Slashdot Mirror
Where the PS3 Stands Now
Phil Harrison and 1up's Luke Smith had a chat about the current positioning of the PlayStation 3, and it makes for some interesting reading. A quietly confident Harrison discusses the future of game distribution online, their attitude towards competition in the console market, and clarifies a few things about the potential for PS3 price cuts. The previous discussion about price cuts was apparently a big misunderstanding. "PH: Well, do you know what [Takao Yuhara] said was, cost reduction, not price drop, and there's a big difference between cost reduction and price drop. So, that I believe is where the confusion came from. Obviously, we are investing our money in making PlayStation 3s cheaper to manufacture -- that's part of our business plan. 1UP: You're not going to pass the savings along? PH: When we can, when there are savings to pass along to the consumer, we would obviously choose to do that. That's the business model. 1UP: Wait? You guys are doing this to make money? Really? PH: That's videogame hardware 101."
So when Phil Harrison says that making money off of the sale of a console is "videogame hardware 101," It's obvious that there's only one game company with a passing grade in that class. But I guess saying so is "flamebait."
It's still the problem. I have both the PS3 and the Wii, and while the PS3 is the superior system, the Wii gets much more use. The price is right, and there are several games for it.
The PS3 is definitely superior. The games that it has (that I've played) are all top notch. The problem is that there are so few games. Sure, there are some games that are downloadable via the Playstation Network, but most people won't know about those. Hell, I only found out that GT:HD was available by RTFA.
I understand Sony's desire to get the PS3 out by Christmas. I think they would have had better luck if they'd waited until more games were ready.
If they priced the PS3 at a point where they'd make a profit they'd be selling even fewer of them.
To paraphrase another great strategist, "You don't enter a console war with the hardware you want. You enter a console war with the hardware you have."
If Sony had lowered their sights a little when designing the PS3, there's no reason why they shouldn't have been able to create a profitable console that could sell for $400 or less. But no, they decided they NEEDED a Cell processor, and they NEEDED a Blu-Ray drive, and thus they ended up with a console that they can't even sellout at a loss.
So when Phil Harrison says that making money off of the sale of a console is "videogame hardware 101," It's obvious that there's only one game company with a passing grade in that class. But I guess saying so is "flamebait."
How is it flamebait? Bashing Sony's PS3 decisions gets you easy +moderation.
So while you can find them in some stores, the PS3 must be doing something right if people are willing to pay $100 above retail to get them through Amazon.
...
Of course, Amazon ships to countries where they won't let you buy a PS3 at retail yet
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
-- I might be stupid, but you have to be good at something.
It's all about BluRay. They would never sell it without BluRay because their media division forced them to do so. Now, the Cell processor, on the other hand, was their own fault. Unneccessary, and from what I've heard, detrimental to getting developers onboard and getting content out the door quickly.
But, unfortunately, Sony would never even begin to consider the possibility of creating a PS3 without BluRay. Honestly, in the minds of the big wigs, their game division could completely collapse, but it would all be worth it if BluRay became the new video media standard.
This scares me, it's bad enough having Microsoft as a defacto standard in many areas of the computer industry, but having Sony in control of an entire generation of digital media scares the fuck out of me. I have no love for Toshiba, but at least they're not Sony.
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
You can really only push that so far though. You would've thought that to be the case with the N64, wouldn't you? Sure Nintendo was sticking with cartridges, sure 3rd party devs were abandoning them left and right... They still had Mario and Zelda, everyone will buy their console! They're Nintendo for pete's sake! Except that Nintendo left a huge hole for Sony to leap into, and the rest is history.
Sure, it didn't spell death for Nintendo, and the N64 had some great games and plenty of people bought them. But Nintendo gave developers and consumers plenty of good reasons to consider the alternatives.
And if you don't think a $600 price tag hasn't made a lot of people take a good long look at the alternatives, then you have an abnormal sense of the value of money. And the alternatives in this round are both quality competitors, so Sony should be very wary of giving their fan base reasons to really think through their decision.
While the hardcore fanboys will certainly buy whatever you offer them at whatever price you ask, the hardcore market is only so big. Development costs are increasing at a ridiculous pace, and if the growth of the hardcore market doesn't keep pace, a $600 console machine is not going to be a reasonable target for most developers. GT and FF are all well and good, but not necessarily enough to support an entire platform all on their own. Especially considering Sony's business model which seems to be to make up hardware losses with software in the future.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
If you think about it, it really isn't all that surprising.
At any console launch, at least to date, there has never been what could be considered a truly fleshed out, solely of good quality set of launch titles. Each console has had its focal points and weaknesses that were only compensated for later, whether it was sports and FPSs, RPGs and sandboxes, or Platformers and war games. One or two genres have always tended to get clustered around, leaving most of the rest sidelined or represented by lackluster titles.
This is true of the current generation as well. The Xbox 360, the PS3 and the Wii all suffer from this malady. Each in its own fashion of course.
For the 360 and the PS3, the developers have tried and true control systems and standards they can adhere to in order to be certain their games do not fail. As such, we see very familiar genres, and mostly ones that will appeal to the hardcore crowd. Those are the people who will be buying the early systems, so why make games aimed at a different demographic?
For the Wii, the developers are understandably cautious. If their control schemes such royally, the game will flop. The safest bet is therefore to make a game with many control schemes. If one or two fail, it doesn't ruin the entire game. Hence, lots of mini-game collections. These serve to showcase much of what the remote can do.
The result in both cases is an overly focused launch that is entertaining, but is little more than an appetizer. It wasn't until the second wave of games that the Xbox 360 really began to show its worth (Dead Rising, Gears of War). This will be true for the Wii and PS3.
Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
If you play online, if you use WiFi, or if you watch HD, the PS3 is cheaper than the XBox 360. If you include all three, it's vastly cheaper.
WiFi - $100
online - $200 over 4 years
HD drive - $200
Add $500 to the XBox 360 price if you're using all these features.
Most people that have an XBox 360 use online, so the price of a premium XBox 360 is greater than a premium PS3 but without the HD drive.
"Wii sports are just lacking the depth to really hold my attention"
Wii sports was a demonstration disc thrown into the box for free. It was intended to show consumers and developers the proper way to use and develop for the Wii.
Of course it lacks depth. There is no depth. But you get what you pay for. In this case, you get a whole lot more.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
I'm wondering whether that will be enough. It took the PSP quite a while to come out with some decent games, and it seems to be too late. The console war is more of a sprint than a marathon. Your console needs to achieve critical mass quickly in order to get good third-party support. If that doesn't happen, a few good games a year later won't move enough boxes to change the course.
It seems that third-party devs are already moving support from the PS3 to the Wii, even after only a few months of sales. That could spell disaster for Sony.
What could help the PS3, though, is Bluray. If (and that's a big if) people want to move away from DVDs, the PS3 may yet reach a market. Even then, however, it's unclear whether that market would also be interested in games.
Bluetooth is an RF (radio frequency) protocol.