Slashdot Mirror
In Wake of Price Drops, Further PS3 Doubts
Sony fans undoubtedly cheered the news of a $100 drop in price for the 60GB PS3, but even with the price drop there are several issues surrounding the console. 1up reports that the 80GB PS3 is following the lead of the EU-released PS3s by removing the Emotion engine and relying on software emulation for backwards compatibility. In an effort to decrease costs Sony continues to reduce features and develop their product. Meanwhile, Konami executive Kazumi Kitaue doesn't see much impact from the cut ... and in fact told Reuters that they're seriously considering a multi-platform release for Metal Gear Solid 4. "Kitaue said Konami may need to expand the target hardware for its blockbuster fighting game Metal Gear Solid, which has so far been developed for Sony's PlayStation machines, to other consoles in the future to recoup development costs ... The release of the latest version of Metal Gear Solid series is expected to help lure hard-core gamers to the PS3 and alleviate concerns over scarcity of strong PS3 titles. Underscoring sluggish PS3 sales and robust demand for the Wii, Nintendo shot past Sony in market value last month and bumped the Tokyo-based electronics conglomerate off the list of Japan's 10 most valuable companies."
I doubt I'd be all that pleased. To me, it would seem that I payed $100 too much since they're dropping the price so soon after launch.
Software emulation on the PS3 works just as well as the hardware emulation!! Software emulation as been in the Euro consoles since release over there. No features are being taken away at all. This is a gaming console we're talking about, not a PC. There is no disadvantage of emulating in software rather than hardware. There are no background apps that will be starved for CPU time because the emulation is in software rather than hardware!
What's with all the anti-Sony FUD lately?
It's kind of like a Catch-22, with Sony stuck in the middle.
Price flamewars aside, the main issue with the PS3 is its library isn't really spectacular. Without a decent library (either general or exclusive titles) it is not going to sell well, even if it was the exact price of an XBox 360.
So, Konami is thinking about not making MGS exclusive to the PS3 because the sales have been poor.
But the sales won't increase without publishers hitching their star to the PS3 as exclusive titles (even if it's just exclusive for a year or so).
Then again, I don't see why 3rd party publishers go exclusive anymore. If you can increase sales by 50% by simply recoding an existing product then go for it. Note: I'm a software developer and I know very well that's not as easy as it sounds. But it's obviously possible asince it's being done now (even across the Wii and the 360, which are as different as you can get).
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What's with all the anti-Sony FUD lately?
There's been anti-PS3 FUD from day one. I don't know why. Microsoft has contributed with their multi-million dollar "grass-roots" PR campaign, but I don't think they are the sole reason. Sony *has* screwed up in a few ways (like shipping sixaxis controllers with no rumble), but considering how even a *price drop* causes the FUD to fly, it's hardly all due to their mis-steps.
I don't know why everyone is Sony-hating, but they've been doing it for a long time.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
The stock markets are all about where you are going. If a company can't sell a story or concept to investors it typically trades at a fairly low multiple of earnings (these are classified as value companies). When they can they trade at a much higher multiple of earnings. As examples Apple is trading at 38x it's earnings. Dell trades at about 20 times it's earnings this year. Investors believe that Apple is more likely to grow its earnings faster than Dell will so they pay a higher price now.
The other factor that impacts market value is the total size of your profitablity. It's likely that Sony's other businesses earn less money (per dollar of sales) than consoles (in good times), so Sony's other businesses don't add as much as you might expect to its market value.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
That is all you need to know. Think of how many billions they have made on that simple fact. It isn't like it costs $8 to print 10-20 cards. You are seeing pure profit in the card game. Not to mention the millions in TV franchise rights, movie revenues, and finally video game sales (which also happen to require requisite video game consoles which also sell at a profit unlike competitors). It has been a cash printing machine for the last 10+ years. It makes more money at less risk then any music business can.
You also forget that Nintendo owns a LOT of different IP which they license to many other entities. Their entire business model is based such that even if console tanks, they have enough cash to continue onwards. They keep their development costs low as well as their production costs and make sure they always are making a profit on each and everything they sell so they do not have to rely on future revenue from game sales to make a profit. They have had several systems which have flat out tanked in the past, but have always been able to continue through the market ups and downs (unlike some competitors, Atari, Activision, NeoGeo, SEGA... who couldn't last a single bad console release).
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
Screw-up is harsh term for the PS3 thus far. I wouldn't ding them that harshly. Once the price issue is removed, it isn't a catastrophe, it's just...not the best. It's got online and it's free, but it's just not as good. Interface has a few nice features like internet browsing, but overall, it's not as tight of an experience as Xbox360 with relation to gaming, and this is a gaming console. On the other hand, the Wii is far worse, so I wouldn't say the PS3 is doing terribly here, just not as well as the Xbox360.
Games and lost exclusives, it is indeed Sony's job to make sure the games are in place, this is their biggest problem IMO. They didn't have enough of the right games, and have lost exclusivity on some of their better ones. But this is very much a matter of opinion, and I don't see them doing terribly here, just not as good as the Xbox360 or Wii in targeting the seperate markets. The Xbox360 is a direct competitor to the PS3 in terms of the games being fielded, and it's winning, while the PS3 can't compete at all with the Wii for obvious reasons.
So while there are no catastrophic mistakes aside from the price added by packing in Blu-ray, coming in 2nd-place in all categories leaves this console without a clear picture of what it's good for and who should buy it.
If I were to pick the worst part of the PS3's performance, I would have to stretch to include the marketing. It has been pure CRAP. Truly terrible. You would almost think that they have intentionally been sabotaging themselves. Have you seen the "This is Living" campaign? Soccer fanatic lying naked except for a jockstrap masturbating to a soccer game on TV? A busty-blonde pooping in a toilet telling stories about her mother? The mercenary's clip had a superb performance by the actor, really good stuff, and unfortunately, the message was that you should go and buy a bar of chocolate. However, this was a European campaign.
The U.S version was not that much better, though it had improved later on to actually show some clips of a game (Resistance). However, it had kicked off with a plastic baby crying blood to the sounds of Armageddon in a white room. Apparently they're trying to tell you that the PS3 kills babies and will bring about the Eschaton.
But as I have said, the PS3 isn't that bad of a package aside from the pricing. The games will happen someday, and when they do the PS3 will pick up some momentum. I don't think it has any chance of catching the Xbox360 or Wii. However, the PS3 has successfully established the next media format. HD-DVD is dead in the water since there are so many more blu-ray players in the wild. And releases will go to the format with the most people who can play them. And people will buy the format with the most releases on them...etc. etc. So Sony has that at least. Whether that translates into PS3 sales later on due to Blu-ray's lead on HD-DVD is questionable though.
Ok, Sony Started out with 2 versions selling at $499 and $599. Now they have 2 versions selling at $499 and $599. The feature spec is now different, but how is that a price cut? For the sake of comparison let's take Sony out of the picture and compare Cameras.
Last year you could buy a 5.1 Megapixel camera solo for $199, or a 5.1 Megapixel camera with a bag, & extra batteries for $249.
This year you can get a a 5.1 Megapixel camera with a bag, & extra batteries for $199, or you can get a a 5.1 Megapixel camera with a bag, extra batteries and a memory card for $249 and they no longer sell the 5.1 Megapixel camera by itself.
You are getting more for your money, but at the core you're buying a camera at the same price as was offered last year.
The GP did say Sony, and I know I've read many comments, many previous to launch, where people were planning on not buying because of the PC root kit fiasco. They've also been severely trashed for not having rumble in the controller. I hear their isn't much to their library, and nothing you couldn't get on the 360 so why spend the extra cash.
I suppose all of the other PS3 issues relate in some way to the price of the console. When Sony first announced the price of the console, the executives acted very aloof like they were giving customers the privilege of being able to buy a PS3 at $600 (Apple has managed to do the same thing with a phone that also requires a $40 service plan and get adored for it), made statements about how the next generation didn't start until they launched, and generally acted like they didn't care what the customers thought and people should be lining up to give them money just because they're Sony. That's not a very customer friendly attitude to have, and has made everybody that felt condescended by Sony look at their product and decide that there isn't enough of a difference between the PS3 and the 360 to warrant the higher price, so they'll get the 360 since most games will be ported anyway.
Sony also has not paid attention to the history of consoles, and how no $500 console has ever done well. Further, all of the tens of millions of people that bought the last system are now about 2-6 years older than when they bought a PS2. For the twenty and thirty somethings in that group, many are now married, have kids, and the $700 or $800 (because you want games with that console right?) commitment is not as feasible that the $400 or $500 of the PS2, and many have also decided "been there, done that" for most of the games, and decided not to ante up for the newer model when they older one does just fine, or they've moved to the 360 for a better online experience, or to the Wii to try something new.
The last round, the Xbox was the hard core system, the PS2 was mainstream system with the GameCube. It's like Sony decided they wanted to switch roles with Microsoft, and go after the higher end market. HELLOO!!! You guys kicked the crap out of the Xbox last time because they were the high end system, and you were more affordable, and you decided to go after their part of the market, and left the core open for Microsoft and Nintendo to swoop in and take it away from you.
Also, with the PS and PS2, Sony used misinformation and hype to bury their competition because everybody waited to see what Sony had to offer which made the Atari Jaguar, 3DO, Sega Saturn and Dreamcast suffer, and Sony managed to do well enough to beat those offerings plus the N64, GameCube, and Xbox. This time, they're competing with a 360 that is comparable to the PS3 on value basis and a Wii that wants to take away the casual gamers that Sony had last generation.
The biggest thing of all has been the word of mouth. Sure, Sony kicked Nintendo's tail on launch week. But it didn't take long until word of mouth got around and demand for the Wii was through the roof. My wife reads lots of parenting magazines, and every one of them has had articles recommending a Wii for family friendly fun so that the family can spend time together while playing instead of junior hanging out in a corner of the basement alone, and they have the option of providing junior with active games so he'll be in a little better shape than he would be with any PlayStation game other than DDR or Guitar Hero. They also option of playing games that they played 10-25 years ago, and wouldn't mind playing again, with their kids.
That's the thing, this $200 sweet spot apparently doesn't psychologically adjust itself to inflation. So you can't get away with arguing "Yeah, $500 seems like a lot, but if you adjust for inflation, it's like you're getting a console that costed $200 many years ago. We're sure our logic will overcome your psychology without difficulty!" Except that electronics goods are constantly getting cheaper, so we expect them to cost the same or less in the future, using whatever the current dollar is.
If you really don't understand the difference between the 360 upscaling 720p content to 1080p, and the PS3 natively supporting 1080p output then try the following:
Take two pictures with a digital camera: One at 1MP, and another at 2MP. Copy the photo files to your PC and then note the resolutions. Now, use a photo editor to stretch the image of the first photo to the same resolution of the second. Notice a difference between the two? The first photo lacks the detail of the second because it never had the additional detail in the first place.
So sure, 720p games scaled to 1080p will look good, but the art assets (textures, etc.) were not created for the higher resolution.
As for the media drives, I prefer the quitness and constant throughput of the PS3's drive, thanks. Last night, for shits, I loaded up Gears of War (gamertag: Ilidd, if you want proof) again after having not played my 360 in several months. The DVD drive is just as obnoxiously loud as I remember it.
I don't buy 360 versions of games anymore and I'm seriously playing with the idea of selling my 360 because the system is unreliable and noisy. Yes, I know the 3RRoD is warranted for 3 years now. I don't care. A console shouldn't break that quickly in the first place.
No matter what happens to the PS3 at this point (win, lose, becomes another Dreamcast story) I've already recieved lots of enjoyment from it. Yes, it was expensive but it was worth every penny. I can honestly see that system physically lasting for 10+ years because of the build quality. I can't say the same for my 360 and I won't replace it when it breaks.
I guess my whole point is that if gamers were to sit down with a PS3 and play all the games it has, I think they would really enjoy it. Every person I've had play mine loves the system and the games, except for one guy, who as much as I like the dude, is a Xbox fanboy in the worst way. Some people are that way and it's honestly their loss. I hate Microsoft's shoddy products, but I still gave both their systems a chance. I didn't like the direction Nintendo went with the Wii, but I bought one. I sold it because it was boring to me, but I still see why some people go crazy over it.
Peace.