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.
Hmm... "It would be difficult to sell PS3 initially as anything other than a game machine" ?
So what if ? No, wait... better: does anybody even expect to buy it as anything else than a gaming rig in the first place ?
XBox360, between 300 and 400. Games. Plus some other stuff.
PS3, between 350 and 400. Games. Plus some other stuff.
No idea on Nintendo.
Barebones but decent PC (plus cheap monitor or TVout capable), between 400 and 600. Trivial stuff. Plus some older games.
Reality check for PS3 ? Checked.
People who buy the PS3 will buy it *primarily* for the games ANYWAY.
They MIGHT use it for something else too, but at a price tag comparable to any other decent alternative, what's the harm ?
If anything (*shock*), people who didn't plan on buying it for games might actually buy the console.
Will PS3 games sales plummet because of that ?
If you look at it from a games sold per unit of console sold, then yes, that might go down.
But as an absolute number of expected sales... I really, really doubt a significant decline, no matter what anybody else might say.
By reading this signature you agree to not disagree with the post you just read.
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!?!?
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
Well, we already know that the ps3 will cut the fat!
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.
Chrysler announces it's latest offering of cars will not come with air conditioning or a back seat amongst other features. They are quoted as saying they want to focus on the "driving experience" only for now. They fear some potential buyers might be scared off by the superfluous features.
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
Sure, why not! Why would you NOT want extra feautures?
I'd be clamoring for a $600 cell phone that plays music, watches video, manages my schedule, a 12" widescreen display... See my point here? Number one, we've tried the everything-to-everybody-devices before. They usually don't do that great.
Number two, it'll be hard to get the average non-gaming best buy shopper in the HDTV section to take notice of the PS3 over there in the 'kids' gaming section. They've got the PS3 name. Playstation = games. As of right now, Playstation != next gen HD movie content. It's possible, but they've got to get it out there.
Give my dad a reason to even LOOK at a ps3. He's a HD connoisseur like anybody else, but the thought of getting a PS3 wouldnt' even go through his mind.
Han shot first.
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.
I don't think there has ever been such tremendous fanboyism associated with a gaming console as there is with Sony. I think they could sell it at $700 and still outsell Microsoft's offering.
I'm not saying it's gonna be a bad box - it's probably going to be great, which the Playstation 2 NEVER was. I'm saying that worrying that their aim is too broad just seems a little silly. I'm also saying that many Sony fans will pay too much for their console just because it's Sony.
Yes I know that history is littered with failed console companies, and that todays leader is tomorrows gutter-dweller, but Sony has some kind of weird critical mass going in terms of market dominance and mindshare. Couple that with a general distrust of Microsoft, and the resulting scenario is such that I wouldn't worry about anything mentioned in the article.
Consumers don't want to be confused by products who do more than one thing. Just look at the abysmal PC market (including Macs). I mean, once people find out that these things surf the internet AND send e-mail AND play music AND play movies AND play games AND store/edit images AND let them store all the information they can think to store, they'll run screaming to the other side of the store and buy a notepad, ledger, calculator, typewriter, DVD player, WebTV console, CD player, and game console. These computer things will never catch on.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Sony stated that the PS3 will not have backwards compatability.
Many Bothans died to bring you this sig.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Sony stated that the PS3 will not have backwards compatability.
You're wrong.
From Wikipedia
Granted, it could be wrong, but it matches with the most recent stuff I've heard various other places.
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
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
Ok. Let me get this strait.
It can run ps3 games, and play movies.
Aaaccckkk! My head is aching. How is that possible!
It can also run ps2 games? That can't be possible! They you have to have an entire PS2 bolted onto the box. I think my head is ablout to explode! This is getting too complicated.
OH NO! It can also play PS1 games. I'M SO CONFUSED! Does it play PS1 games, or does it play PS2 games, or does it play PS3 games, or does it play movies? It can't possibly do more than one of them! My head is about to explode!
It has a little light on the front when you turn it on! How can it possibly turn on a light, and play games? That is impossible! Nobody could possibly do that! That would almost be like a VCR (Very Confusing Red-lights) that did something other than blink 12:00!
No more, I beg of you! Keep that infernal monster away from me!
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
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'm a buy-side analyst (that is, someone who consumes the research of the "sell-side" analysts and decides where my firm should allocate money based on their and my own research) and I have to say that it doesn't really work like that. There are a few "gloom and doom" types who always seem negative on everything, but by and large most analysts are too positive.
/.
I would actually greatly prefer it if sell-side analysts were always saying things would fail for specific reasons. I generally find research to be much more valuable if it gives detailed arguments why a stock I'm interested might *not* work. If I'm interested, I probably already know why it might work. But people like to have their preconceptions confirmed, which is why most analysts are positive on everything. Sell-siders are compensated as much (usually more) based on client satisfaction as on actual prediction performance.
Now, some of these guys really don't know what they're talking about. But they usually do provide you with pretty good info, and they usually do have good access to management. Don't pay too much attention to their recommendations, which are disproportionately positive--but do pay attention to their arguments and data. Any given research report tends to have 1-3 "stories" that the analyst views as key to the future performance of the stock.
I don't directly cover Sony, but I do know that the performance of the PS3 is undoubtedly the #1 story in the coming years. The quote about "too many features" sounds like it might be taken out of context, but clearly that's *not* the main factor in whether the PS3 will succeed. The best research I've seen views the main factors in the PS3 story as (1) whether developers will find the 360 significantly preferable to the PS3 (the PS3 is getting a late start this time, and if it's too much more difficult to write for than the 360 then the games will be late or non-existent), and (2) whether Sony can get an online service comparable to Live up in a timely and affordable way.
Then there is that blu-ray gambit, and the fact that Sony is still recovering from the DRM music problem, and that there other divisions aren't very profitable and there might be infighting in corporate. With all that in mind, I don't see caution about Sony's stock as a bad thing.
But if you have any special insight into the PS3 before the demos, post it! I'm personally amazed that more IT (and in this case, Consumer Discretionary) analysts don't read
"Someone somewhere had to wear pants for the first time. The meek and indecisive do not change our world." -Montville
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.
...But there's one thing sony could do to annihilate the competition.
They killed the Saturn with one sentence : "It's 100$ cheaper".
They killed the competition with : "It plays DVDs".
Even though I deem it not feasible, they have been known to surprise people.
My greatest fear about their show at next E3, would be "IT PLAYS DIVX".
Fucking scary...