the price of the PS3 for being well above the penny-pinching threshold. I bet you there were plenty of people who said "I want a PS3 for Christmas," only to get "It's too expensive for us right now" as the response.
When people talk about the PS3 being the new gamecube there is something they forget. Nintendo managed to stay around because they were selling the gamecube for a profit and they were making huge amounts off their first party games. Sony is losing huge amounts of cash on the PS3. The reason sony have been able to stick around in the game industry is because they were number 1. They're entire strategy was based around being the market leader by a huge number.
MS have enough money that they could simply power through the rough years with the xbox. Nintendo had a strategy where even in last place they were making more profits than other companies. Sony need to be first or they can't survive.
The really interesting point isn't about the PS3 but the effects this is having on the PS4. Sony could fund research for the PS3 because they made a fair profit off the PS2. With the PS3 losing them cash at an alarming rate how are they going to go about funding the PS4? Especially since it's clear the PS3 won't enjoy the long life cycle the PS2 did.
12/12/08
As for being the Gamecube of this gen, wasn't the Gamecube at least profitable? I expect Sony will gain some money back before their next machine, but never break even on the PS3's losses. If anything I think the PS3 is this generation's XBox. Released a bit later, didn't have the best catalog of games for awhile, and couldn't sell enough units really.
The hard drive thing is curious, my first thought is to agree with the writer that they should stop making SKU's with larger HDDs. But it depends on how much they're spending on buying these drives in bulk. If it doesn't really cost them much to get tons of 160GB HDDs, then why not use them? Either way, I think they'd be fine sticking with 80-120 GB drives because most people won't need tons of space IMO.
To me the almost full hardware backwards compatibility was a great feature to have, and if they had kept it, it was an advantage over the competition. But I think while many gamers on sites like this want it, most consumers probably didn't even know the PS3 had it in the first place. I think most probably aren't holding out due to BC alone. The price, poor awareness, and other factors are doing more to hold the PS3 back.
Releasing the PS3 after the XBox was fine, Sony doesn't need to live by Microsoft's timeline. But doing so put the PS3 at a disadvantage to some consumers, because they jumped at the 360 with their friends, why would they want a fancy system that didn't offer enough unique games at the time. And then their launch was confusing and inadequate. They pushed the console as a movie player, multimedia powerhouse, and game machine at different points, and to be fair the PS3 can do all of the above. But you have to give the public a simple message, tell them why your product must be bought above others. One of Sony's major failings this gen has been advertising in the US, because to the public it seems the PS3 isn't even on their radar, or they don't know what it does, what great games it has. And that's a damn shame for the developers who have actually put out great exclusives.
Overall, I think the PS3 can still get better and sell more in the coming few years, depending on how well Sony sells the PS3 to the public and if they can lower both manufacturing costs and retail prices. Personally I'd like to see both a limited re-introduction of the original 60GB PS3, and a new, stripped down, cheap as possible model. Take out whatever isn't necessary to play games, go online(wired), play movies, etc. Even if its a gimped PS3, Sony needs an entry level model to put out there.
12/12/08
12/12/08
Fact, it's still bombing!
12/12/08
Fact is, it is a price cut away from selling like mad.
12/12/08
12/12/08
Global sales #'s are discounted again, sparking articles, flame and propaganda.
I will remind everyone again: Global sales numbers start surfacing at the end of January/ beginning of February.
Wait until then.
Thanks!
12/12/08
Last year was going to be the "year of the PS3" and then 2008. Well, what they meant was 2009, because that is what they have changed their marketing spin to now.
12/12/08
No one thinks it's amazing that consumer level 8-core system can be bought for mere $400?
12/12/08
Like 120 hertz TVs or 5 MS response times, it is market shit that is ultimately meaningless.
12/12/08
12/12/08
The controller is too small, designed for a different generation of games and doesn't work well with most current releases (IE -- the ones that have become popular since side-scrollers and fighters).
I sold my 60 gig PS3 because I was sick of the cramps in my hands and shooting pain in my wrists caused by trying to claw my adult hands around that tiny controller. I didn't buy one back because I felt -- and still feel -- that backward compatibility should be included in the price of the console.
The PS3 doesn't have a huge library of amazing titles. But combined with PS2 titles? Plenty of gaming goodness. And Sony knew this, as they used back-compat as a selling point before deciding to dump it. In a way, Sony is sabotaging the console -- I just don't think they know it.
12/12/08
12/12/08
"I'd say most 'overlook the controller as a weak point' because most people don't have the problems you do."
This is a early fifth generation controller that had a couple of analog sticks wedged on in haphazard fashion after being designed. Imagine Nintendo sticking with the SNES controller with two analog sticks glued to the base for their newest console. Ridiculous, right? It's not all that far from what Sony is doing with the PS3 controller. That may be my opinion, but when an opinion is as widely shared as mine (do a search for "Playstation claw"), a company that cares about gaining new customers and retaining old customers needs to listen up and do something about it.
12/12/08
12/12/08
12/12/08
12/12/08
Meh,I still play mine more than the 360(gotta finish Banjo/Fable 2 someday)
12/12/08
a) You have a gaming capable pc.
b) You care about blu-ray
c) You're a sony loyalist.
So to me, it's no surprise that sony only had 30% of the HD console sales this November. For most people the value is just not there. It's been said a billion times, but they need a price cut! Unfortunately they didn't get one in on time and that's really going to screw them going forward.
12/12/08
What about if you just like games?
12/12/08
12/12/08
Add to the fact that I don't buy products that have such a high risk of breaking on me (I don't care how good the repair service is) and that I don't do online gaming much (and if I did it would be strictly with friends as Live is filled with fucktards.) Plus, I really don't care for Microsofts bussiness model (or MS in general). Purchasing a PS3 over a 360 was a very easy decision for me.
Of course I am in the minority here.
12/12/08
When the time came for them to design the PS3 the other divisions of Sony wanted to get their hands inside of it. So it became more about using the PS3 to help Sony make more money on other devices. So lets add Blu-Ray. We'll sell a new form of media and people will want to buy new Sony HDTV's to fully enjoy their entertainement experience.
But what happened was they forgot what the PS3 was supposed to be and thats a gaming machine and alot of the people who buy games still don't have HDTV's so buying the PS3 was more of a luxury item than it was a gaming machine. Why do I need a PS3 when I don't have an HDTV? I can go buy an Xbox 360 for half the price and play most of the same games and not pay the extra money for things I can't use anyway.
So now Sony sits at a crossroads. They have a system that is essencially a niche item. Only the people who have HDTV's are really buying them and those people have probably already bought one or have decided they don't want one. So the PS3 will never be the machine they envisioned and they have to try again with something else. Most likely you will see further stripped down versions of the system in the coming year so they can introduce new "casual" price models. Meanwhile they are most likely already working on a PS4 that they will need to bring to market sooner than they wanted to and it will most likely go back to being just a gaming system so they can try and recapture the market share they lost with the PS3.
I currently own a Wii and an 360. I have an HDTV but I do not own a PS3 because I can't justify it's cost. I want Blu-Ray but I don't care for the games that are exclusive for the system. So I will wait until the PS3 has a price tag around $200 or $250 and then I will get one mostly for the Blu-Ray feature and then I'll get bargain bin prices on any games I missed over the years.
12/12/08
12/12/08
I blame money. Not just the bad economy forcing everyone to pinch pennies, but also the price of the PS3 for being well above the penny-pinching threshold. I bet you there were plenty of people who said "I want a PS3 for Christmas," only to get "It's too expensive for us right now" as the response.
They'll be getting a GameCube instead SHAZAM!
12/12/08
Oh well, I hope people like what the industry looks like next gen.
12/12/08
MS have enough money that they could simply power through the rough years with the xbox. Nintendo had a strategy where even in last place they were making more profits than other companies. Sony need to be first or they can't survive.
The really interesting point isn't about the PS3 but the effects this is having on the PS4. Sony could fund research for the PS3 because they made a fair profit off the PS2. With the PS3 losing them cash at an alarming rate how are they going to go about funding the PS4? Especially since it's clear the PS3 won't enjoy the long life cycle the PS2 did.
12/12/08