Hilarious new Sony PS3 article, "shortages will be completely eased by May" Huh?

[heybtbm]

I love corporate spin...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070228/tc_nm/sony_playstation3_dc_2

[Mayhem]

Perhaps they meant "shortages in people wanting to buy the PS3"? :p

[Bojay1997]

but to be honest, when I see units in stock at the local Best Buy or Circuit City, they usually sell within a day or two. Sure, it's not Wii demand or even PS2 demand, but at $600 not including a game or second controller, this is a serious investment. I do believe the PS3 is still in demand and is a good system, even if I currently spend more time on my Xbox 360 and Wii.

[Imstarryeyed]

I used to work for Sony corporate at one point and I have to say that this is soo how they do things in my opinion! Let's take reality and bend it until it sounds like we're right! Haha.. I enjoyed reading that article!!

[jdc]

In the small city that I live in, PS3s are literally everywhere....but no-one's coughing up the bux for them. Ditto for 360's. Wii's, on the other hand, are in such short supply that the local game shop, knowing how badly I wanted one, offered to hold a Wii for me for an entire week until I could get there. Needless to say, I have no shortage of local gamers coming over to spend time on mine until they find one.

[Damaniel]

At the local Fry's, I saw about 2 dozen PS3s stacked in a pile, more than I've ever seen there before (they would sell relatively briskly even a month ago), not to mention at least a hundred XBox 360s. At least in my area, PS3 shortages are not a problem. I've still never seen an in-stock Wii at any local store, though.

The true PS3 shortage is in games. Yes, the system has only been out for 3 months or so, but 4 or 5 retail releases since launch isn't all that many. :(

[s1lence]

Eh? What stores are saying they need PS3's ?

Reminds me of a recent Penny Arcade comic.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/02/10


I want to know what Tretton is smoking because he should share.

[jajaja]

Eh? What stores are saying they need PS3's ?

Reminds me of a recent Penny Arcade comic.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/02/10

One thing that catches my eye in this comic strip is that in each store they go to they have like 1-3 PS3 left. What happend to "floating over" over PS3s? 1 console left is floating over? O_o

[heybtbm]

What happend to "floating over" over PS3s?

That would be EVERY store in Madison, WI.

[RPG_Fanatic]

I know most people say PS3 sucks-ass but i'm glad i got mine at launch before they take out the "Emotion Engine" like in the UK version. Maybe they already have taken it out for the US versions comming over here now. Never know.:? *_*

[DigitalSpace]

And just a few days after Phil Harrison stated that rumble was a "last-gen feature." LOL

[jajaja]

That would be EVERY store in Madison, WI.

How many units in each store?

[Griking]

Apparantly Sony decided that the best way to resolve their phantom shortage problems is by cutting out backwards compatibility via hardware in it's European (and maybe other) models. :confused:

Link (http://apnews.excite.com/article/20070228/D8NIQTMG3.html)

[FantasiaWHT]

"Asked about widespread reports on video game Web sites that stacks of unsold PlayStation 3s are a common sight in many electronics shops, Tretton told Reuters in an interview that the console was still out of stock in some areas three months after its November launch."

Probably because those areas stopped reordering them, so they aren't for sale in any stores, heh

[Technosis]

In my area Wii's are in big demand/short supply...PS3's are pretty much unwanted

[s1lence]

At my local BB today there was 8 PS3's sitting on the shelf. At my local Target there was 6 behind the glass (more in the back, I asked them). My local gamecrazy even had 4 of them, which for them to have new systems isn't typical.

[Iron Draggon]

"Our goal is to fill shelves across the United States. Our goal is not to have empty shelves, it's to have full shelves. If we have empty shelves, that's one less consumer who could have bought a PlayStation 3," Tretton said.

and one less consumer who might be able to find a Wii on the shelf in that shelf space... which is the real reason why they want those shelves full of their expensive PS3's, just gathering dust... occupied shelf space can't be filled with competing products... hog more shelf space for your own products and consequently you leave less shelf space for your competitor's products... that's what marketing at the retail level is all about... occupying shelf space

[Tron 2.0]

In my area Wii's are in big demand/short supply...PS3's are pretty much unwanted

Same here was well i guess sony are liveing in a fantasy.

Since they think there system is in demand still.

Please that, would happen untile they get more games and give a price drop.

[Anthony1]

The PS3's aren't selling very well at all, it's definitely a harsh reality for Sony. On the bright side, is the fact that a few huge game releases can change all that very quickly. Motorstorm, Lair and Heavenly Sword will help sell some PS3's. I'm sure VF5 has helped sell some PS3's. They just need some compelling games that aren't available on other systems, even if it's only for a few months (VF5).

[petewhitley]

I know people think I'm some Sony apologist, but for once I'd like to see some hard data that says the PS3 isn't selling well UNIVERSALLY. No more anectdotal evidence; which isn't really evidence at all. I'm sure in Peoria, Wisconsin you have a shitload of PS3s at WalMart. Good for you. I want to know nationwide if they have a shortage or not. Your small-town story (or stories) doesn't really mean shit in terms of nationwide sales. Don't flame; bring facts.

[s1lence]

I know people think I'm some Sony apologist, but for once I'd like to see some hard data that says the PS3 isn't selling well UNIVERSALLY. No more anectdotal evidence; which isn't really evidence at all. I'm sure in Peoria, Wisconsin you have a shitload of PS3s at WalMart. Good for you. I want to know nationwide if they have a shortage or not. Your small-town story (or stories) doesn't really mean shit in terms of nationwide sales. Don't flame; bring facts.

Well show me where they have TRUE sales numbers on systems, NOT systems sold to stores, which is what is published in all the reports. (As well as what Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo base their sales on)

[petewhitley]

Well show me where they have TRUE sales numbers on systems, NOT systems sold to stores, which is what is published in all the reports. (As well as what Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo base their sales on)

That wasn't my question.

[Griking]

I know people think I'm some Sony apologist, but for once I'd like to see some hard data that says the PS3 isn't selling well UNIVERSALLY. No more anectdotal evidence; which isn't really evidence at all. I'm sure in Peoria, Wisconsin you have a shitload of PS3s at WalMart. Good for you. I want to know nationwide if they have a shortage or not. Your small-town story (or stories) doesn't really mean shit in terms of nationwide sales. Don't flame; bring facts.


Please Petewhitley, stop asking everyone else to supply numbers. Why don't YOU provide us some numbers (with SOURCES) that shows us how well the PS3 (or PSP) is selling.

You MUST have some inside information that the rest of us don't; you're the only one who seems to think that Sony is thrilled with their sales.

[petewhitley]

Please Petewhitley, stop asking everyone else to supply numbers. Why don't YOU provide us some numbers (with SOURCES) that shows us how well the PS3 (or PSP) is selling.

You MUST have some inside information that the rest of us don't; you're the only one who seems to think that Sony is thrilled with their sales.

For PSP I did (look up the "DS vs. PSP" thread). For the PS3, I have no idea. I'm just wondering, because all I see here is a bunch of naysayers who say it's completely floundering, despite the fact that MY LOCAL WALMART IS SOLD OUT (but honestly it doesn't matter, because it's just one store, and doesn't represent the whole country).

And apparently a bunch of people have some vested interest in seeing Sony die, because I suppose they haven't given us any good games or anything (... cough ... God of War, Socom, Gran Turismo, etc. etc. ...). It's just asine to me that purported gaming fans are so excited to see a gaming company "lose". Irregardless if any facts back it up or not.

It's not a goddamn competition (for the fans at least; and if you don't agree with that, you need to really re-evaluate your priorities as a gamer. Seriously.).

And time after time, what we've seen the past several years is that Sony has driven the industry, yet Microsoft AND Nintendo have still been able to give us the goods.

If Sony is dying, it's a BIG FUCKING DEAL for the industry, and something we should all be concerned about, because they've been selling folks on gaming for a long time. If Microsoft or Nintendo steps up to take their place, AMEN. But in the mean time, we better watch and not try bury the very same people who brought us to where we are today.

[heybtbm]

No more anectdotal evidence; which isn't really evidence at all. I'm sure in Peoria, Wisconsin you have a shitload of PS3s at WalMart. Good for you. I want to know nationwide if they have a shortage or not. Your small-town story (or stories) doesn't really mean shit in terms of nationwide sales.

?

I wouldn't exactly call Madison, WI and it's surrounding cities as a "small town". Also, you can dismiss everything as anecdotal evidence depending on your bias.

[petewhitley]

?

I wouldn't exactly call Madison, WI and it's surrounding cities as a "small town". Also, you can dismiss everything as anecdotal evidence depending on your bias.


Good. I dismiss EVERYTHING as anectdotal. That's my whole point. Let's see the facts.

[heybtbm]

If Sony is dying, it's a BIG FUCKING DEAL for the industry, and something we should all be concerned about, because they've been selling folks on gaming for a long time.

So what if Sony takes it on the chin this generation? They're not going anywhere. Obviously competition is a good thing for all of us, but Sony isn't going to "die". They just need a reality check (and price drop).

Their main problem (and the reason I started this thread) is that they still don't seem to understand that the average person doesn't want to drop $600+ for a game console.

However...I'll agree that this arguement is getting tired. I'll be buying a PS3 soon enough, as will most nay-sayers on this board. I mainly thought the article was hilarious and needed to be shared with the DP audience.

[cyberfluxor]

I'm going to be dropping $400 next week... on my computer. :)

In my area of around 1.5 million people PS3s are everywhere, same with those Xobx 360s. Wiis on the other hand are freaking impossible to find, anywhere! I can go to a pawn shop and find a stack of PSPs by the dozen. Every few weeks DSs will be in stock but the dissapear fast and don't last on 2nd hand stores shelves for long. It does look grim in my area for Sony, Microsoft though has the supply but have sold a ton of units too, a lot of people at my school have one. Wiis though, they need to ship more, people just can't get enough.

[kaedesdisciple]

I know most people say PS3 sucks-ass but i'm glad i got mine at launch before they take out the "Emotion Engine" like in the UK version. Maybe they already have taken it out for the US versions comming over here now. Never know.:? *_*

No no no, you're spinning it all wrong. What they've done is, um, made the PS3 more, uh, energy efficient, yea that's it. They're concerned about global warming and decided to make their console consume less energy. It's not a removal, it's a feature, they're doing it for all of us. Sony loves us :)

[jajaja]

About BC:

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=23148

Over 1000 PS2 titles, isnt that basicly every PS2 game that got released in Europe?

[heybtbm]

About BC:

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=23148

Over 1000 PS2 titles, isnt that basicly every PS2 game that got released in Europe?

According to the same article only 10% of PS2 games will play. Not sure where they're getting these numbers. My guess is the "1000" games that will work will be a mixture of PS + PS2 titles.

[jajaja]

I cant see anything where it mentions 10%, where does it say?

[p_b]

I cant see anything where it mentions 10%, where does it say?

On Usenet, someone mentioned about 8500 PS2 titles released worldwide, which would mean we're talking about a 12% range. Apparently, about 2500 PS2 were released in Europe (no idea if that's true...), so we're still under 50%. What probably bothers most people is that they're getting something like less than 50%-12% compatibility (depending on your point of view) for more money than the rest of the world...

[jajaja]

On Usenet, someone mentioned about 8500 PS2 titles released worldwide, which would mean we're talking about a 12% range. Apparently, about 2500 PS2 were released in Europe (no idea if that's true...), so we're still under 50%. What probably bothers most people is that they're getting something like less than 50%-12% compatibility (depending on your point of view) for more money than the rest of the world...

Ye, i was thinking about that actually, but since they talk about the PAL launch in this article it wouldnt make sense to make support for US and japanese games for a PAL console since the PS2 part aint region free. 2500 PS2 games in Europe sounds like ALOT, almost too much, but dunno if its true or not.

[XYXZYZ]

"Our goal is to fill shelves across the United States. Our goal is not to have empty shelves, it's to have full shelves..."

http://thedefeatists.typepad.com/apoplectic/images/asshole_1.jpg

[heybtbm]

I cant see anything where it mentions 10%, where does it say?

It's a few paragraphs down:

http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/10080/532/

[FantasiaWHT]

I know people think I'm some Sony apologist, but for once I'd like to see some hard data that says the PS3 isn't selling well UNIVERSALLY. No more anectdotal evidence; which isn't really evidence at all. I'm sure in Peoria, Wisconsin you have a shitload of PS3s at WalMart. Good for you. I want to know nationwide if they have a shortage or not. Your small-town story (or stories) doesn't really mean shit in terms of nationwide sales. Don't flame; bring facts.

The problem, pete, is that the amount of anecdotal evidence creates a strong presumption in favor of lackluster PS3 demand & sales.

If you want to rebut that presumption, YOU are the one who needs to provide some numbers.

[jajaja]

It's a few paragraphs down:

http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/10080/532/

Ah.. i thought you ment the article that i linked to, hence the "same article". I think there is over 8000 PS2 games so thats about 10% ye (alittle more), but there isnt that many PAL PS2 games so its logical that they dont make support for these since, as i mentioned, the PS3 aint region free. Less than 3 weeks until it get released here, the list will be avalible then :)

[7th lutz]

I am hoping sony isn't shipping more ps 3's at the kmart my brother works at. The kmart he works at, is in the Milwaukee area and the store is close to a freeway exit. Milwaukee county is not a small area in population for the Midwest area in the united states. If you count the city of Milwaukee and the areas under Milwaukee county like West Allis, brookfield and others I didn't mention have a population over 630,000 people combined. That is alot of people in a county in the Midwest outside of Detroit and chicago.

At the store my brother works at, Ps 3's aren't selling well. There was only 1 ps 3 sold last month, and that was to an employee! In the meantime, there is a high demand for the wii at the store he works at. The Kmart my brother isn't able to meet the customers demand for the wii. The Ds is also selling better the psp is at that store.

What is happening is sony is inflating their ps 3 system shipping numbers numbers when sony increasing their amount of product for making ps 3 systems. They may report those numbers are sold, are really shipped to stores that don't need more ps 3 systems. Sony will have alot of ps3's shipped, but there will be too many ps 3 systems on store shelves or in the store's back room. If sony ships way too many ps 3 systems without the demand for a ps 3, like it appears now, sony could cause a crash or sony's video game division will not exist anymore.

I am saying that a crash could happen due to the fact 2 of the first signs of the video game crash of 1983-1984 was pac-man for the 2600 and E.T for the 2600. Pac-man sold about 7 million copies, but atari shipped around 12 to 15 million copies of the game depending on the source. If sony ships way too many ps 3's, a store will have to cutdown the price from $599.99 to $300.00 for a system due to the fact the store or the wherehouse the ps 3's are being stored will be taking up to much space. A store is capable of lower a price for a ps3 if that is the store could not sell the systems otherwise and no store from that retail has the need for the extra ps3 systems a store has.

[jajaja]

I am hoping sony isn't shipping more ps 3's at the kmart my brother works at.

I would say its more of a question that the store wont take in more units before the others are sold, not just Sony who ships them out. Dont think any stores will take in much more PS3 if they already got the stock full and they are selling at a slow rate.

EDIT: Fixed typo.

[chrisbid]

sony wont go out of business, the worst case scenario is the playstation brand being sold off or spun off into its own company.

their business model requires them to have the biggest piece of market share, and that simply wont happen. in the history of gaming, the only console to dig out of a hole and improve its sales status was the SNES, and that was only toward the end of the 16 bit generation.

[The Plucky Little Ninja]

Don't count Sony out yet. They're certainly taking their hits.. and I'm enjoying every minute of it, but the one factor that's going to decide this generation's winner will be exclusive games and it's looking like there will be less and less of those every year. The loss of MGS 4 could put Sony in serious trouble.

I might as well clarify the reason I'm enjoying hearing all this badmouthing of the PS3. The price is insane. Well, simply don't buy it one might say. Except that if it takes off and does extremely well we're going to have to deal with this for every console gen to come. The way I see it I have a vested interest in seeing the PS3 crash and burn so these companies see what a crap marketing strategy this is. And even if the PS3 does fail it's not going to affect Sony all that much. It took Sega at least 4 failing consoles/add ons before they called it quits.

[petewhitley]

The problem, pete, is that the amount of anecdotal evidence creates a strong presumption in favor of lackluster PS3 demand & sales.

If you want to rebut that presumption, YOU are the one who needs to provide some numbers.

That is laughable. You can't be serious ...

[Mattiekrome]

And apparently a bunch of people have some vested interest in seeing Sony die, because I suppose they haven't given us any good games or anything (... cough ... God of War, Socom, Gran Turismo, etc. etc. ...). It's just asine to me that purported gaming fans are so excited to see a gaming company "lose". Irregardless if any facts back it up or not.

I would love to see them struggle, serves them right for not replacing the laser in my PS2 back when it went all DISK READ ERROR on me many years ago. But the games that they produce are pretty good, I'll give ya that

[whoisKeel]

...

And apparently a bunch of people have some vested interest in seeing Sony die, because I suppose they haven't given us any good games or anything (... cough ... God of War, Socom, Gran Turismo, etc. etc. ...). It's just asine to me that purported gaming fans are so excited to see a gaming company "lose". Irregardless if any facts back it up or not.

It's not a goddamn competition (for the fans at least; and if you don't agree with that, you need to really re-evaluate your priorities as a gamer. Seriously.).

And time after time, what we've seen the past several years is that Sony has driven the industry, yet Microsoft AND Nintendo have still been able to give us the goods.

If Sony is dying, it's a BIG FUCKING DEAL for the industry, and something we should all be concerned about, because they've been selling folks on gaming for a long time. If Microsoft or Nintendo steps up to take their place, AMEN. But in the mean time, we better watch and not try bury the very same people who brought us to where we are today.

Great! I'm all for Sony selling me on gaming. It's when they start pushing Blu-Ray on me that I get upset...and no doubt (no evidence either) that has ALOT to do with the insane pricing.

And, yes, AS A GAMER I'd like to see Sony take a hit. I want 2D games on my console. I want reasonable pricing, innovation, new controllers, rumble, good online play, Virtual Console/Live/etc. downloads, and pretty consoles.

Maybe I'm just partial, but I never really thought that Sony put out a great piece of gaming hardware. Excellent marketing, and awesome third party support, but mediocre and generic hardware. Hell, I hope Sony proves me wrong, that would impress the gamer in me.

[FantasiaWHT]

That is laughable. You can't be serious ...

Dead serious. I have enough evidence to create a presumption on my side. Is it certain proof? No. It's enough that I will believe it until I see evidence to the contrary. If I saw evidence to the contrary, I would change my mind.

You need to realize that just because something is only supported by anecdotal evidence doesn't mean it's wrong. It's very similar to the idea of correlation vs. causality. You create a strong enough, reproducible enough, clear enough correlation and it becomes accepted as truth unless disproven.

Smoking and lung cancer is a great example. There is only a correlation between the two (nobody has ever done the sort of experimentation on people necessary to prove causation), but the link is accepted scientific canon. Same thing with anecdotal evidence- if there is enough of it, it becomes accepted truth until proven otherwise.

[petewhitley]

You need to realize that just because something is only supported by anecdotal evidence doesn't mean it's wrong. It's very similar to the idea of correlation vs. causality. You create a strong enough, reproducible enough, clear enough correlation and it becomes accepted as truth unless disproven.

Smoking and lung cancer is a great example. There is only a correlation between the two (nobody has ever done the sort of experimentation on people necessary to prove causation), but the link is accepted scientific canon. Same thing with anecdotal evidence- if there is enough of it, it becomes accepted truth until proven otherwise.

I don't know where you obtained your views on the scientific method (and in particular, the role anecdotal evidence plays), but you're waaaaaay off-base (for the record, I have a minor in statistics). Anecdotal evidence NEVER becomes "accepted truth until proven otherwise" in this day and age. YOU personally may choose to believe anecdotal evidence as "the truth", but no-one with even a passing interest in modern science would "accept" such a notion. That's such a backwards, backwoods idea I wouldn't even know where to begin to correct you, other than to say you need a refresher course in the very basics of the scientific method.


The problem, pete, is that the amount of anecdotal evidence creates a strong presumption in favor of lackluster PS3 demand & sales.

If you want to rebut that presumption, YOU are the one who needs to provide some numbers.

While there doesn't exist ANY hard data on how many PS3s are sitting on store shelves, there is hard data showing that Sony has shipped and continues to ship an impressive number of PS3s to North American retailers. Since your claim is contradictory to the established data, YOUR PRESUMPTION of lackluster PS3 demand & sales places the burden of truth solely on the claimant. Simple as that.

[scorch56]

To the people speaking of stores lowering prices on PS3s.. it isn't going to happen. Sony consoles are fair trade items and they have been since the beginning. No single store can lower the price of a fair trade item (Levi jeans used to be fair trade until the 80's.. they cost the same everywhere until then.. NEVER went on sale.). Prices on the PS3 won't be lowered until Sony issues an edict and gives their permission and that's not going to happen anytime soon. The way their corporate mentality works they'd rather eat their own words and keep making hardware that nobody is buying than admit.. not necessarily "defeat".. but that the way they are going is wrong.

Having said that.. stores ARE allowed to bundle extra items (as in more games or accessories) and sell THAT at a discounted price as long as they DON'T go below the price of the base unit itself. So many might end up going that route soon (some already are). Believe me.. no one would like to see a price drop more than me.. but I'm not holding my breath. If a "rogue" store decides to simply lower the price and sell what they've got, reprisals would come from Sony in the form of not allowing them to sell their product anymore. Hmmm.. this would be maybe a way out for some smaller retail units but I doubt any would take the risk.. besides.. they can always simply stop ordering them.

[Griking]

While there doesn't exist ANY hard data on how many PS3s are sitting on store shelves, there is hard data showing that Sony has shipped and continues to ship an impressive number of PS3s to North American retailers.

Yeah but Pete, nobody cares how many PS3 units Sony has shipped, especially if most of them are still sitting on store shelves. The only number that really matters is how many consumers are buying a PS3

[c0ldb33r]

Same here - PS3's on shelves, but no Wiis.

It all comes down to price. Sony will decrease their price eventually. It happens with every generation, which is why a PS2 costs less than now than it did initially. Down the road a bit, there will be a price drop, and when there is, I'll consider getting one.

If there's a price drop when Final Fantasy XIII hits, then it's a no-brainer :D

[petewhitley]

Yeah but Pete, nobody cares how many PS3 units Sony has shipped, especially if most of them are still sitting on store shelves. The only number that really matters is how many consumers are buying a PS3

I realize that, but my point is that no one has any hard data on how many PS3s are actually sitting on store shelves. The ONLY hard data we have is on shipment numbers, and any evaluations have to come out of those numbers, not what Joe Blow saw at Target last weekend. No matter what your preference is, almost everyone should be able to agree that there is currently a bias against Sony on this board. So what we end up hearing are all these crazy stories about how their local store has 23 PS3s stacked up for sale. Well honest-to-buddha, my local WalMart has been sold out continuously since launch. It means jack in terms of national sales, but I say it to illustrate that we all have different experiences in terms of finding the PS3 on store shelves. We hear from the naysayers FAR more than anyone else; these guys have some crazy holier-than-thou chip on their shoulders. The pathetic thing about it is most of them are young punks who weren't even around for the NES years ...

[Mattiekrome]

But apparently there are a good # of PS3's sitting on shelves, based on the penny arcade comic that S1lence posted earlier. Isn't it ironic that another gaming website totally seperate from DP is making the same inference as most people in this thread?

Granted there are no hard #'s to back up anyone's argument here, but it seems that the "general population" as a whole seems to think the PS3 isn't selling as good as Sony had hoped.

[jajaja]

* High price of system ($500-600). This is the big reason IMO. Looking back, there have been several 'high-end' gaming systems that failed to sell in large numbers (CD32, CD-I, 3DO, Neo Geo...), and price was the biggest contributing factor with all of them. Sony decided to ignore history, and now they're realizing what a costly mistake it was.

I agree that the price has much to do with slow sale of PS3, but the other system you mention, there is much more to it than the price that made them "fail". Before there were much more competition. Other things are lack of really popular exlucive titles, price of the games (atleast Neo Geo games, insane high), they didnt have any successors, they were "unknown". Everone knows Sony and Playstation. Today gaming is also alot bigger than back then, probly mostly because of the internet. Today there is also less competition, only 3 big companies on the console marked.

Also, about the price on those systems. Here is what they cost and how much money it is today:

3do = $699.95 (~$950)
CD32 = $399.99 (~$540)
CD-I = about $700 (~$1000)
Neo Geo = $649.99 (~$970)

So only the CD32 had about the same price as PS3 got.

[jajaja]

Sure you can. It wouldnt be correct to say i.e "Neo Geo was just the same price as PS3" because you must consider the value of the money back then compared to todays value if you want compare prices. I'm just showing what the price for those consoles was compared to todays money value because you mentioned that they failed because of the high price (well, a factor atleast). They were much more expencive than the PS3, except CD32, but that was unfortunatly discontunied about a year later due to Commodore's bankruptcy. Btw, those 4 systems are from the 90s (Neo Geo being the oldest from 1990) ;)

The prices are set where i live. Cheapest i've seen is PS3 + Call of Duty 3 for about $975. The games are about $97 each. Still there seem to be big interest for it. Only 3 more weeks and we will see how things go in Europe. Looking forward to it :)

[mailman187666]

I say for the games that the PS3 has available for it as of right now (not a whole lot), the high price point, and the negetive press that its getting, it seems to be selling quite well. When Virtua Fighter 5 came out a couple weeks ago, I actually had to go to a couple stores just to find the last remaining copy at an EB. Every time I go into some of those stores, I also see people looking through the PS3 section. I think there is bigger demand than what the analists and press would say. I personally have a demand for it and look foward to seeing whats next to come for the PS3. It is fun and has lots of great features to it. I think a lot of the reasoning behind the bashing on PS3 has to do with kids who don't make enough money (or even have jobs) to afford a $600 system and they have parents that tell them to get lost when they ask for it for x-mas or birthdays. So by saying how bad it sucks, this helps make the kid accept the fact they will not be getting a PS3. I'm not saying its the case with anybody in these message boards, but you've got to admit that has something to do with it.

[exit]

We've had the same PS3 sitting in the back room for about a month now, there were 3 but apparently someone from inside the store managed to steal two them.

I just think that nobody really wants a PS3, sure they'd like to have it, people just don't want to throw down that kind of money.

[FantasiaWHT]

Sure you can. It wouldnt be correct to say i.e "Neo Geo was just the same price as PS3" because you must consider the value of the money back then compared to todays value if you want compare prices.

While your general assertion is correct, it's a bit disingenuous to try and give exact numbers, because inflation is an average, taken from all sectors of the economy. While I don't have exact numbers as to the rate of inflation in consumer electronics compared to the average rate of inflation, it's misleading to simply apply the average inflation rate and say it shows that those video game systems were actually much more expensive than PS3.

In fact, I would argue that there's some evidence video games in particular have not increased in price over the long term- First, video games follow 5-year cycles of DECREASING in price- both the average price of the system (price cuts) and games (greatest hits and more budget titles at the end of the system's life). Second, even over the longer term, the average price of consoles at launch has only increased slowly (before the recent generation)

Of course, none of this disputes the argument that you can't flat out claim that a $500 system then is the same price as a $500 system now, but can't flat out claim what the price difference is based on average inflation.

[petewhitley]

The PSP has all but gone down in flames (The UMD side of it certainly has) - shame, b/c it's a cool little system, but a lot of cool systems have died horribly quick deaths...

So if Sony has any desire to try and stop the PS3 bleeding, they need to act FAST.

Jesus, this stuff never stops. First, go over to the "DS vs. PSP" thread, and read up on some of the facts and cold, hard data regarding the worldwide success, yes, SUCCESS, of the PSP. (One more time, this is not opinion, all available data supports this. Except of course goofball forum posts that buy into the Cult-of-Nintendo hype machine.)

Secondly, "So if Sony has any desire to try and stop the PS3 bleeding, they need to act FAST" ... WTF? I'm pretty sure that's just a knee-jerk reaction, because you can't honestly be that short-sighted in regards to the gaming market. Can you?

[jajaja]

Of course, none of this disputes the argument that you can't flat out claim that a $500 system then is the same price as a $500 system now, but can't flat out claim what the price difference is based on average inflation.

Well.. its hard to know the exact value, thats why i used ~, which means aprox. I used a calculator i found online for it. I just wanted to show if you were going to buy a CD-I with todays money back in 1991 you had to use about $1000. Im not sure what you mean with the last thing you said, can you explain it more/different?

[jajaja]

My point is, none of the systems I listed would have sold today for the prices you listed. But let's apply your formula in reverse. Would a PS3 sell for half as much back then? No. With respect to console prices, you can't really do that kind of comparison. As long as there's competition in the marketplace, companies will continue to launch systems in a fixed price range, which means 10 years from now console prices will likely be very close to what they are now.

Why cant you compare it like that? About how well the PS3 had done it 15 years ago is impossible to say. If the PS3 was $350 or something (equal to todays value) 15 years ago and was a top notch system + had alot of damn great games, im sure it would sell pretty well.

[petewhitley]

@petewhitley
There's nothing 'short-sighted' about it. The video game market is a fairly predictable beast by now, and history has shown the PS3 is too damn expensive to succeed, so unless Sony decides to make some hard decisions on how to change course (ex. dropping the price or making a cheaper version of the console), they're going to lose a large chunk of the market to Nintendo and MS. No company makes a profit selling systems, but how much $ is Sony losing per system now... with a $600 system? They've made some rather terrible business moves in the past few years with other products, but I think this time their own hubris has finally caught up to them with the PS3.

As for the PSP, I stick by my comments. All I've been hearing and reading about the past few months has been DS DS DS. The UMD side of the PSP is definitely dead! You want facts? A friend of mine works for Digital Deluxe (the office in Moosic, PA to be exact) - a company that was making UMD-format movies. I say "was" because they dropped support of the format last year due to low sales (i.e. no money in it). And wasn't the fact that the PSP could play movies a major selling point? They offered a handful of movies at launch, so I would tend to think 'yes'.

I don't think you're sticking by your comments at all. You're backtracking from your original comments, in which you claimed the PSP has "gone down in flames". UMD is dead, but the PSP isn't. No one is disputing that fact. You also claimed that Sony needs to stop the PS3 "bleeding ... FAST", as if several months into a console launch means anything long-term. Now you're saying they're going to lose a "large chunk of the market". Which is it? Those are both dramatically different statements, with very different long-term consequences for the industry.

And finally, it's asinine to call me a "diehard Sony fan". I grew up in the age of Atari, Intellivision, and Coleco. The NES raised me after that. I've owned just about every system, and enjoy them all. I'm a fan of "gaming", not companies, and it's ass-backwards for you guys to get excited at the thought of a prominent gaming company failing in the marketplace. I've said this before: it ain't a goddamn competition if you're a real fan of the hobby. It is if you're trying to be some forum cool-guy I suppose ...

[petewhitley]

And wasn't the fact that the PSP could play movies a major selling point? They offered a handful of movies at launch, so I would tend to think 'yes'.

This argument is particularly ridiculous. The PSP still supports video via Memory Stick. Regardless, the sales of the PSP have INCREASED since launch, so whether or not Sony felt UMD movies were a selling point is irrelevant, as consumers are obviously in a post-UMD world purchasing the PSP mainly for gaming. A particular feature being under-utilized means nothing in terms of whether a product is successful or not when that feature was obviously not that important to the grand majority of said product's consumers.

[Griking]

Also, about the price on those systems. Here is what they cost and how much money it is today:

3do = $699.95 (~$950)
CD32 = $399.99 (~$540)
CD-I = about $700 (~$1000)
Neo Geo = $649.99 (~$970)



I'm not saying that I doubt you but what do you base these numbers on?

also, didn't the Atari 2600 debut at $200-$250, the same price as the Wii?

[FantasiaWHT]

Well.. its hard to know the exact value, thats why i used ~, which means aprox. I used a calculator i found online for it. I just wanted to show if you were going to buy a CD-I with todays money back in 1991 you had to use about $1000. Im not sure what you mean with the last thing you said, can you explain it more/different?

Well, your calculations use an inflation rate of around 40% since those systems came out (I realize they didn't all come out at the same time). Inflation isn't even across all sectors of the economy though. Some sectors might grow at a rate of 80% over that time, some might have only grown at 5%.

All this means is that while you can reliable say "The 3DO that cost $700 way back when would cost more in today's dollars," it's misleading to say "Based on the average rate of inflation, that same 3DO is worth $1,000 in today's dollars".

You would need to do some serious research and determine the rate of consumer electronics inflation for each year since a system's release. Or even a more narrow sample (video games) if that would be possible.

[jajaja]

Well, your calculations use an inflation rate of around 40% since those systems came out (I realize they didn't all come out at the same time). Inflation isn't even across all sectors of the economy though. Some sectors might grow at a rate of 80% over that time, some might have only grown at 5%.

All this means is that while you can reliable say "The 3DO that cost $700 way back when would cost more in today's dollars," it's misleading to say "Based on the average rate of inflation, that same 3DO is worth $1,000 in today's dollars".

You would need to do some serious research and determine the rate of consumer electronics inflation for each year since a system's release. Or even a more narrow sample (video games) if that would be possible.

No, because the value of the money is the same. I'm talking if you want to exchange todays money with the money 15 years ago. Back in 1990 $700 was worth the same as $1000 today. That will still be the same no matter what.

I know what you're saying tho. You say that there might be other factors to what a console would cost today compared to back then, which is true. Im not saying that a CD-i would cost $1000 today if it was released today, but if you had to work 150 hours to make $1000 in 1990 you would only have to work 100 hours today to make the same amount if you know what im saying. I'm just talking about the value of the money, nothing else.

[Berserker]

The PS3's aren't selling very well at all, it's definitely a harsh reality for Sony. On the bright side, is the fact that a few huge game releases can change all that very quickly.

It would appear to be a reality Sony is not yet ready to face, judging by these ridiculous press releases coming out lately. It's as if they're saying the sky is green, the sky is green, the sky is green, and hoping for everybody not to walk outside and look up. Motorstorm is an eye-catcher, and I was impressed when I played the demo, but I have my doubts as to how significant an impact its release will really have on bottom-line sales. Sony is going to need a HUGE game to recover from this. Likely several. Will this happen? Only time will tell, but I will say this -- if they believe their own press releases as much as we do, they're probably scrambling to pull out an Ace right this very moment. Madly. And this is what they should be doing.

Also my other wonder is, do we need to supply hard data every time we want to have a compelling discussion? Or must we all be statistical analysts to have a valid opinion? This is nothing but opinion and conjecture based on on-hand facts and personal experience. That doesn't mean it's not worth talking about.

[petewhitley]

Also my other wonder is, do we need to supply hard data every time we want to have a compelling discussion? Or must we all be statistical analysts to have a valid opinion? This is nothing but opinion and conjecture based on on-hand facts and personal experience. That doesn't mean it's not worth talking about.

You don't need hard data to merely discuss gaming. But you do have a responsibility to provide hard data if you're making broad proclamations of sales success/failure, which is unfortunately what quite a few members at DP do when it comes to any system not made by Nintendo or named "Dreamcast".

If someone is going to claim that the PSP is "going down in flames" while NPD research shows that it has since launch been virtually neck-and-neck with the DS in North America, they sure as hell ought to have some reason to make this contradictory claim other than "the Gamestop I work can't give ours away!!1!". It's an insult to our intelligence.

As a working adult, I can afford a variety of gaming systems, and I don't take any joy whatsoever at the thought of one of them dying. A lot of guys around here do. As a life-long gaming fan, I can't understand why these kids are so invested in seeing Sony fail. Sony has brought gaming to the masses with incredible success, and as gamers we should respect that legacy just as much as the legacy of Nintendo. Hot Topic peddles NES t-shirts to hipsters and kids who weren't even alive in '83; apparently it's the "cool" thing to rag on Sony. Pathetic.

[badinsults]

People who use inflation to justify the high cost of the PS3 do not understand economics. Video game consoles typically have a lifespan of 5-6 years, over which period the price of the consoles decrease significantly. So in reality, video game console pricing follows a sawtooth pattern of pricing. Sony has bucked the trend by offering a console that is over $200 more than the typical peak of the sawtooth. On that same token, the price for games has remained almost steady in the past 15 or so years, with only a slight drop in prices in the mid 90s when the advent of cds came about.


So there you go, you see why inflation does not apply to video games.

[jajaja]

People who use inflation to justify the high cost of the PS3 do not understand economics. Video game consoles typically have a lifespan of 5-6 years, over which period the price of the consoles decrease significantly. So in reality, video game console pricing follows a sawtooth pattern of pricing. Sony has bucked the trend by offering a console that is over $200 more than the typical peak of the sawtooth. On that same token, the price for games has remained almost steady in the past 15 or so years, with only a slight drop in prices in the mid 90s when the advent of cds came about.


So there you go, you see why inflation does not apply to video games.

What is there to understand? Point is that you had crazy ass expencive consoles before that were much more expencive than the PS3. PS3 is far from the only console that had high price compared to the competitors. If you had a time machine and had to buy early 90s money, you have to pay more for less. If you want $700 in 1990 money you must pay $1000 of todays money.

Btw, the prices for games have gone down over the years, atleast where i live. The price for PC CD-ROM games is cheaper today. Its about the same pricetag now as it was for 15 years ago, some are even cheaper. And as said, money were worth less before :)

[jajaja]

People who use inflation to justify the high cost of the PS3 do not understand economics. Video game consoles typically have a lifespan of 5-6 years, over which period the price of the consoles decrease significantly. So in reality, video game console pricing follows a sawtooth pattern of pricing. Sony has bucked the trend by offering a console that is over $200 more than the typical peak of the sawtooth. On that same token, the price for games has remained almost steady in the past 15 or so years, with only a slight drop in prices in the mid 90s when the advent of cds came about.


So there you go, you see why inflation does not apply to video games.

What is there to understand? I dont see anyone who have justified the PS3 price, all i've seen is comparing, where and who justified it? Point is that you had crazy ass expencive consoles before that were much more expencive than the PS3. PS3 is far from the only console that had high price compared to the competitors. If you had a time machine and had to buy early 90s money, you have to pay more for less. If you want $700 in 1990 money you must pay $1000 of todays money.

Btw, the prices for games have gone down over the years, atleast where i live. The price for PC CD-ROM games is cheaper today. Its about the same pricetag now as it was for 15 years ago, some are even cheaper. And as said, money were worth less before :)

[Mattiekrome]

PS3's are so mainstream though. You can pick one up at pretty much any of the big box stores. I can never recall a time when I walked into a Wal-Mart or K-Mart and checked out the NEO-GEO games. I'm 28 and have yet to see a NEO-GEO in person, and I've been in my fair share of gaming stores. IMO, I would say that the NEO-GEO had a totally different target audience than the PS3, but then again, times have changed ALOT since then.

Now that I think of it, I remember my old bro-in-law buying a 3DO when they first came out, but hell I cant remember where he got it from. I dont recall seeing any 3DO stuff in Wal-Mart either.

[jajaja]

That game companies don't sell consoles for what they're worth, but rather what the consumer expects. This is *not* the norm how most every other company sells their products (ex. you won't see automotive companies selling cars and trucks for less than it cost to make them, and if they do you better believe they're gonna make it up somewhere else, like with next year's model). Console makers make their $ with software, period. They always have, mainly because technology has a nasty habit of becoming obsolete very quickly (and because the console is worthless without software ;) ). As someone else mentioned, the launch price slowly comes down over time, and this is for a number of reasons:

* Cost of manufacturing the console is reduced due to cheaper parts, or via a redesign (consolidating parts, removing parts/features, etc.)
* Company can afford to lower it due to increases profits from software or other areas of their business
* Increased pressure from competitors (i.e. price war, newer systems being introduced, etc.)

True, but i dont think i get my point out the way i mean it. Take i.e Neo Geo, $649 back in 1990. If you only follow the inflation of the money, that would be the same as nearly $1000 today. Of course, as i said earlier, it wouldnt be possible to sell a console for $1000 today. The market and prices of things changes of course.

My dad bought a calculator in Hong Kong in 1974. The pricetag was $125 :o LOL That was actually very cheap back then compared to the prices back home, today that price is insane. Compared to todays value its almost $500. Selling a calculator today for that price, not gonna happend unless its made of gold. So i know you cant compare the prices today and back then since the market changes.

Therefor, i'm not connecting these prices and saying that the PS3 is cheap, because compared to the competitors, the PS3 price is high, just like Neo Geo's price was high compared to the SNES. I just thought it be fun to see how much the expencive consoles back in the early 90s was compared to todays value :)



PS3's are so mainstream though. You can pick one up at pretty much any of the big box stores. I can never recall a time when I walked into a Wal-Mart or K-Mart and checked out the NEO-GEO games. I'm 28 and have yet to see a NEO-GEO in person, and I've been in my fair share of gaming stores. IMO, I would say that the NEO-GEO had a totally different target audience than the PS3, but then again, times have changed ALOT since then.

Now that I think of it, I remember my old bro-in-law buying a 3DO when they first came out, but hell I cant remember where he got it from. I dont recall seeing any 3DO stuff in Wal-Mart either.

Good point. I also mention something about this, the consoles like Neo Geo and CD-i was pretty much unknown the general crowd, one factor that made them "fail". Today everyone knows the word Playstation, and that alone is enough to sell a fair share of consoles. "Its a Playstation, is has to be good, i'm buying it" :)

[badinsults]

It should be noted that inflation doesn't have anything to do with "value for money". It has everything to do with the cost of prices going up to offset manufacturing costs and turn a profit. The fact is, computers and electonics cost less now than they did 20 years ago without taking into account inflation. You also see this fact in the sawtooth pattern of videogame console prices. You can't compare apples and oranges. You can't compare something like the price of gasoline and the price of a video game console. They are completely different things. Inflation is just a general average of price increases across a wide range of products, but that doesn't tell you anything about how much a video game console should cost.

[jajaja]

It does. When the salary goes up, so does the prices. The pricetag on houses today are much bigger than the pricetag 20 years ago, why is that? Because we make more money. If the prices stayed the same and we just got higher and higher paychecks we would buy stuff like crazy. Therefor the prices must also follow.

There are exceptions of course, like PC games and games in generaly (atleast where i live), but you got to look at the bigger picture. No one have compared apples and oranges either, atleast not what i can see :) About the price on consoles, well.. goes for anything, they take what they can get.

[FantasiaWHT]

I don't know about PC games, but console game prices have definitely gone up :)

Up until the release of X360 a year and some change ago, prices of games definitely decreased. Look at the 16-bit era. RPG's in particular were usually selling for $70-$80, with some as high as $100 (Phantasy Star IV). Then for two generations, nothing except for collector's editions and some N64 games (which further proves the point about newer technology becoming cheaper) sold for more than $50. If you looked at average new game prices, those decreased on the average as well because of reprints and budget titles.

And jajaja, yes, apples and oranges. Inflation is NOT simply "the value of money". It does not increase evenly across the entire economy. It's an average of all sectors, all goods and services. Houses have increased MUCH more rapidly than the rate of inflation. Gold is almost twice as expensive (~$650 / oz the last time I looked) than it was ten years ago (~$350 / oz). Some things increase much more slowly or even decrease. Consumer electronics decrease rapidly in cost (how much did a DVD player cost 8 years ago?). Food increases much slower than the rate of inflation.

So to recap- you CANNOT just apply the rate of inflation to video games (or any product or service) and claim to know how much something from 15 years ago is "worth" in today's money without knowing the actual rate of inflation for at LEAST the appropriate sector of the economy if you can't get any more specific than that.

If you don't understand that, please go take a basic economics course somewhere before you try to make these arguments.

[jajaja]

So to recap- you CANNOT just apply the rate of inflation to video games (or any product or service) and claim to know how much something from 15 years ago is "worth" in today's money without knowing the actual rate of inflation for at LEAST the appropriate sector of the economy if you can't get any more specific than that.

As i said 50 times now hehe, i know all this. I really dont know how this discussion started, all i did was to compare the value from today and back then, leaving every other factor aside. I know that the marked changes and theres alot of factors thats involved when it comes to prices now and back then. Now im just repeating what i've already said several of times.



That's why you can't say a PS3 would have cost half as much back then, anymore than you can say a VCS would have cost twice as much now. Smart companies wouldn't have done that. It would have been financial suicide. You can adjust the prices about $100 - that's it. And that's only b/c people have slowly become more acceptable of paying that much more. But when a company like 3DO has jumped in and doubled that price, it's been disastrous (for them). And that's exactly what Sony is attempting to do now.

Again i can only repeat myself, i know all this, i even said it myself. Taking the increase in income as the only consideration, nothing else, it would mean that you would have to spit out $1000 of todays money to get a CD-i back in 1991. And the comment about the bigger picture was directed to Evan_G's comment, which was a general thing, not just about video games. You can ask yourself why we make more money today than for 20 years ago. Why not just stay at the same rate? But as you said yourself, the coffee example, the reason why 1 cup of coffee is more expencive today is because we make more, so you understood my point there :) And i said there was expections like games so dont miss that comment.

Again, i dont know how this discussion actually started. Either i'm expressing my points badly or people really dont read what i'm saying. It seems that people got so hung up because i compared the price only and totaly ignored the other things i said, but as i mentioned several of times, i know you cant (read people, read). So i think there is no need to contunie this situation. All thats been said, i know that. All i did was to compare the price back then to now, leaving all other factors aside, since i know prices in the marked changes by other factors too. I cant make it clearer than that.

[scorch56]

Eluding to the statement I made earlier in the thread about "fair trade items"..

Today I was in our local Circuit City with my friend. He was along for the ride.. but I was pricing LCD HDTVs and he was over in the games section.

I rounded the corner of an aisle, and almost tripped over two PS3 boxes just setting on the floor stacked. There was a hand-written sign taped to the top of them that said:

"TODAY ONLY SPECIAL!

Buy an HDTV and get a PS3 for a $100 discount!"

Being a little curious.. I walked up to a sales clerk and asked him, "Can you guys do that? Sell a PS3 for $499?"

The kid looked at me and winked and said, "No we can't.. but we CAN take $100 of the price of the HDTV."

.. looks like it's already beginning.

When we got back to my friend's house I told him with amusement what I saw. He replied, "That's nothing.. I saw six boxed PS3s sitting on the shelf over in the games section."

[cyberfluxor]

The reason a cup of coffee is more is due to basic economic inflation on a market place. When it comes to technology, it always falls and the high-end goods usually enter around the same price, unless the company sinks more research and better "current" technology into it. The hardware in your NES is really worth a few bucks tops today, but it's the function that's worth the dollars. Back when it was released that manufacturing, production and research costs reached the few hundred a unit cost.

In addition though, the real reason these game systems are costing too damn much is because they're making them into something they weren't supposed to be for. When you pack all these new options like WiFi, browsers, hard drives, USB ports, ect then of course their cost goes up. Truely for all the junk they've packed into it $600 isn't too bad, but for a general gamer who just wants to play a game it's overdone.

[RPG_Fanatic]

As a working adult i buy all the systems so i don't really care who wins or loses (i like my 360 the best right now though) it seems funny that every one wants Sony to lose because they've been on top for so long. Every one says their so cocky but remember Nintendo was the same way back with the NES and SNES when they were on top, people started to hate Nintendo with their cocky attitude and censorship of games alot of people started chanting SEGA!!! and wanting Sega to win the console war back in the day.

[heybtbm]

Nintendo was the same way back with the NES and SNES when they were on top, people started to hate Nintendo with their cocky attitude and censorship of games alot of people started chanting SEGA!!!

And the result of Nintendo's arrogance was the worst mainstream console in history...the Nintendo 64. You would think Sony would have used this example as a lesson to be learned...

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

Even in the video game business.

[jajaja]

I think it was the price and the selection games that "killed" N64. Games here was like $100 - $150.

[gepeto]

I think it was the price and the selection games that "killed" N64. Games here was like $100 - $150.

It was the format and nintendos unwillingness to lower the royalty fees. That killed the n64.

Sony went for the juggular when the psx was released by If I recalled the royalty fees was like 3.00 per game.

Now that I think about it many companies were destoyed by nintendos fees during the snes it was like 25.00 per game and I believe it was to be paid upfront whether it sold or not. Talk about karma.

[jajaja]

Ye, that might be a big factor too. You know how much it was for each N64 game? $25 for each SNES game? Damn hehe.

[Griking]

Eluding to the statement I made earlier in the thread about "fair trade items"..

Today I was in our local Circuit City with my friend. He was along for the ride.. but I was pricing LCD HDTVs and he was over in the games section.

I rounded the corner of an aisle, and almost tripped over two PS3 boxes just setting on the floor stacked. There was a hand-written sign taped to the top of them that said:

"TODAY ONLY SPECIAL!

Buy an HDTV and get a PS3 for a $100 discount!"

Being a little curious.. I walked up to a sales clerk and asked him, "Can you guys do that? Sell a PS3 for $499?"

The kid looked at me and winked and said, "No we can't.. but we CAN take $100 of the price of the HDTV."

.. looks like it's already beginning.

When we got back to my friend's house I told him with amusement what I saw. He replied, "That's nothing.. I saw six boxed PS3s sitting on the shelf over in the games section."

What exactly is "Fair trade" and how does to relate to Sony and PS3s? A search about "fair trade" on Google talks about fair wages for employees in poor nations and refers to products such as coffee. I know that Sony's stock has taken a beating lately but I don't think that it makes Japan a poor nation.

[petewhitley]

Face it - the DS is kicking the PSP's ass, and both the Wii and 360 are kicking PS3's ass. (And a bunch of other unsubstantiated bullshit, that is completely without anything for evidence save for some message board posts by a couple of dudes in Indiana or somewhere ...)

Whatever man. You can't provide any data to back up what you've said, and I've given you a TON of hard and fast numbers that back up my point. To your credit, you've completely ignored them, refused to bring numbers of your own, and stuck by your initial biased assumptions. You're a true testament to blind devotion (I hear Scientology has some openings, btw). Keep on fighting the good fight chief. Just try to stay out of arguments with anyone who brings factual analysis to the table, and you'll avoid coming off as uneducated and ignorant of the gaming industry, as you've repeatedly done in this thread. Oh yeah, pop back in when you can post some ACTUAL DATA which supports your claim that "the DS is kicking the PSP's ass" (try to keep it relevant to North America, and no, an isolated week of sales in Japan isn't relevant). Don't worry, I won't hold my breath.

[petewhitley]

..."just the facts, ma'am, just the facts...

If lovin' the facts is wrong, I don't wanna be right.

[esquire]

The problem, pete, is that the amount of anecdotal evidence creates a strong presumption in favor of lackluster PS3 demand & sales.

If you want to rebut that presumption, YOU are the one who needs to provide some numbers.

No, not really. Anecdotal "evidence" is merely opinion based upon what the storyteller has seen. For instance, I may go to a local Best Buy and see 12 PS3s sitting there and think to myself, man the PS3 is not selling. What I may not know or not have seen is that they were just delivered and placed on the shelf, which was at the time empty. Furthermore, I will not see them get sold. They could all sell within days of my observation, but I will not know that.

Take another example. I see the same 12 PS3s but no Wiis on the shelf. Does that mean that the Wii is outselling the PS3? Perhaps, but if we do not have hard numbers, we may never know. What if that same Best Buy only received 6 Wii consoles and sold out in hours of their arrival, and 12 PS3s sold out over the course of a few days? Clearly you could not make the same conclusion. Again, anecdotal "evidence" does not prove anything. You are merely drawing conclusions based upon incomplete information.

[esquire]

Great! I'm all for Sony selling me on gaming. It's when they start pushing Blu-Ray on me that I get upset...and no doubt (no evidence either) that has ALOT to do with the insane pricing.

First, I never thought I'd hear people complain about "pushing" advanced technology on a game console. Sheez, I recall when Microsoft released the two 360 versions and people complained about having to upgrade their Core systems (Premiums were in short supply at release) with the hard drive to save content. Why release an inferior version of the same console, they asked. Furthermore there were the people who complained that the 360 should've had HD-DVD built into the system so that it could be implemented for gaming as opposed just as a novelty, i.e. a cheap HD-DVD player. It just goes to show you that you can't please everyone.

As for the insane pricing comment, I will say it again as I have said many times over in all of the other Sony bashing threads - you get more for your money with the 60GB PS3 than buying a Premium 360 and having to upgrade it. The 360 Premium costs $400, plus another $200 for an HD-DVD player that does not run games, and another $100 for an insanely over-priced wireless adapter that should have been included to begin with. Now you have spent $100 more than the PS3 60 GB, and you still don't have HDMI support; you have 40 GB less in HD space; you have no SD/Memory Stick compatibility; you do not have 100% backwards compatibility on prior gen games; and you have to pay for XBOX Live.

Don't get me wrong, I love the 360, but it is no bargain by any means over the PS3.

[Griking]

Whatever man. You can't provide any data to back up what you've said, and I've given you a TON of hard and fast numbers that back up my point.

Yeah, but you really haven't linked to any sources for your data or your claims. the only real documented fact that I've really seen you post lately has been the one about Monster Rancher 2 being #1 selling game in Japan last week. No offense but you're really looked at as the local Sony PR rep and you really need to post sources for your claims if you're going to be taken seriously.

[Griking]

No, not really. Anecdotal "evidence" is merely opinion based upon what the storyteller has seen. For instance, I may go to a local Best Buy and see 12 PS3s sitting there and think to myself, man the PS3 is not selling. What I may not know or not have seen is that they were just delivered and placed on the shelf, which was at the time empty. Furthermore, I will not see them get sold. They could all sell within days of my observation, but I will not know that.

Or you may work in a retail store and know for a fact that the stack of PS3s that you have sitting in back have been there for weeks while at the same time you can't keep a Wii in stock for a full day. I tend to trust my friends who work in retail.


As for the insane pricing comment, I will say it again as I have said many times over in all of the other Sony bashing threads - you get more for your money with the 60GB PS3 than buying a Premium 360 and having to upgrade it.

And if you go to a Sam's Club you'll get more for your money by buying a 10 gallon bucket of mayonnaise over the quart size. The problem is that most people don't need or want to pay for 10 gallons when then only want to make a sandwich. Yeah it's a weird example but I'm in the same boat as many of the others who don't want to have to pay for a Blu-Ray player when I have no interest in watching movies on my console and only want to play video games. Regardless what they're giving us, there's absolutely no value in paying for something that you'll never use.

[jajaja]

And if you go to a Sam's Club you'll get more for your money by buying a 10 gallon bucket of mayonnaise over the quart size. The problem is that most people don't need or want to pay for 10 gallons when then only want to make a sandwich. Yeah it's a weird example but I'm in the same boat as many of the others who don't want to have to pay for a Blu-Ray player when I have no interest in watching movies on my console and only want to play video games. Regardless what they're giving us, there's absolutely no value in paying for something that you'll never use.

Everytime you put in a PS3 game and starts to play you use the Bluray player :) I know many people think only of movies when they hear BR, but its also used for the games. So without it, its impossible to play the games for PS3.

The situation with PS3 isnt really anything difference from any other consoles. Nintendo chose carts for N64, Sega chose GD-ROM for Dreamcast, MS chose DVD-ROM for 360 and Sony chose BR for PS3. Its just a matter of choices. MS chose DVD-ROM because it was cheap and they thought it was enough storage for this generation. Sony chose BR because they wanted something nextgen and a media with more storage.

Of course, it comes for its price, but its because its fairly new. They could have gone for DVD which is old tech and therefor much cheaper, but they wanted something newer instead and they hope that this will be a factor that people want PS3 more. So far its going ok, but how it will work out in the long run, only time knows.

[scorch56]

What exactly is "Fair trade" and how does to relate to Sony and PS3s? A search about "fair trade" on Google talks about fair wages for employees in poor nations and refers to products such as coffee. I know that Sony's stock has taken a beating lately but I don't think that it makes Japan a poor nation.

"Fair trade" is a term that meant something different back in the 70's than it does now (in a more literal sense). Like I said.. when I was growing up "fair trade" items were things like Levi jeans, game consoles (back then) and many high-dollar colognes and perfumes.. some name-brand cookware, etc.

These were items that cost the same no matter where you went.. a K-Mart or a Macy's, a Wal-Mart.. or an Emporium-Capwells or Nordstrom. Take Levis for example.. there was a time when you paid $25 for a pair of Levis.. anywhere.. no matter what store you got them from; they NEVER went on sale.. and if they did.. it was the same price nationwide. Somewhere in the early 80's Levi Strauss lifted that on their clothing and then.. stores were allowed to sell them at whatever price they.. and their profit margin.. could afford (just like 95% of the goods today). Most parfums are still that way today. Consoles are too.

The whole concept of "fair trade" stemmed from the fact that if every seller of a particular item was sold everywhere at the same price (dictated by the manufacturer).. then the "trade" of that item would be "fair" to everyone (et al.. the retailers.. not the public). It works to an extent for dealers.. but of course another added side benefit of this was that a manufacturer could simply fix a price. People either wanted your stuff.. or didn't.. but had to pay the price.

Most of you "young-un's" may not even remember this.. but it was commonly practiced.. especially in every category of goods but usually with top-end high-tier goods (Mercedes as compared to Ford Fiestas) (Bose equipment as compared to Symphonic) (Amana as compared to Lucky Goldstar [at the time.. LG tron is now highly thought of]).

The practice was for the most part dropped in the 80's due to laws passed and the mere fact that it was beginning to work in the opposite direction for most. It's the reason I grew up in Wranglers and JC Penney jeans as opposed to Levis.. no matter how much I asked my mom for them. We weren't the richest people in the world when I was growing up.. but even in the 70's.. in high school.. the label on your jeans meant more than the person inside them.

Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo consoles can still be considered "fair trade" in the sense that when a retailer is considering carrying their items.. they are bound by the manufacturers dictates as to whether they can discount them or not (I'm talking about the consoles themselves.. not games or accessories). It's still practiced in a round about.. legal sort of way. As to how it relates to this discussion.. when people start talking of retail outlets dropping the prices on a console.. it's WHY I explained they can't (until Sony let's them).. and WHY the clerk told me yesterday they COULDN'T discount the PS3.. but COULD knock $100 off the HDTV.

I myself remember at 16 years old walking into a clothing store and asking a clerk, "How come Levis are so expensive?" "They're "fair trade" items.", he replied to me and then went on to explain what it meant. The term has stuck in my mind ever since. You may not find that term even used by Googling (ah.. the younger gen ;)) in that sense anymore because all of this is pretty much forgotten.. but that WAS the term used for what I AM describing LONG before it was used to describe trade practices between nations.

Hope this clears up your confusion. ;)

[FantasiaWHT]

No, not really. Anecdotal "evidence" is merely opinion based upon what the storyteller has seen. For instance, I may go to a local Best Buy and see 12 PS3s sitting there and think to myself, man the PS3 is not selling. What I may not know or not have seen is that they were just delivered and placed on the shelf, which was at the time empty. Furthermore, I will not see them get sold. They could all sell within days of my observation, but I will not know that.


Actually, no. The evidence is the FACT that there were 12 PS3s sitting on that shelf. The evidence is not the OPINION (really, conclusion) drawn from that fact. And you are correct. The fact that there are 12 PS3s sitting on a shelf in one store doesn't prove much of anything. However, the more anecdotal evidence that is received (facts, such as: 10 PS3s at this store, 4 at that, this store hasn't sold a PS3 in two weeks, that store hasn't had a shipment of new PS3s in a month, etc.) the stronger the inference you can draw from those facts.

Do you trust ratings and polls? Those are purely anecdotal. The pollsters haven't asked all 300 million Americans what they think, they have merely asked a representative sample. The more people they ask, and the more scientific of a process is used, the stronger the inference/conclusion that can be drawn from that anecdotal evidence.

The more anecdotal evidence about the PS3 comes in, the closer to a representative sample that evidence becomes and the stronger the opinion that can be rationally drawn from it.

[Nick Goracke]

Not taking into the (in)significance of random gamers finding PlayStation 3 hardware in stock at local stores...

Don't you chuckle a bit hearing that, to some, having product on the shelves, available for gamers to purchase is seen as a sign of weakness?

[FantasiaWHT]

Don't you chuckle a bit hearing that, to some, having product on the shelves, available for gamers to purchase is seen as a sign of weakness?

Only when maker of said product is trying to tell us that there's a shortage. Which was the original point of this post :P

[heybtbm]

Don't you chuckle a bit hearing that, to some, having product on the shelves, available for gamers to purchase is seen as a sign of weakness?

I don't think Sony is chuckling about this at all.

[jajaja]

Not taking into the (in)significance of random gamers finding PlayStation 3 hardware in stock at local stores...

Don't you chuckle a bit hearing that, to some, having product on the shelves, available for gamers to purchase is seen as a sign of weakness?

In the long run it means nothing really. Take football for example. If a team loses the 4-5 first matches it doesnt automaticly mean that this team cant win the serie. Things does change.

And as FantasiaWHT says, its only funny when they say like its damn hard to get and it isnt. Otherwise i dont see why i would laugh at others "missfortune".

[Nick Goracke]

Only when maker of said product is trying to tell us that there's a shortage. Which was the original point of this post :P

Did we read the same story?

April or May is when we feel like we're going to catch up to demand and have product fully in stock across North America and stay there,"

Tretton told Reuters in an interview that the console was still out of stock in some areas three months after its November launch.

"Our goal is to fill shelves across the United States. Our goal is not to have empty shelves, it's to have full shelves.

He didn't say you simply can't find them on shelves, just that it's not fully in stock around the country. What followed (in this thread) was a lot of people misinterpreting the article and others claiming that 'units on shelves' = 'disaster'.

[Hardcore]

Tretton's nuts anyway. Everyone remembers the EGM interview when he said that he would pay anyone $1200 if they brought him evidence of a PS3 in stock in a store. He would have lost all of Sony's profits had he been called on that bluff. It's things like this, Sony's arrogance to the consumer, that will cause me to buy a used PS3 and used PS3 games. Sony won't be seeing my money.

[petewhitley]

:above me:

Don't worry bub, you're not.

*Zing!*

Ouch, I guess in lieu of any factual data to back up your assumptions, "witty" one-liners will have to suffice. You showed me.

[petewhitley]

Do you trust ratings and polls? Those are purely anecdotal. The pollsters haven't asked all 300 million Americans what they think, they have merely asked a representative sample. The more people they ask, and the more scientific of a process is used, the stronger the inference/conclusion that can be drawn from that anecdotal evidence.

Actually no, I don't trust ratings and/or polls. And NOT ONE statistician trusts them as FACT either. You probably think I'm being a smart-ass, but in all seriousness, you really should read some elementary statistical theory. It will do you a wonder of good in a variety of areas throughout your life.

[FantasiaWHT]

Actually no, I don't trust ratings and/or polls. And NOT ONE statistician trusts them as FACT either. You probably think I'm being a smart-ass, but in all seriousness, you really should read some elementary statistical theory. It will do you a wonder of good in a variety of areas throughout your life.

Did I ever claim that it created a fact? No, I claim that they create presumptions. I don't think you are being a smart-ass, but I understand perfectly how statistics work. Just because these kind of statistics don't create fact doesn't mean the conclusions they reach a) are wrong, b) have no usefulness, or c) have no validity.

Like I said, the large amounts of anecdotal evidence of PS3s sitting unsold on store shelves creates a presumption that I will treat as valid and correct until I see factual evidence to the contrary. At the moment, there is none, so the most valid belief is one that is based on the presumption.

Fact is not the only truth.

[Mattiekrome]

Stumbled onto this earlier, and it reminded me of this thread... From these numbers, it looks like the Wii is outselling the PS3 by nearly 2-1.

http://blogs.pcworld.com/gameon/archives/004176.html



The only game system that might give you tennis elbow turns out to also be the one ruling the next-gen roost according to NPD's March sales numbers (http://investing.reuters.co.uk/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=consumerProducts&storyID=2007-04-20T050349Z_01_N4J275939_RTRIDST_0_SP_PAGE_016-N4J275939-OISCP.XML), which show Nintendo's Wii outselling its peers (Xbox 360, Playstation 3) by a healthy 60k-129k margin. NPD March 2007 unit sales:

Hardware
508k Nintendo DS
280k PlayStation 2
259k Nintendo Wii
199k Xbox 360
180k PlayStation Portable
148k Game Boy Advance
130k PlayStation 3
22k GameCube

At $250, Nintendo's the only one actually making money (http://dpad.gotfrag.com/wii/story/35848/) on its hardware out of the gate, dubbing it the most profitable next-gen system as well. Who'd 'a thunk?

Of course NPD's Wii sales expectations were actually 400k, so even Nintendo's trailing a bit, though NPD reports overall industry sales were up 33% to $1.1 billion thanks to strong software performance bolstered by SCE's God of War 2 (http://www.us.playstation.com/GodofWar2/) and Sony's indefatigable 38 million strong Playstation 2. NPD 2007 software sales:

Software
833k God of War 2 (PS2)
394k Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter 2 (Xbox 360)
291k Guitar Hero 2 (Xbox 360)
273k Wii Play (Nintendo Wii)
199k Motorstorm (PS3)
189k Diddy Kong Racing (DS)
165k Spectrobes (DS)
165k Major League Baseball 2007 (Xbox 360)
164k MLB '07: The Show (PS2)
148k Def Jam Icon (Xbox 360)

In fact the real news is almost Sony's venerable PS2, something of a miracle machine at nearly seven years old and still outselling all the next-gen systems (unless we factor in Nintendo's DS Lite, which continues to prove the handheld biz may be the safest bet in video gaming, period).


Also found this on the PC World site... Interesting read...

http://blogs.pcworld.com/gameon/archives/004173.html



Will they or won't they? Price cutting's a spectator sport, to be sure, so speculate all you want, but in the meantime, here's a quick overview of performance data released since the PS3 shipped in November 2006.

11/17/06 - The Sony Playstation 3 launches in North America. It comes in two configurations: Basic ($499) and Premium ($599). IGN estimates (http://ps3.ign.com/articles/746/746482p1.html) Sony is losing $306.85 for each 20GB (Basic) system sold, and $241.35 for every 60GB (Premium) system.

12/18/06 - Sony sells 195,000 units (off from 400,000 projected) in the PS3's first 13 days, according to CNN Money (http://money.cnn.com/2006/12/08/technology/personaltech/ps3sales/index.htm?postversion=2006120810), citing data released from sales tracker NPD Group (http://www.npd.com/).

01/08/07 - Sony claims the PS3 beats the PS2's record (http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=22051) of one million units shipped across North America in the six weeks following its launch.

01/12/07 - Gameindustry.biz cites (http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=22181)January NPD data pegging Sony at only 687,000 PS3's sold of its announced one million units shipped, suggesting that over 300,000 PS3's are in fact sitting on (or moving much more slowly than expected off of) store shelves.

04/11/07 - Sony drops (http://blogs.pcworld.com/gameon/archives/004082.html) its $499 20GB Basic model, claiming it's being outsold by the 60GB Premium version at a 10-to-1 ratio.

04/19/07 - Though Sony CEO Howard Stringer calls the European PS3 launch a success, citing 800,000 sold, UK sales fall 82 percent over the following week. In response, UK retailers drop (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=6978) the PS3's sale price by as much as $74 below suggested retail.

- According to the Washington Post, Sony stands to benefit (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/19/AR2007041900852.html) from cheaper manufacturing costs due to a chip production size shrink.

- The Financial Times reports (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0211e938-ee13-11db-8584-000b5df10621.html) that Ryoji Chubachi, Sony's president, said yesterday: "We are re-examining our [PS3] budgeting process in terms of pricing and volume. Sales assumptions change and the market is competitive. We are in the midst of revisiting our strategy for the PS3." The FT also notes Goldman Sachs analyst Yuji Fujimori is increasing his operating loss forecast for Sony's games division to just over $590 million for Sony's fiscal year, which ends March 2008.

- Next Generation reports (http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5283&Itemid=2) that despite Chubachi's statements, the company "currently doesn't have any specific plan to cut the PlayStation 3's price."

- March 2007 NPD game system sales numbers released:

508k Nintendo DS
280k PlayStation 2
259k Nintendo Wii
199k Xbox 360
180k PlayStation Portable
148k Game Boy Advance
130k PlayStation 3
22k GameCube

Mid-May 2007... Sony releases its fiscal year financial results, along with console shipment figures.

My prediction: Sony won't make its launch estimate of 6 million shipped worldwide by the end of March, and they'll drop the price of their 60GB model by at least $100 in the U.S. in time for the holidays

[FantasiaWHT]

How come UK retailers can drop system prices?

[jajaja]

How come UK retailers can drop system prices?

I think every store can drop the price if they want to. I think they still make some money even with the price reduction or they hope that people will buy more games/controllers/cables to make up for it.

Be completely honest, are anyone suprised that Wii is outselling PS3? Its like Toyota is outselling Ferrari 100 to 1, is it a suprise? If PS3 was price competetive, had like MGS4 or FF13 avalible at launch (like Wii had Zelda) and games wasnt so delayed, the sale numbers would be complete different.

Another thing that suprises me alittle is that Wii and PS3 are so often compared. Like, why arent there any fuzz over that PS2, a near 7 year old console outsold Wii. I wonder when these "PS3 is doomed!" predictions will end. Maybe in a year or 2. We'll see then ;)

[heybtbm]

Since I started this thread, I have bought a PS3. While I hate to give $600 to such an idiotic and delusional company...the gamer in me had to get one of these. I think a lot of the PS3 holdouts will follow suit by the end of the year.

Sony hate aside, facts are facts: the PS3 is one nice machine.

[FantasiaWHT]

I think every store can drop the price if they want to. I think they still make some money even with the price reduction or they hope that people will buy more games/controllers/cables to make up for it.

Every company is "allowed to", but the manufacturers will stop sending you systems (or send you fewer) if you do. Actually, I think I read about a supreme court case challenging this practice in a different industry... now I want to go look that up, haha.



Be completely honest, are anyone suprised that Wii is outselling PS3? Its like Toyota is outselling Ferrari 100 to 1, is it a suprise? If PS3 was price competetive, had like MGS4 or FF13 avalible at launch (like Wii had Zelda) and games wasnt so delayed, the sale numbers would be complete different.


Yeah, but Ferrari doesn't lose money selling each car and make it back by selling a special type of gas that a) only works in Ferraris, and b) is the only type of gas a Ferrari can use.



Another thing that suprises me alittle is that Wii and PS3 are so often compared. Like, why arent there any fuzz over that PS2, a near 7 year old console outsold Wii. I wonder when these "PS3 is doomed!" predictions will end. Maybe in a year or 2. We'll see then ;)

I agree with you there, sorta. Your first two sentences just don't match up - of course Wii and PS3 should be compared! But it is important to note that PS2 is outselling Wii and that isn't being commented on as much.

[jajaja]

Every company is "allowed to", but the manufacturers will stop sending you systems (or send you fewer) if you do. Actually, I think I read about a supreme court case challenging this practice in a different industry... now I want to go look that up, haha.

Actually i have no idea how the deals with the suppliers are, but i assume that the stores can take whatever price they take as long as the buy-in price stays the same.


Yeah, but Ferrari doesn't lose money selling each car and make it back by selling a special type of gas that a) only works in Ferraris, and b) is the only type of gas a Ferrari can use.

True that, but i was mostly thinking about price only :) $600 is still $600 for the consumer even if the manufactorer lose or make money.



I agree with you there, sorta. Your first two sentences just don't match up - of course Wii and PS3 should be compared! But it is important to note that PS2 is outselling Wii and that isn't being commented on as much.

I dont say that the Wii and PS3 shouldnt be compared, but when it comes to console sales its like always those 2 thats being compared. The others, especially 360, are hardly mentioned at all (atleast on forums and after my experience). Its like theres a internal war between Wii and PS3 hehe.

[TheTrench]

Xbox 360 is hardly mentioned because they are so far in front, people want to see who wins between the Wii and the PS3 in the first year... then compare that year to the first year of the Xbox 360.

[jajaja]

Xbox 360 is hardly mentioned because they are so far in front, people want to see who wins between the Wii and the PS3 in the first year... then compare that year to the first year of the Xbox 360.

Ye, that might be a reason why. Wii will win the first year tho. Of course, with all the great games thats going to be released within the first year and a much cheaper price. Not really any competition there, yet.

[Andred]

It's a month-old thread but it looks like others have already dumped some fuel on the smoldering ashes so I'll join the cause.

First, let's get this outta the way. I like Nintendo more than Sony for sentimental reasons. With that said, I'm going to try to be objective about this.

The reason I don't want the PS3 to succeed is because of the examle it sets in the industry. At $600 the PS3 can be considered a bargain when you look at it's features. But a lot of those features have nothing to do with playing games and are, therefore, useless to me. If I don't want to use it for movies/music/jet skiing, I'm better off buying a 360 or, better yet, a Wii. But if the PS3 is as successful as the PS2 then the next generation of consoles will follow the trend of stuffing more worthless (for me) features into the box and making them mandatory.

[jajaja]

At $600 the PS3 can be considered a bargain when you look at it's features. But a lot of those features have nothing to do with playing games and are, therefore, useless to me. If I don't want to use it for movies/music/jet skiing, I'm better off buying a 360 or, better yet, a Wii. But if the PS3 is as successful as the PS2 then the next generation of consoles will follow the trend of stuffing more worthless (for me) features into the box and making them mandatory.

Dont forget as a grill! LOL
What features do you mean?

[Andred]

What features do you mean?

I'm mostly referring to Blue-Ray since that's the major cost factor. I could also do without the capability to display my images or videos and WiFi but since those are most likely insignificant to the cost of the unit I don't have a problem with them.

[Buyatari]

I don't think anyone can say that Sony has the upper hand at this point. I can see people playing devils advocate only so far. You will have a hard time telling people Sony has the lead they did with PS1 or PS2. Sony has to realize this and they MUST be working on the problem. Its very early in the race and I suspect to see some great thiongs down the road.

This is a different era than SNES vs Sega. Its not uncommon for what we might consider a "non-gammer" household to have more than one console. Conversely, its rare to find what we consider a "gamer" without every single console available. So there really is room to be the last and still stay alive.

Most people who play games more just a little bit have reason to buy these 2.

Nintendo has the fun kiddie games and with the new remote a great party system for all your non-gaming friends to still play and have fun.

Microsoft has the older crowd with shooter after shooter and Live is just awesome. They have a new gimmick all their own with the achievement points.

Is there a reason someone with both of these systems should buy a PS3? In my experience the only people I've net with a PS3 are the snobs who feel they have to buy the most expensive items to have the best they can. Its still very early in game but I would expect to see some HUGE new exclusives from Sony along with a pricedrop.

[Rob2600]

I'm mostly referring to Blue-Ray since that's the major cost factor. I could also do without the capability to display my images or videos and WiFi...

I agree. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I buy a video game console to play video games.

My whole take on the Sony situation:

Nintendo revived the entire U.S. home video game industry in the mid 1980s. They were unstoppable for several years and became arrogant. Because of their arrogance, they were almost beaten by Sega and then were eventually beaten by Sony. However, throughout the years, Nintendo has always made well-built, well-designed, affordable machines and innovative, highly-rated games.

Then, like Nintendo, Sony became unstoppable for several years and has now become arrogant. The difference is, Sony has always made poorly-built, poorly-designed, expensive machines and decently-rated games.

So now comes the part where, like Nintendo, a company comes along to beat Sony, the arrogant company. It just so happens the company to beat them is none other than Nintendo. I guess in the end, innovation, affordability, and quality prevails.

[jajaja]

I'm mostly referring to Blue-Ray since that's the major cost factor.

I agree. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I buy a video game console to play video games.

Bluray has something to do with playing games. PS3 games are on BR discs so without a BR player, how are you going to play them? :)

Every console got a media and so far no console have let you choose which media you want to use. When N64 chose cart, you were stuck with carts, when PSX chose CD your were stuck with CD even if you liked it or not. I dont see why the BR situation is any different than these.

I know many say its not needed, but why? Games have always been increasing in size. So what will happend in 2-3 years?

[FantasiaWHT]

I don't think anyone can say that Sony has the upper hand at this point.

Actually, there's a very good argument to be made at this point that Sony still has the upper hand because the PS2 is still outselling every other console.

[Andred]

Every console got a media and so far no console have let you choose which media you want to use. When N64 chose cart, you were stuck with carts, when PSX chose CD your were stuck with CD even if you liked it or not. I dont see why the BR situation is any different than these.

No, there hasn't been a console that lets you choose the media but most consoles don't use the cutting edge media because it's too expensive. In my opinion, replacing the Blue-Ray drive with a standard DVD drive would be better for the majority of gamers. Yes, we may have to swap a disc every so often but nobody (that I know of) decided the PS1 was unplayable for that reason.

[ShenmueFan]

BluRay isn't going anywhere - the PS3 was made AROUND that friggin' blue laser.

I didn't even know there were shortages! I can find a PS3 easily in Best Buy, Walmart, Sam's Club, etc.

[Eteric Rice]

BluRay isn't going anywhere - the PS3 was made AROUND that friggin' blue laser.

I didn't even know there were shortages! I can find a PS3 easily in Best Buy, Walmart, Sam's Club, etc.

There aren't shortages. They're blatantly lying. LOL

[jajaja]

No, there hasn't been a console that lets you choose the media but most consoles don't use the cutting edge media because it's too expensive.

NES, SNES, N64 and not to speak of Neo Geo used very expencive media. I remember back in the days when the NES/SNES games was like 80-100 dollars (atleast where i live) and N64 games were as high as 100 - 150 dollars. This is also a long time ago and we made less money back then compared to now.


In my opinion, replacing the Blue-Ray drive with a standard DVD drive would be better for the majority of gamers. Yes, we may have to swap a disc every so often but nobody (that I know of) decided the PS1 was unplayable for that reason.

It would be better right now when it comes to price, that is true. But price drops will come of course, all technoligy gets old and cheaper. So in 1-3 years its totaly different. BR is actually 1 year old already. You can then look back and see if it was a smart move or not. There were only a very small precentage of PSX games that were on multiply discs so it was no problem, but if 80% - 90% of all the games requiered swapping people would be annoyed with it.

[Austin]

No, there hasn't been a console that lets you choose the media but most consoles don't use the cutting edge media because it's too expensive. In my opinion, replacing the Blue-Ray drive with a standard DVD drive would be better for the majority of gamers. Yes, we may have to swap a disc every so often but nobody (that I know of) decided the PS1 was unplayable for that reason.

I almost kinda miss the disc-swapping. Takes me right back to middle school.

[FantasiaWHT]

NES, SNES, N64 and not to speak of Neo Geo used very expencive media. I remember back in the days when the NES/SNES games was like 80-100 dollars (atleast where i live) and N64 games were as high as 100 - 150 dollars.

Where do you live? I know SNES RPG's were around the $70-80 mark, but the highest cartridge I ever knew of (not including Neo Geo games) was Phantasy Star IV at $100.

[jajaja]

North in Europe. Back in the NES/SNES days we didnt know about anything else so the prices were normal. Looking back, the prices were damn expencive. I got like 1-3 new games each year, else it was rental or borrow from friends. Great times actually, was so nice to get a new game back then :)

[Nature Boy]

But apparently there are a good # of PS3's sitting on shelves, based on the penny arcade comic that S1lence posted earlier. Isn't it ironic that another gaming website totally seperate from DP is making the same inference as most people in this thread?

This is the funniest thing I've ever read. An online comic cited as a legitimate reference. I really have seen it all...

"Sure there's a glut of PS3's sitting out there - I read about it in a comic strip!"

FYI: That's not irony. There would need to be a gap between what is discussed and what is perceived by the communities - with no gap, there's no irony.

[Andred]

Agreed, cartridges were not the ideal media. But you make a good point when you say that we didn't know any better back then. That's the difference. I was a kid then and my parents were buying my games. They didn't understand why a certain type of media would make any difference. Now that I'm (mostly) all grown up and buying my own games I don't want to pay for expensive media when there are much cheaper options.

But you're also right when you say that the price will come down. It just seems like they could have used the media that has already come down in price for one more generation. Then again, Sony has said they want the PS3 to have a 10-year life cycle so from that perspective it makes sense to use Blue-Ray. I just don't expect it to last 10 years.

[Hep038]

I agree. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I buy a video game console to play video games.

My whole take on the Sony situation:

Nintendo revived the entire U.S. home video game industry in the mid 1980s. They were unstoppable for several years and became arrogant. Because of their arrogance, they were almost beaten by Sega and then were eventually beaten by Sony. However, throughout the years, Nintendo has always made well-built, well-designed, affordable machines and innovative, highly-rated games.

Then, like Nintendo, Sony became unstoppable for several years and has now become arrogant. The difference is, Sony has always made poorly-built, poorly-designed, expensive machines and decently-rated games.

So now comes the part where, like Nintendo, a company comes along to beat Sony, the arrogant company. It just so happens the company to beat them is none other than Nintendo. I guess in the end, innovation, affordability, and quality prevails.


I think a million blinking nes owners might disagree with you on that and it seems you have left Microsoft out of the entire picture. I would think they would be the company to over take sony WAY before Nintendo.


And is sony still losing money selling ps2's? I have not heard if the redesign makes them a profit or not.

[jajaja]

If they released it like 2 years ago i'm sure it would have a DVD player instead. PSX and PS2 also used the best media (for storage that is), but the timing was better. CD and DVD was already years old when these consoles got out so the technoligy was rather old and cheap at the time. If BR was 4-5 years old when PS3 was launched, i'm sure we would see a 300 - 400 dollar price range.

Ye, true that, they say it should last for 10 years, but PS4 (or whatever it will be called) will come out before that, im sure of it. Support for PS3 will most likely last around 10 years tho. But we'll see, right now the price and timing (because of fairly new technoligy) is hurting the consumers, but in some years the sales might start to go sky high. So much that can happend, new Xbox is probly on the way too. We can only wait and see :)

[Rob2600]

I think a million blinking nes owners might disagree with you on that and it seems you have left Microsoft out of the entire picture. I would think they would be the company to over take sony WAY before Nintendo.

My NES blinks too, when I don't clean my games. After I clean them, they work fine. Is the NES perfect? No, but I don't have to turn it upside down to get it to work and it doesn't scratch rings into the games.

I view Microsoft as another Sega. They'll make a few consoles that are pretty good, but I think eventually they'll make some bad decisions, have weak sales, and leave the hardware business. Microsoft is also like Sony in that they're not a dedicated video game company. Microsoft and Sony have many different divisions and focus on many different products and technologies. Nintendo is currently the only company who is solely focused on video gaming. For that reason, I get the impression that Nintendo cares more about video games as an art form and is the most innovative out of the three companies.

Based on sales so far, Nintendo is on track to easily beat Sony *and* Microsoft this generation:

Xbox 360
released: 17 months ago
units sold: 10.5 million
average units sold per month: 617,647

Wii
released: 5 months ago
units sold: 6.6 million
average units sold per month: 1,320,000

PlayStation 3
released: 5 months ago
units sold: 3.3 million
average units sold per month: 660,000

As you can see, statistically the Wii is outselling the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3 combined. I realize PlayStation 2 sales are still strong and this generation is still in its infancy, but Nintendo is definitely off to a great start and *could* surpass the Xbox 360 in total sales by Christmas.

Even though the Xbox 360 is technically more powerful than the Wii, I feel like the Wii brand has more personality. It's like an iPod vs. a Zen...the Zen has more features, but people are attracted to the personality surrounding the iPod, it's software, and it's branding.

P.S. Why are people so shocked and offended by the notion that the PlayStation 3 could be a flop? The NES and SNES were very popular, but the Nintendo 64 and Game Cube weren't as popular. The Genesis was very popular, but the Saturn and Dreamcast were borderline flops. The 2600 was very popular, but the 5200 and 7800 were flops. Why can't the same thing happen to Sony this time around?

[Andred]

We can only wait and see :)

It always comes down to that, doesn't it? :)

[7th lutz]

In January there was shortages of ps 3, where my brother worked. I think the shortages was false or exaggered by sony.

As far as the ps 3 goes I think sony has problem with its sales. Here is the proof I present: My brother works at retail store and back in Feb, his store was given a memo by sony. The momo said your store will not being getting any more ps 2's in. I am thinking that was due to stopping production of the system or the store not paying sony. I think it is the first due to the fact the store after the memo was still getting ps 2 systems.The retail store that my brother works at still get in ps 2's. It appears like sony hasn't stopped production of the system.

Why Sony would send the store memo otherwise and decided to ship more ps 2 if the ps 3 is meeting sonys expections in hardware sales?

[FantasiaWHT]

Yeah, NES's didn't start blinking within a month after they shipped, did they?

More on topic, the more I think about it, the less of a lie I think this was.

The shortages were eased in January (being generous) and if something occurs in January, it is done "by May", wouldn't you say? If I say I'll get a job done by Friday and I get it done Wednesday, that meets the criteria.

[poloplayr]

hey, should you ever (yeah right) sell out of PS3s in the US, just let me know because there are tons of unsold ones in most shops here in the UK! Hey, PAL versions might become collectors items! ;)

[jajaja]

P.S. Why are people so shocked and offended by the notion that the PlayStation 3 could be a flop? The NES and SNES were very popular, but the Nintendo 64 and Game Cube weren't as popular. The Genesis was very popular, but the Saturn and Dreamcast were borderline flops. The 2600 was very popular, but the 5200 and 7800 were flops. Why can't the same thing happen to Sony this time around?

I dont think that is the issue, i think its more because of the rather lousy and early predictions. People were screaming that PS3 was a flop only after 3-4 weeks just because it wasnt pulled out of the shelfs everywhere.

Then, what exactly is a flop? Is a 600 dollar console that sells over 3 million in 5 months really a flop? Every console can flop indeed, but i dont quite understand why people are talking about PS3 flop now. Its been 5 months, way to early to say anything. Afaik PSX only sold about 1 million consoles the first year, totaly they sold over 100 million.

Its like NHL, afaik 82 games are played in a season. If one team loses the 10 first games, doesnt this team have any chance to win? If one team wins the 10 first games, does this mean that this team will win the season? Its too early to say anything about it. In 2-3 years we can say if PS3 (or 360 and Wii for that matter) was a huge success or not.



It always comes down to that, doesn't it? :)

Hehe ye, true that ;)

[gepeto]

I dont think that is the issue, i think its more because of the rather lousy and early predictions. People were screaming that PS3 was a flop only after 3-4 weeks just because it wasnt pulled out of the shelfs everywhere.

Then, what exactly is a flop? Is a 600 dollar console that sells over 3 million in 5 months really a flop? Every console can flop indeed, but i dont quite understand why people are talking about PS3 flop now. Its been 5 months, way to early to say anything. Afaik PSX only sold about 1 million consoles the first year, totaly they sold over 100 million.

Its like NHL, afaik 82 games are played in a season. If one team loses the 10 first games, doesnt this team have any chance to win? If one team wins the 10 first games, does this mean that this team will win the season? Its too early to say anything about it. In 2-3 years we can say if PS3 (or 360 and Wii for that matter) was a huge success or not.




Hehe ye, true that ;)

I am still tryiing to figure out how the dreamcast was tab a flop so early out the gate with its outstanding launch day numbers. Great system unfairly treated. Is the ps3 the dreamcast with 3do and neo geo prices?

[chrisbid]

Then, what exactly is a flop? Is a 600 dollar console that sells over 3 million in 5 months really a flop? Every console can flop indeed, but i dont quite understand why people are talking about PS3 flop now. Its been 5 months, way to early to say anything. Afaik PSX only sold about 1 million consoles the first year, totaly they sold over 100 million.





sonys business model assumes large losses on consoles assuming they will make up the difference with software sales, both first and third party. it worked out quite well for them with the PSX and PS2, but when sega tried this model with the dreamcast, it failed to get a big enough install base to get more third parties on board and software sales never got to the level to make a profit for sega. microsoft uses the same strategy, but they have enough cash to take a loss.

market share is critical in sonys business model. if they do not get a commanding percentage of units sold, the third party software will dry up (like it did with the gamecube) and the PS3 hardware losses will drown sony. nintendos model doesnt make hardware a loss leader. thats how theyve been able to be financially healthy through the last 10 years despite bringing up the rear in market share.

[jajaja]

sonys business model assumes large losses on consoles assuming they will make up the difference with software sales, both first and third party. it worked out quite well for them with the PSX and PS2, but when sega tried this model with the dreamcast, it failed to get a big enough install base to get more third parties on board and software sales never got to the level to make a profit for sega. microsoft uses the same strategy, but they have enough cash to take a loss.

market share is critical in sonys business model. if they do not get a commanding percentage of units sold, the third party software will dry up (like it did with the gamecube) and the PS3 hardware losses will drown sony. nintendos model doesnt make hardware a loss leader. thats how theyve been able to be financially healthy through the last 10 years despite bringing up the rear in market share.

True, but its still way to early to say anything about a flop or not.

[FantasiaWHT]

I'd actually be really curious to see a list of consoles, whether they were sold for a loss at launch (and how much of a loss) and either how successful the system was in terms of sales, or how successful the manufacturer was in profit from the system, games & accessories, over the lifetime of the console.

I know that PS1, PS2, PS3, Xbox, and X360 were all sold for a loss at launch, and I know for a fact no Nintendo system ever has been, but I don't know about any other systems.

Basically, I wonder if loss-leader systems have more often been successful or unsuccessful? And which companies have used loss-leading strategies succesfully and which haven't?

[Rob2600]

I am still trying to figure out how the dreamcast was a flop so early out the gate with its outstanding launch day numbers. Great system unfairly treated.

The hard core gamers lined up the night before the Dreamcast was released and bought it right away, but the casual gamers fell for Sony's hype and waited a year for Playstation 2 to come out.

Even when the Dreamcast was selling for $99 in late 2000 and early 2001 and the PlayStation 2 was sold out for weeks at a time, casual gamers were still chosing to wait and spend $300 on the PlayStation 2.

I was working at a major video game chain at the time and I'd ask people why they'd rather spend $300 on a PlayStation 2 than $99 on a Dreamcast and many said it was because the PlayStation 2 could play DVD movies. When I told them they could buy a Dreamcast *and* a separate DVD player for less than the price of a PlayStation 2, they didn't care.

[Rob2600]

I think its more because of the rather lousy and early predictions. People were screaming that PS3 was a flop only after 3-4 weeks just because it wasnt pulled out of the shelfs everywhere.

Maybe PlayStation 3 sales will stall at 9 million, at which point it will be considered a flop. Maybe sales will pick up and will reach 45 million. I don't know.

I'm just saying that the PlayStation 3 isn't the huge, unstoppable, runaway success that the PlayStation 2 was. Maybe PlayStation 3 will come in thrid place this generation. Some people seem to think that's impossible and that Sony will always be the king, even though history has proven that no single home video game company has been the most popular for more than two generations in a row.

[jajaja]

I'd actually be really curious to see a list of consoles, whether they were sold for a loss at launch (and how much of a loss) and either how successful the system was in terms of sales, or how successful the manufacturer was in profit from the system, games & accessories, over the lifetime of the console.

Not exactly what you're looking for, but i found this list interesting :)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v218/grimreaper19/saleshw7yz.jpg

[Rob2600]

Not exactly what you're looking for, but i found this list interesting :)

I'm guessing those are U.S. sales figures because the Xbox did not sell nearly as well in Japan.

[jajaja]

Ye, i guess so. Found it on another forum earlier today.

[chrisbid]

True, but its still way to early to say anything about a flop or not.


no, its not

the only console to ever move up in market position after launch was the SNES. every other machine starts off at their highest point in market position, and stays stagnant until new machines are released. in the case of the SNES, it took nintendo two years to catch up, competitive pricing, and sega screwing themselves to get there and the race was always pretty close until sega dropped the genesis for saturn development in 95.

there is a small chance sony can make up the early deficit, but it requires heavy action now, and they seem to be content with staying the course. Microsoft is helping out by raising their price to match specs with the PS3 (a move that would make more sense if the PS3 was blowing the 360 away) leaving the door open for sony to stick around. If MS manages to lower the price of the 360 or make Halo 3 a limited time pack in this xmas, sony will have to make some drastic moves to stay in the game.

[jajaja]

no, its not

the only console to ever move up in market position after launch was the SNES. every other machine starts off at their highest point in market position, and stays stagnant until new machines are released. in the case of the SNES, it took nintendo two years to catch up, competitive pricing, and sega screwing themselves to get there and the race was always pretty close until sega dropped the genesis for saturn development in 95.

there is a small chance sony can make up the early deficit, but it requires heavy action now, and they seem to be content with staying the course. Microsoft is helping out by raising their price to match specs with the PS3 (a move that would make more sense if the PS3 was blowing the 360 away) leaving the door open for sony to stick around. If MS manages to lower the price of the 360 or make Halo 3 a limited time pack in this xmas, sony will have to make some drastic moves to stay in the game.

First, not a single soul can say what the future brings, ergo, no one can know if PS3 will fail big time or not. They can predict yes, but they cannot tell for sure. Its been like 5 months, its nothing. What happends if PS3 suddently cost $300 in 1 year and all the good games are out? Many talk like the PS3 will cost $599 throughout its entire lifetime, but that will never happend :) What Sony will do in 1-2 years we dont know, i'm sure they dont even know hehe. We can only guess, but we can never know for sure.

So.. yes, its too early to say if its a flop or not.

[Nature Boy]

The hard core gamers lined up the night before the Dreamcast was released and bought it right away, but the casual gamers fell for Sony's hype and waited a year for Playstation 2 to come out.

Why don't DC fans ever point out the fact that the Saturn/32X/Sega CD had something to do with killing it? How many poorly received consoles/add ons do you think a company can release before consumers decide they don't want anything to do with the company?

The PS1's success over the Saturn is a big reason the PS2 hype worked in the first place. Casual gamers hated the Saturn - why would they suddenly decide that it's successor would be better than the machine they *did* like?

[veronica_marsfan]

Why don't DC fans ever point out the fact that the Saturn/32X/Sega CD had something to do with killing it? How many poorly received consoles/add ons do you think a company can release before consumers decide they don't want anything to do with the company? Quoted for truth. I had a Genesis, invested in a 32X, only to see it abandoned/discontinued a year later by Saturn...

...and that was introduced with virtually no games & abandoned after only two years.

32X - waste of money. Saturn - waste of money. Why should I ever trust Sega again? I refused to touch the dreamcast.

[agbulls]

32X - waste of money. Saturn - waste of money. Why should I ever trust Sega again? I refused to touch the dreamcast.

Blasphemy! The Saturn was never a waste of money. I'm sure many DP'ers would agree with me on that one.

[Rob2600]

32X - waste of money. Saturn - waste of money. Why should I ever trust Sega again?

True, but what about Sony? I was working at a major video game chain at the time and customers were constantly coming in with broken PlayStation consoles. Some people were buying their third and fourth PlayStation. Why? I understand that sometimes things break, but the PlayStation problem seemed to be so widespread...and yet, people kept pouring money into Sony's pockets for an inferior product. I never once dealt with a customer who had to turn their Saturn, Nintendo 64, or Dreamcast upside down to get it to work.

Later on, many customers had problems with their PlayStation 2 consoles as well. There were tons of disc read errors and some people's consoles were actually scratching rings into their games...and yet, once again, people kept buying more PlayStation 2 consoles after they kept having problems and breaking.

What is wrong with people? Yes, Sega eventually deserved customers' lack of trust, but didn't Sony, too? I guess what goes around comes around and now the Wii is outselling the PlayStation 3 by 2-to-1.

[jajaja]

I was working at a major video game chain at the time and customers were constantly coming in with broken PlayStation consoles. Some people were buying their third and fourth PlayStation.

What did they do with the old one(s)?

[Rob2600]

What did they do with the old one(s)?

Some people asked if they could trade in their broken PlayStations, some people asked if we fixed them, and some people asked if Sony replaced them for free. I'd tell them no, they'd buy new ones, and give the broken ones to me to throw away. They were like disposable consoles.

[jajaja]

Some people asked if they could trade in their broken PlayStations, some people asked if we fixed them, and some people asked if Sony replaced them for free. I'd tell them no, they'd buy new ones, and give the broken ones to me to throw away. They were like disposable consoles.

Bah.. people are stupid :) They should have gotten it covered by the warranty ;) If its within the limit of course (here its within 2 years) so Sony or the store would replace it. Also possible to fix it if the lazer is broken. Ah well, PS2 isnt exactly THAT expencive so i guess people can afford to buy multiply consoles if they want/need. Still got my PS2 from 2001 and it works like new.

[Rob2600]

Bah.. people are stupid :) They should have gotten it covered by the warranty ;)

As far as I knew, Sony's warranty was 90 days. We sold extended warranties, which were pointless in most cases, but were extremely valuable when it came to the PlayStation and the PlayStation 2. Of course, customers didn't want to spend the extra $20 on the extended warranty, but would end up coming back to my store months later and spending an extra $150 on a new PlayStation.

Could this be one of the reasons why 100 million PlayStation consoles were sold?

[Nature Boy]

Some people were buying their third and fourth PlayStation. Why?

Because it was likely cheaper and certainly less of a hassle to buy a new console rather than getting the original one fixed. A sad truth of most modern electronics.

[FantasiaWHT]

Could this be one of the reasons why 100 million PlayStation consoles were sold?

You know, that's a really good point, for both PS1 and PS2. I wonder what a statistical analysis would look like that took into account the failure rate of each system? Take a random sample of current PS2 owners and ask them how many PS2's they've owned (for any reason). If the average PS2 owner purchased 2 PS2's (pulling a number out of a hat), then the market share of Sony is not really evidenced by 100 million consoles, but by 50 million consoles.

[jajaja]

As far as I knew, Sony's warranty was 90 days. We sold extended warranties, which were pointless in most cases, but were extremely valuable when it came to the PlayStation and the PlayStation 2. Of course, customers didn't want to spend the extra $20 on the extended warranty, but would end up coming back to my store months later and spending an extra $150 on a new PlayStation.

Ye, i guess warranty variates from countries to countries. Here its in the law that you have 2 years when it comes to things like this, no matter what the producer of the product says. Hehe true, its like that, u dont want to spend like $5 on insurance because you want to save money. Might not be too bad to buy insurance after all :)


Could this be one of the reasons why 100 million PlayStation consoles were sold?

Some of these are multiply buys indeed, but its not the main reason. If you look at software sales for PS2 its a huge amount of money, indicating that alot of different people own a PS2 (unless alot of people buy multiply copies of the same game hehe ;)). If people want to buy many consoles, a sale is a sale :)

[Rob2600]

Some of these are multiple buys indeed, but its not the main reason. ... If people want to buy many consoles, a sale is a sale :)

True, most PlayStation owners probably only bought one console, but a decent amount of the fan base bought two or three. That must have had an impact on total hardware sales.

I forgot to mention all of the fanatics who came into the store and bought the small PSone when it came out so they could install it in their cars...in addition to the original PlayStation consoles they already owned.

[Nature Boy]

True, most PlayStation owners probably only bought one console, but a decent amount of the fan base bought two or three. That must have had an impact on total hardware sales.

It has an impact but not a *large* one I'd guess.

Sure I own four PlayStations, but I also own four NESes. How much of an impact does that have? Of those 8 consoles, one was bought brand new by me.

(Funnily enough it was a PSone, with a screen, so that I could play in my car or whatever :) ).

[chrisbid]

First, not a single soul can say what the future brings, ergo, no one can know if PS3 will fail big time or not. They can predict yes, but they cannot tell for sure. Its been like 5 months, its nothing. What happends if PS3 suddently cost $300 in 1 year and all the good games are out? Many talk like the PS3 will cost $599 throughout its entire lifetime, but that will never happend :) What Sony will do in 1-2 years we dont know, i'm sure they dont even know hehe. We can only guess, but we can never know for sure.

So.. yes, its too early to say if its a flop or not.

if the market maintains it current trend, market position will stay the same for all three systems. as i said in my post, it will take drastic action for sony to buck the current trend, and cutting the price of the PS3 in half would qualify as drastic. a ticky-tack price drop wont help very much, as it would be easy for MS to match it.

[FantasiaWHT]

Totally anecdotal, but when the slim PS2 came out, about 80% of the ones my store sold in the first few months were bought by people trading in their fat versions.

[jajaja]

if the market maintains it current trend, market position will stay the same for all three systems. as i said in my post, it will take drastic action for sony to buck the current trend, and cutting the price of the PS3 in half would qualify as drastic. a ticky-tack price drop wont help very much, as it would be easy for MS to match it.

Of course, if the trend stays exactly like it is now for the next years to come it might not look to bright for Sony, but the market is constantly changing. Next year it can be totaly different, no one knows for sure. Therefor its impossible to say now how each console will turn out in the end. As said, we can guess and predict, but not say for sure. Only time knows and we'll have to wait and see :)

[77punk]

i wont complain of price of the ps3 considering the complexity of the system. I just dont think Sony thought enough about how this will be the revolutionary system. I wont think about buying one until either price drops on games or RE5 comes out and rocks the socks off.

[veronica_marsfan]

Blasphemy! The Saturn was never a waste of money.

It had a lifespan of just-over two years long.
I invested in two Sega consoles (32X and Saturn),
and both were terminated early by Sega.

I wasn't going anywhere near the Dreamcast, for fear it too would be terminated after only two years on market. I waited to see what Sony & Nintendo had in 2000.

The earlier poster was correct:
Distrust of Sega is what killed the DC.

[Nature Boy]

if the market maintains it current trend, market position will stay the same for all three systems. as i said in my post, it will take drastic action for sony to buck the current trend, and cutting the price of the PS3 in half would qualify as drastic. a ticky-tack price drop wont help very much, as it would be easy for MS to match it.

Two things. (a) Current trends don't dictate future market positions. Look at the SNES vs the Genesis - it took a long time, but they were even by the end of that generation. (b) They can't cut the price in half or they piss off all their hardcore, early adoptor customers. Piss them off and who is going to buy your stuff at full price next time?

I don't disagree they'll need to do something (drastic might be a little melodramatic), but there are plenty of ways to increase market share. Pricing is just one of them.

[veronica_marsfan]

Two things. (a) Current trends don't dictate future market positions. Look at the SNES vs the Genesis

Or Betamax vs VHS.
Betamax owned 80% of the market in 1980.
But VHS won the war by 1990.

Betamax "won" the early adopters between 1975 and 1980, but the masses (the majority of consumers) flocked to the VHS format. VHS decks were cheaper & offered twice the recording time, which appealed to people with limited budgets that couldn't afford the pricey Betamax decks/tapes.

[Rob2600]

Sony outsold Nintendo in the last two generations. In both of those generations, Sony had a one year head start. This time around, Sony didn't have a head start and the Wii is outselling the PlayStation 3 by 2-to-1.

It's the same situation with the portables, too. The Nintendo DS and Sony PSP were released within a month from each other...no head start...and the DS is outselling PSP by 1.5-to-1.

It seems as though when Sony doesn't get a big head start, they don't come out on top.

[jajaja]

Afaik PSP did outsell DS the first couple of months, but then the good games came out for DS and i guess you know the rest of the story :) Shows how big importance games actually are when it comes to selling a console.

[Rob2600]

Afaik PSP did outsell DS the first couple of months

There's a huge difference between "units shipped" and "units sold." Sony loves bragging about how many units its shipped because it sounds impressive, but in reality, it's an almost useless statistic compared to actual sales figures.


Shows how big importance games actually are when it comes to selling a console.

You're right, to an extent. Marketing is probably even more important, which is unfortunate because a great catalog of games can go unplayed due to ineffective ad campaigns and branding. It seems like this time around, Nintendo was able to do what Apple did with the iPod and create a high "coolness" factor for the Wii, whereas Sony hasn't been able to do that with the PlayStation 3.

Price is also very important. I'm guessing the PlayStation 3's high 3DO-style price tag doesn't appeal to mainstream consumers. In my area of the U.S., a $500 PlayStation 3 plus a game and tax comes out to $596. A $600 PlayStation 3 plus a game and tax comes out to $715. That is a considerable purchase for many people. On the other hand, a $250 Wii plus a game and tax comes out to $325, which is cheap by comparison...half the price!

[jajaja]

PSP did sell more, not just shipped. Check the stats i posted earlier (those are US only tho). Here are some other stats from Media Create (Japan). These are units sold. Shows that PSP did sell more in the begining.

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=82975133&size=o

[Nature Boy]

Sony outsold Nintendo in the last two generations. In both of those generations, Sony had a one year head start. This time around, Sony didn't have a head start and the Wii is outselling the PlayStation 3 by 2-to-1.

Sega had a head start on both of them and look where the Dreamcast ended up!

[veronica_marsfan]

Wii is outselling the PlayStation 3 by 2-to-1..

Source?

[joedick]

Source?

I don't know about overall numbers, but wii outsold PS3 2 to 1 in March in the US and overall in Japan:

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5298&Itemid=2
http://wii.ign.com/articles/777/777967p1.html

[jajaja]

The 2 last week in Japan, PS3 was outsold like 7 to 1 compared to Wii. No suprise tho. Super Paper Mario was out last week and in general Wii is cheaper and have much more games

[Rob2600]

Source?

Page 21 of Nintendo's Consolidated Financial Statements document lists total Wii sales at 5.84 million as of March 31, 2007:

http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2007/070426e.pdf

I also used data from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_wii

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playstation_3

At the very least, Wii is outselling PlayStation 3 by 1.83-to-1 (5.84 million vs. 3.2 million). At best, Wii is outselling PlayStation 3 by 2.04-to-1 (6.52 million vs. 3.2 million).

[veronica_marsfan]

Hmm.

My next-generation console might end-up being a Nintendo. (surprise)