Slashdot Mirror
PlayStation 3 May Play Too Much
Businessweek has a piece looking at the PlayStation 3, worrying that Sony is confusing the consumer with all of the technology it's trying to work into the console. From the article: "Some question whether Sony is trying to cram too much into the new box. The PS3 is expected to cost $350 to $400. While it has the potential to be a megahit, Sony's message might get muddled in the process of going after too broad a market, says Deutsche Securities analyst Takashi Oya. 'It would be difficult to sell PS3 initially as anything other than a game machine,' Oya says. Sony declined to comment on such concerns."
Much like buying a child a shoe that is a half size bigger, the PS3 will grow into itself. There's no such thing as "too much" on a gaming console. The more you can do with it, the better.
I hate sigs.
People won't adopt it because it has too many features?
Who comes up with ideas like that. If anything more features will drive more sales. Don't need to buy a blu-ray player, the ps3 will do it, along with movies and music.
Both Sony and Microsoft are trying to put a media pc in our lounge rooms, and they're free to compete for my dollar.
I'll wait ... just like I did with PS1 and PS2 ... a few months after it's out you'll probably see it for under $200 at Video Game Exchange, Rewind, FuncoLand, or some other Re-Sale game store. $350-$400, are you kidding!?!?
I thought all those features were actually the interesting, intriguing and exciting part of the wait...
People know what a Playstation does... it plays games! If it does more than that, great. Don't underestimate the consumer! People are anticipating this release, and just because it does movies, internet, PVR (does it?), washes the dishes and takes the dog for a walk... well, that isn't going to change the fact that Gran Turismo 5 and Grant Theft Auto are going to be played on it--consumers won't forget that!
Starmen.net
says Deutsche Securities analyst
This is how it works when you are an analyst: Make anything sound negative. Either it has too little features, or then it has too many. Never is anything just right, or well done.
That way, if it fails, you can say "See, I called it". If it succeeds, you say it did so in spite of those shortcomings. That's how it works.
I say cram as much stuff as you possibly can into it, just don't let the price go too high.
If you have the technology to be the latest and greatest, why not?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
As the saying goes - "Jack of all trades, master of none."
Sony needs to make sure that they really come through one some of the features they are offering with the PS3. If the PS2 is any indication, Sony may be in for some tough times ahead. While at the time the PS2 was a great option for a cheap way to get a DVD player, its DVD menu system is absolutely horrendous. Also consider that the Emotion Engine never even came within flying distance of living up to its hype and expectations (expectations which were created by Sony, and not the media, might I add).
There has been a TON that Sony has committed for the PS3, and have tried to one-up everything that Microsoft dedicated for the XBox 360, presumably to get consumers to hold off until the PS3 arrives, knowing that wallets for $400 consoles and $60 games are limited. My speculation is that maybe half actually ends up in the final console. This will no doubt be a disappointment for the consumers that were consciously waiting for the PS3 because of those features, but fortunately that market is more limited (even though they are also most likely to be the early adopters). However, if they actually are able to do the rest of these things well and come up with some good marketing, especially the Blu-Ray DVD features, Sony may do very well with the PS3. If not, they could be rolling on their belly pretty quickly.
A community-oriented lyrics site
from tfa: If consumers buy the PS3 as a multimedia machine, they might not purchase as many video games...
since the PSP also plays music and movies, fewer people are buying games designed for it. In the PS2's initial
year on the market, players bought more than three games for each machine that was shipped. For the PSP, that
ratio slipped to 2 to 1.
I suspect that the reason for this was not the fact that the PSP can play music and movies, but the fact that
(and I'm bracing for the karma burn here) the PSP simply hasn't released enough quality games.
Sure, there are some good titles, but nowhere near enough of the quality and variety needed to really push the
PSP platform.
As long as the PS3 manages to maintain a game catalog akin to that of the PS2, it should do well. Having a slew
of additional features should not harm sales, as long as the games are there in force.
1. Playing PS2 games
2. Playing PS1 games
3. Watching Movies
Hopefully I will use my PS3 for 4 things
1. Playing PS3 games
2. Playing PS2 games
3. Playing PS1 games
4. Watching Movies
THE HONOUR OF THE KNIGHTS - CC Licensed Sci-Fi Novel
The Gamecube was specifically designed to do one thing very well: play games. (Whether or not you feel it has games worth playing is moot.)
The Revolution, similarly, is meant to play games and do very little else. Nintendo has said several times that they want to make GAME consoles, because people already have all that other stuff, and they can remain more focused this way.
There's nothing terrible about Sony's approach, but it MAY confuse some people. It certainly seems to be lifting the price.
When i look for a DVD player i want it to play xvid, avi, jpegs and MP3s at least.... Yet when my mum looks she just wants it to play a DVD easily.
If sony can make it accessible to the customer, then the customer will buy it, if it also plays other formats, the customer will be more pleased when they randomly find this extra functionality. It will set the level of what consoles "should" supply as default and god help any which dont then fit this selection".
- http://www.milkme.co.uk
Someone's looking at the past through rose colored glasses. The NES had two bundles:
$249: NES Console 2 Controllers Light Gun R.O.B (Robotic Operating Buddy) Gyromite (R.O.B game) Duck Hunt Super Mario Bros.
$199 NES Console 2 Controllers Super Mario Bros.
Games cost anywhere from $59 to $79....and this was in 1985 Dollars! the Atari 2600 IIRC launched around $400 and sold like hotcakes. In comparison, the Xbox360 and the Ps3 are right in line with every other system launch that preceded them.
The question is, will I be able to use them the way I WANT to use them?
I will be able to play PS3 games.
Will I be able to play PS2 games I already own?
I will be able to watch DVDs.
Will I be able to watch DVDS from other countries?
I will be able to watch Blue-Ray DVDs.
Will I be able to watch Blue-Ray DVDs the way I want to watch them or the way the content industry wants me to watch them?
In a nutshell, the question isn't what it will enable me to do, the question is what will it keep me from doing.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Laugh if you want, but there are some high end sports cars that do not come with a radio, back seat, automatic transmission, air conditioning, and many other "features". And yes, the purpose is to enhance the driving experience, whether by making room for more power or forcing the user to concentrate on the driving, not the radio/cell phone/passengers.
Public use of any portable music system is a virtually guaranteed indicator of sociopathic tendencies. -- Zoso
No, you've really missed the analogy here. It's like Chrysler saying all it's new models of cars will all have AC, power windows, CD player, anti-lock brakes, heated seats, in-car navigation, and a leather interior. All models will cost about $3000 more than the equivalent model (minus the above extras) of the competition. That's great if you want all those features, and are willing to pay for them. It's not so great if you just want basic reliable transportation.
AccountKiller
The problem is not the games, its people like you who _assume_ that the games are for kids. Mario Kart is Racing Game of the Year (X-Play) and gets rave reviews everywhere. Each zelda game thus far is absolutely awesome, and is just as demanding of the player as any of all those famous "mature games" you are rambling about. Take Nintendogs as another example. Its just brilliant: my girlfriend (age 27) plays it and loves it. What about Pikmin then? It is cute, yes, but boy it's fun! And hard as well. The list goes on and on.
I have been playing games for 20-something years now, and just recently (re)discovered that the best games are those that are fun and demanding (what you mature gamers call "sk1llz"). Adding some lame-ass porno sequence or making a vietnam-shooter does not make the game mature. In fact, I wager that most people who plays "mature" games is teens with identity crisis who needs silly wargames to feel comfortable.
On the contrary, I am pretty sure most Mario Kart and Pikmin players are at much older than that. They know what fun is, and select games based on that and nothing else.
It would be difficult to sell PS3 initially as anything other than a game machine
r sonsinterview.html it doesn't seem like they are in a rush to get out budget models because they claim early adaptors want über gear(they even claim sony's early $1000 DVD players outsold their $500 players).
That's a bold statement if i ever saw one. The PS3 vill probably be priced O($500), and judging from what I've read about the upcoming first generation Bluray movie players, they aren't going to be cheap. Pioneer's have a $1800 player set to debut around march, and judging from this interview http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/ces2006/pa
anyhoo, back to the subject. I'm willing to bet good money that a ½-decent salesman will be able to sell a 500$ PS3 to people with HDTVs who want a HD alternative to their regular DVDs if the alternative movie-only players are x2 the price.
Convergence has to be done right in order not to suck. Just because it's done bad most of the time doesn't mean that convergence sucks. It's the way it's implemented.
The big difference between Consoles and Computers nowadays is that the OS and core functions on one are on the hardware and are on volatile and modifiable storage on the other.
Build one size fits all device that doesn't suck and boots into the GUI in 3 seconds flat and you've got a sale on your hands. No matter how many features it's got.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
The only reason I'd want all things in one box is if I was slimming down my possessions and living the lean, green life in a little house somewhere.
But that's not my goal. Like many folks, I already have a DVD player/home theater system for movies. I also have a PS2 and two computers that can play movies but I never use them for that. The DVD player can play CDs as well, so i got rid of my expired stereo system. I can also play CDs on my PS2, computers, iPod, and cars. MP3s? DVD player, iPod, cars, computers, TiVo, etc.
My point is that many people already have these things and throwing them into the PS3 is just going to jack the price. Honestly, $400 is a lot to pay for a game system packed with features when I already have 5-6 machines that can do the same already.
And there's this point. I prefer to move about during the day. Take a Saturday with no plans. I dont want to play games, watch TV, listen to music, order movies, and so on all while sitting in the same place. It's nice to move from place to place and get some variety. Rest your eyes, change the scene.
As much as people call it a "1x BD drive", I've not seen any speculation as to the performance of the drive when reading DVD media, which I think is the comparison that will matter.
I don't see PC games, themselves, as being any more technically minded than console games. I don't play games for what system it's on, I play a game for the game itself. Sure, setting up a gaming PC may require more technical sophistication, but at the end of the day, all I see on PCs are fairly brainless games that are more based on reflexes and repetative tasks than intelligence, problem solving, and technical sophistication. Obviously, I'm generalizing, things like The Sims, Darwinia, and Sim City do require a lot of ongoing problem solving, but most of the time, when I think of PC games, I think of generic first person shooters, which, IMO are the least technically minded GAMES on the market.
I read an interesting psychology book, recently, called "Everything Bad for you is Good", which outlines the thinking patterns in various types of games. At one point, it outlines 5 minutes in the mind of someone playing Zelda: Wind Waker, and demonstrates that the game requires a fairly sophisticated level of problem solving. This is Wind Waker we're talking about, the game hailed by most "hardcore gamers" to be childsplay, just before they go off to their gaming PCs to blow things up in half-life.
I think we need to redefine what we mean by "hardcore gamers" and the "technically minded". I used to think of "hardcore gamers" as people who wanted to challange themselves to the latest, and most difficult games... now, I more associate it with the mindlessness of hardcore porn. Most console gamers I've ever known in my life were extremely intelligent, technically minded people, people who would rather spend their lives problem solving in a game, then trouble shooting a computer just to play the game!
I dunno, but I've heard the term "hardcore gamer" used to refer to a lot of different types of people.
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
I couldn't have said it better myself. It always pisses me off to hear people talk about Nintendo as kiddy games. I'm starting to associate "kiddy" with "fun", which is exactly what I expect from a good game. It's starting to feel like, "if you're having fun, you're just being immature"... isn't "to have fun" the whole point of gaming in the first place?
Let's look at the gaming industry in comparison to the film industry, of which there is a lot of parallel. The average XBox or PS2 game is pretty much on the level of a summer action blockbuster... not too intelligent, not too difficult to digest, fairly unsophisticated dialog, one dimensional characterisation. At best, you get something on the level of The Matrix, which, though for a considerable part of the population is deemed "intelligent", in the grand scheme is pretty simplistic.
The closest comparison I can draw from the average Nintendo game is Pixar or oldschool Disney. Sure, it's animated, it values innocence, but if you look underneith the innocent veniere, the average Pixar movie has a whole lot more depth and sophisticated than the average summer blockbuster. I mean, really, are people actually claiming that Stealth is more mature than Finding Nemo?
I've always associated Pixar and Nintendo with innocence with a sense of sophistication. The average summer blockbuster just serves to make pre-teens suddenly think they're mature because they're watching someone's head get split open. It's all an illusion. I'd say that the average Pixar film is FAR more mature than the average hollywood bluckbuster. In fact, if you look at the REAL demographics outlined by movie sales, the average age of a Pixar audience member is a lot older than the average age of a bluckbuster's audience (which comprises primarilly of teenagers).
Now, until we have games that parallel movies like Good Night & Good Luck or Capote, I wouldn't talk about sophistication and maturity OUTSIDE of the context of the Pixar-esque Nintendo genre. I'd like to see some real world stastics, but I'm going to guess that the average age of GTA players is around 13, and the average age of Zelda players is somewhere around 19. Innocence is looked down upon by the 11-17 year old crowd, which, unfortunately, makes up a substantial part of the gaming demographic.
Which, yeah, btw, when are we going to get a video game that's on the level of sophistication as a good indie movie?
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.