Slashdot Mirror
Sony Needs To React to Microsoft
Ars Technica's Opposable Thumbs column discusses comments by Ubisoft president Yves Guillemont. Mr. Guillemont's kind words for the 360 prompted thumbs poster Ben Kuchera to think even less well of Ken Kutaragi's recent arrogant windbag statement. Essentially, Mr. Kuchera is of the opinion that at this stage of the game Sony not only should 'care', they should be worried. From the article: "I wonder what the talk is within Sony... are they talking about the increased competition this generation, or do they all share Kuturagi's confidence? This isn't the same fight they had with the Dreamcast and the Xbox: in that case they had Sega's last system that never enjoyed EA's support, and Microsoft's first, unproven piece of hardware. Now they are up against Microsoft's second system, with very strong software support and online support, and the very popular and affordable Wii."
It often seems that Sony is playing for a the stockholder audience rather than the customer audience. You see if they say they're worried the stock goes down, which is bad for them, and it's unsure whether saying they're worried would have any positive response from customers. I expect them to make a few small concessions on the obviously wrong issues, like they did with the HDMI port without ever really admitting that their competition exists. The stock market loves unbridled optimism and arrogance, as long as nothing goes too obviously wrong.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Well, that's what I imagined, anyway...
Meta will eat itself
Which consoles win or fail has been all about what a select few game companies decide to do really. Square releases ff13 for sony. Bunch of companies assume fanbois will buy PS3 to play FF13. They have to plan 1.5 years ahead before a RPG game even finishes so they all decide to avoid risks and also release on the PS3.
Bam a bunch of good console RPG's come out for PS3 and everyone buys the console because said games aren't on the 360.
It's like a self fufilling prophecy really.
Compared to all the money MS spends on other stuff you'd think they'd bother to at least spend 20 million on making a few good RPGs at a total loss just to sell the console.
Look at what Sony is doing instead of what they're saying. Considering the Sony will have some sort of online system to replicate XBox live and their sixasses controller that sounds an awful like a Wiimote crossed with a Dual Shock, I'd say that Sony is very worried about the competition. If not, then they wouldn't be trying to copy their functionality.
They should react and produce Sonium Microsate.
... it required a change of pants
The article is written mainly about 3rd party software support.
The Gamecube fell WAY behind in 3rd party support. They did great with first party- but a lot of big games ignored the 'Cube.
No reason to lie.
Well, in spite of what they may say, I'd say Sony is very much aware and very much reactionary to the competition. They've tried to mimic the Wii's functionality as quickly as they could after they learned of it, and they're trying to replicate Xbox Live's services.
If I had to guess, they're just playing right out of the Art of War rulebook: When strong, appear weak, and when weak, appear strong. They have to exhibit an air of confidence because they know they're vulnerable and taking a big risk this round. If they don't show confidence in their own product at this stage in the game (and they are very much behind) then they're not going to rally the support they need from consumers or third parties. At this point, they've been dealt all the cards they have to play, and it's poker face time, except it's up to consumers to place their bets for them from here on.
Personally, I'm going to be betting on the Wii this hand, and wait till the stakes are a bit lower before I throw any more money down on something more expensive.
As a general principle, every company should worry about its competitors. Microsoft has massive corporate lockin with Windows, most corporations have software developed for Windows that would cost a huge amount of money to switch to Apple's OS or Linux. But do you think that Microsoft doesn't spend time thinking about how to retain marketshare?
In the game console business alone we've seen leaders being bent over and abused. Nintendo comes to mind. It's a very fluid business. There isn't much customer loyalty.
Microsoft has been manufacturing the Xbox 360 for about a year, its part costs have probably come down 15 to 25 %, it is about to move to a 65 nm process for certain components (which will reduce power consumption and save money) and Microsoft has a huge amount of money. Microsoft can rape Sony on price. Nintendo is currently making money on each console sold and is using low cost components which will only get cheaper over time. Nintendo is in a position to rape Sony on price. The reason the Xbox 360 is selling as many consoles as expected is that $399 is too much to pay for a console. Microsoft has it in their power to correct that.
Sony's exclusivity deals with game developers are far more limited than they were before. The PS2 had a 100 million consoles sold (probably about 80 million are working), it made sense for developers only to develop for the PS2. With an uncertain install base, no developer in their right mind will develop exclusively for the PS3 without a sack full of money from Sony. This is compounded by high development costs for next gen games. If a developer makes a game for two or three consoles, the failure of one console will not ruin game sales.
1080p graphics don't matter at the moment. Look at bestbuy.com. Look at the televisions costing over a thousand dollars. How many of them support 1080p? There are quite a few televisions under a thousand dollars which support 720p. Sony is relying on the PS3 purchases 3 or 4 years from now. By that time this particular generation will be over.
I think that both the Xbox 360 and the Wii will do well. After the Xbox 360 drops its price by about $100 and includes a game with the system. Third-party developers will show a preference for the Xbox 360 over the Wii until it is clear that third-party games can sell well on the Wii. There were many people who bought a Gamecube and only played Nintendo games on it. Months would go by and there would be no Gamecube games on the top 20 games sold in the United States. The Wii is also a different sort of console, which will cause a degree of hesitation. Despite a small install base for the Xbox 360, a number of third-party Xbox 360 games have become number one sellers in the United States and Europe. Saint's Row, Dead Rising and Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter come to mind. When a developer is looking for investment, being able to say that other companies have been successful in the same field is a big selling point. Development of third-party Wii games will pick up once third-party sales pick up.
I think that the game console market is extremely price sensitive. If the game console market was not price sensitive, why did Sony drop the price of the all-powerful PS2? Why not keep it at $299 and rake in the cash? If Sony executives face a $299 Premium Xbox 360 and a $199 Wii, I think they'll start to worry or be replaced by their shareholders.
The Gamecube fell WAY behind in 3rd party support. They did great with first party- but a lot of big games ignored the 'Cube.
This may be how it appeared from the outside, but I can ensure you that this is not how it worked inside of the industry; there were lots of developers who wanted to bring games to the Gamecube but (as I will explain in a moment) were pressured by their publisher to put the games on other platforms.
When Microsoft entered the Console world they started spending insane ammounts of money to buy exclusive support, ports or to simply prevent the Gamecube from getting ports; in Microsoft's world they believed that if they had enough third party exclusives (or at least the best looking version of a game) they would be as successful as the PS2. I know of several times when Microsoft paid publishers millions of dollars to ensure that the Gamecube would not get a port of a particular game.
On a side note, Microsoft was (at one point) willing to spend $100 Million a year to secure exclusive rights to Madden (and I believe all of the EA sports line-up, but I could be wrong); at the same time EA was securing exclusive rights to the NFL licence and one of the requirments that the NFL had was that Madden had to be available on all platforms (thus preventing them from entering the agreement with Microsoft).
I have honestly believed since I heard about the Wii that the reason Nintendo went in the direction they did (less powerful, more inovative) was because they recognized that if they were in direct competition with the PS3/XBox 360 for games that third party development would be out of reach because Sony and Microsoft would buy it away from them.
I don't know where you're looking but Ubisoft is a pretty platform agnostic compay, look at the list of Wii games they're releasing before March 31, 2007:
I know for a fact that several of those games are going to be multiplatform, with games like Assassin's Creed and Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Vegas being on both the XBox 360 and PS3.
I thought the 360 was going to suck chicken balls. I was surprised. It isn't too bad (though I'll never own one, boycotting Microsoft and whatnot). Now all these PS3 naysayers are screaming to beat the band about how it's going to fail, it's going to suck, and all that.
Honestly, I think the most vocal people against the PS3 were people who were expecting to buy a PS3 at launch and are so disapointed by the line-up and outraged by the cost that they're angry at Sony; Sony has promised so much with the PS3 and most people are discovering that it is not true and are (understandably) upset.
Until we see the PS3, and see the games that are there, and see how Sony handles the business end, everything we say is just a bunch of wind. The PS3 may suck, or it might be the best thing since the 6502. Sony may price themselves out of business, or they might hit the sweet spot. The launch titles may suck, or they may totally rock like an old lady on a rocking chair. The PS3 may be exploding batteries. It might be the best thing you've ever seen. We don't know. We can only speculate.
Based on the PS2, I'm thinking the PS3 is going to be a decent console, and they have nothing to worry about from Microsoft. The 360 may be Microsoft's best product ever, but that's damning with faint praise.
I think the PS3 will be a fine system, just like the XBox and Gamecube were fine systems, but I suspect that the success that Sony had with the PS2 and Playstation is a thing of the past. Much like the PSP, I think Sony is bringing the wrong dog to the fight and they're going to pay for it.