Slashdot Mirror
Sony Exec Says Luxury Could Be PS3's Downfall
Via Next Generation, an interview with CEO of Sony Corporation Sir Howard Stringer on the site CEO Exchange. In the piece they report that Stringer has gone on record as saying the PS3's price may be its downfall. This is the first indication we've had from Sony's upper management that the console's price may just be too high. "Wii is a wonderful device, but has a different target audience. If we fail, it is because we positioned PS3 as the Mercedes of the videogame field. PS3 is after a different audience and it can be whatever it wants -- a home server, game device, even a computer." Relatedly, a Goldmann Sachs analyst has opined that a PS3 price cut could come this year. Assuming they drop the price by $100 or more, this might blunt the objections many have to the console's lofty pricetag.
"What? A console war? I know what to do... Let them eat cake!"
Of course, we all know what happened the last time someone was this blind.
They are saying they made a console that costs way more than anyone wants to pay...
If it's dead, you killed it.
Ah, yes, the luxury of playing PS2 games. And a couple of decent PS3 games, too.
Oh, and the luxury of playing Blu-Ray discs, which most people don't care about. I want a game system to play games, not movies and other "luxury" media.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
The word "duh" comes to mind ...
I don't think that anyone here will doubt that they would have bought (or be considering buying) a PS3 if they had sold it for $300.
The important question is what will happen to Phil Harison and Ken Kuratagi if (in my opinion "when") the PS3 fails to sell 25 Million consoles worldwide?
If Sony does a price cut I expect MS to do the same. And the rate at which sony loses money per console can they afford a big enough price cut?
Well, the Neo Geo was an extremely expensive machine for its time also. I would almost compare it with the PS3 in terms of features, price and era. Look how well it did. It had a rabid, but extremely small, fanbase. As long as Sony is confortable with that, then everything is dandy. Now granted, the console buying market has grown a lot since then. But still, of all the game fanatic friends I know, who have multiple consoles, only one had a Neo Geo.
Fear is the mind killer.
Despite it's many problems (I myself have had to return only one 360...second one is 8 months younga nd going strong) I would MUCH rather take the 360 over the PS3.
It's not because I prefer Microsoft over Sony. It's not because I'm a fanboy loyal to one console or another...it's for one simple reason:
Games. The fucking games. Look at the games slated for the 360 this year...look at the games slated for PS3 this year.
Yeah. I'll be keeping my 360 and use that 600 bucks to help build a solid base for a new comp when Spore comes out.
Living With a Nerd
Like it or not, the PS3 is always going to compete in the same exact market as the Wii and Xbox360. No matter what features they include with the system, how powerful they make it, what claims they make consumers will always consider it first and foremost a game console.
Anyone who wants a system that does more will buy a PC. The PS3 is built around a gaming console so it will never function adequately as a PC. Not to mention it wouldn't be compatible with anything on a PC. Those interested in a home theater want dedicated hardware. They don't want audio/visual performance compromised. So ultimately, while for what the PS3 offers it might not be a bad price, it's perceived by everyone as a game console. And in that regard it is overpriced.
Nintendo has clearly learned from their attempts to turn the NES into a home computer. They've focused on the entertainment aspect and are emphasizing gameplay. Microsoft is in a far better position to bridge the gap between PCs and consoles given their extensive experience with operating systems. Even then, Microsoft hasn't forced an overpowered system on the consumer. They're a lot more subtle.
Eventually, PCs and consoles might unite as a home entertainment appliance but that day is still a ways away. Sony tried to do too much too soon and now have put themselves in a very difficult position.
I believe he was referring to as far as HD media is concerned. In other words, it is not available on HD-DVD.
They designed a game machine with an awesome cutting-edge processor, a high-capacity next-gen optical storage, and bottled it up behind a mediocre graphics card. Thus it will never dominate over the cheaper XBox 360 in the screenshot wars. OOPS!
but it is available on DVD and much cheaper....
"But we couldn't get our people to understand software. And we are a music company. They saw digital media, panicked and didn't like it." In the end Sony designed a closed music system that didn't work.
Ever one to promote the Blu-ray, Stringer also manages to point out Blu-Ray's 3-to-1 sell over HD-DVD, calling HD-DVD a "transition tech." One might see their blu-ray interests as having a hand in helping the decision to make the PS3 a luxury item, but the CEO doesn't mention any thing about the $600 stand-alone blu-ray player Sony is releasing this summer. This of course really means they wanted a luxury item, not just a trojan tech carrier.
Finally, I think I can see in the article the closest reasoning to why the PS3 is a Sony-tech catch all device: "Each product category was its own 'silo.' PlayStation was a silo. All the divisions were in their own little worlds. There was no sharing of information between these divisions and little acknowledgement of software." What he did was to try and break down the silos with a program called "Sony United,."
It sounds to me like Stringer's decision here could have atleast influenced the PS3 development decision. In a company that tries to engineer superior technology products, perhaps a good degree of separation is necessary to prevent the expensive bloating of some endevors.
Demented But Determined.
all 360s come with a one year warranty now. If you bought one with a 90 day they upgraded you automatically....just an fyi
I also own a 360. The PS3 is connected to a Sony HS-20 720p digital projector via HDMI and to a standard dd5.1 sound system via optical out. Here are my impressions:
Setup on the PS3 is very buggy and filled with poorly translated instructions.
- when first initially turning the unit on, it will auto-detect HDMI and display 480p. The second or third question it then asks is: "Do you want video and sound to be output via HDMI"? Since I wanted to output sound via optical, I thought this was asking if I wanted to split audio off the HDMI connection, so I selected "No". What then happened was that it spit 480i video out the composite cable.
- When initializing the network via wireless it will search and then display a list of available wireless SSIDs. Select one and DHCP an ip address. Now test the network. It succeeds in grabbing an IP address, but the network test always reports a failure even though the network is live and updates can be downloaded.
- Everyone knows about the lack of background downloading. Blech.
All that said, once I stuck a Blu-Ray copy of Casino Royale... whoah. I gotta say, the image is stunning. BD is definitely much much much better than HBO-HD, SHO-HD and OTA HD material. NO pixelation whatsoever. Extremely fast video plays without a hiccup. I'm IMPRESSED.
I don't have an HD-DVD player, so I can't compare the two. I suspect they're about the same in quality. But Blu-Ray has the movies. So... my impression is that if you want a BD player, the PS3 is the cheapest option out there and it's VERY GOOD.
As for games.... well, frankly, I'm much more impressed by Gears of War than I am by Resistance. JMO.
I expect Nintendo to gut Wii Sports from the Wii package as soon as Sony starts rattling the price cut sabre. Gets the system down to $200 and people can choose the game they want instead of Wii Sports. Either that or Nintendo starts bundling in a second remote + nunchuk to the existing console SKU and you have exactly the same effect. Could throw Wii Play in just for the hell of it. Value added software is always a good consumer enticement.
Insert Sig Here
That they consider the potential PS3 audience to be a different target audience from Nintendo's Wii.
They shot for luxury buyers - but the reality is that most console purchasers of PS2 were never luxury purchasers.
I know, I get targeted ads designed to appeal to me to buy fancy watches, suits, vacations, etc - all because I like to read the magazine Vanity Fair and run a Family Trust and have saved a lot of money - but they miss the market truth that I have never paid more than $35 for a watch, like most millionaires, and stay in inexpensive hotels when I travel.
Know your actual market - and don't destroy your existing one when you launch a new product.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
A Wii is £179.97 at Tescos, and comes with a bundled game (Wii Sports). Add £194.97 for a Xbox 360 core system and you get a number that may appear to you to be £484.99, but those of us with more of a grip on reality can see is actually £374.94
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
You mean a mac. PCs can only do boring business related tasks. Don't you watch TV?
Macs are SO HIP man. The technology in those things is light-years beyond what's in a PC.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
This may actually reveal a bit of the developer reticence with respect to the PS3 -- trying to take advantage of the Cell architecture is a one-hit effort. That expense of that effort cannot be recovered in a port.
What I'm waiting for is for someone in the mainstream media to break from the "PS3 is the highest-performance console of this generation" talking points: I've yet to see evidence that this is actually true. It looks like hype of the same flavor as the PS1 polygon counts and the PS2 "supercomputer" status -- transparently false, yet never confronted as a lie.
Liberty you never use is liberty you lose.
What worries me most is that if I get something for the 360, I'd be afraid of it coming out for PC later on. I prefer PC games over the console ports due to the fact that the PC can get higher resolution and texture quality than the console versions. Maybe this is less the case now with the beefier consoles this generation. It's more a consumer perspective than a developer one. Of course developers are gonna like having the ability to port things from the 360 to the PC without as much work as a PS3 to PC port.
Insert Sig Here
Trying to compare video game consoles to cars just doesn't work out. Trying to sell a video game console like it was some super-high priced luxury/sports car(Mercedes, Bentley, or anything namedropped on Top Gear) is doomed to fail. Whether it's a beater or a Veyron, they get you from point A to B. Video game consoles have many more factors, like oh, I dunno, games to play on it? If we compare console titles to roads, there seems to be quite a few more roads the Xbox 360 than there is on the PS3 railway system. The loss of exclusive games(which is increasing by the week it seems) is just going to steer "I'll buy this console just to play this game" people away.
:)
Trying to sell a video game console at a premium price, hyping it is a Bentley doesn't work when there's so few titles available for it. I don't remember it happening successfully before.
So, how long before I can buy a PS3 at the thrift store?
But can you get a decent gaming computer, keyboard, mouse, and video cables for $600? (For example, the base model Mac mini with SDTV output is $620 plus shipping.) And how well does the computer's preinstalled GUI work on standard-definition composite video? And how many players per computer do typical computer games support?