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.
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?
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're not. They want the huge market share they had with the PS2. In fact, they seem to regard it as their birthright. I think they're genuinely shocked that a huge chunk of the PS2 fans didn't just come rushing with $600 in hand.
Bad for them, good for consumers. We need some good competition.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
"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.
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.
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
That comparison is a bit unfair. The Neo Geo might have failed as a home console, but it was possibly the most successful arcade board ever!
Circumcision is child abuse.
Believe it or not, the PS3 is not even close to as expensive as the Neo Geo once you adjust for inflation. The Neo Geo came out for $650 in 1990. That's about $1020 in modern dollars. The $100 games would cost about $150 dollars today, if I remember right there were some that were even more expensive.
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?
the PS3 is not even close to as expensive as the Neo Geo once you adjust for inflation. The Neo Geo came out for $650 in 1990. That's about $1020 in modern dollars.
Except that this doesn't work, because the price of consumer electronics doesn't increase along with inflation. With consoles, people have become accustomed to paying pretty much the same price every generation regardless of inflation, and getting better and better hardware for that same price. (You may recall that the 360's $400 was initially considered an awful lot of money, though people seem to be getting accustomed to it now -- even though, correcting backwards for inflation, that's quite a cheap price for such a powerful console.) So, if you go back and correct for inflation, yes, the Neo Geo is far more than the PS3. If you look at its price relative to its competitors, though, the comparison becomes more reasonable again...
I am the man with no sig!