Sony CEO Confirms Limited $499 PS3 Stock
If you were confused about yesterday's stock announcement, you wouldn't be the only one. Thankfully Kaz Harai, SCEI CEO, has clarified the situation: the $499 60GB PlayStation 3 is a limited offering. They'll only be selling it here in the states until their current stock of the system is cleared out, at which point the only SKU remaining in the states will be the $599 80GB + Motorstorm bundle. The catch is that there is probably enough stock in hand for several months of sales at this price; hence the confusion yesterday about a 'fire sale'. Hirai confirmed this to a Norwegian videogame news site, and the video of the interview is available online. For some perspective, Next Generation has a commentary piece on this strange matter. "Now Sony looks as though it's been spinning consumers. The smart thing to have done would have been to come out and say that the 60Gig version is being discounted and discontinued, and that the bells-n-whistles PS3 at $599 is better value than ever. That didn't happen, and what many have seen as a pretty successful E3 for Sony has been marred by confusion over the future of the platform's strategy. So in those meetings next week, Sony will have cause to look back and consider how things might have been done better."
-dave
http://millionnumbers.com/ - own the number of your dreams
Oh please, you know exactly why people are upset about this. It's become clear you're a Sony astroturfer. You've posted in the other story on this topic and people were pretty clear why there were upset about it.
But to make it clear, it's that "cut the price of the 80GB console" part. There's no proof that's going to happen. People have been clamoring for a PS3 price cut for ages. There's clearly demand for the PS3, but not at the $600 price point. People have been wanting to see a pricecut.
So what Sony has announced is that there's a pricecut, but then they're going to sell a version that has about $20 worth of storage extra and a version that's not as backwards compatible with PS2 and PS games. (That's assuming $1/GB, which is high - it's closer to $0.75/GB.)
So, ultimately, Sony is announcing a new, worse version of the PS3 for the same price. That's why people are upset.
That assumes, of course, you're interested in playing PS2 games on the PS3. At this point in time, with the PS2 game library dwarfing the PS3 game library, it's a fair assumption that people would want to do that. You can also debate how much worse the PS2/PS emulation is, especially since the new emulation is already used to enable upscaling in the existing model.
However, this still comes off as Sony saying that they're selling a new, worse model for the same price, while trying to ditch the old model. Not completely true, but it sure sounds like it.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
If I was Howard Stringer the first thing I would do is fire the entire marketing staff. So far their advertising and handling of everything related to the PS3 has been bungled. From the crying baby advertisements that were outweirded only by Sega's Dreamcast campaign, the early arrogance in the press, to the latest price cut, its not a price cut debacle there hasnt been one element of their PR that has worked in their favor.
Over a quarter of games aren't going to run. Many of the rest are going to have some problems. What are the odds that all your favourite games won't be among them.
When a company sells a product as being backward compatible then it should be backward compatible. For all titles, not just some. I don't care if they acheive that through hardware emulation or software emulation (there's no reason why Sony shouldn't be able to make a 100 percent effective software emulator, they do have unlimited access to all the hardware, source code, etc) but if they make a promise to their end-users then they should stick to it.
In Sony's case, that promise was broken from day one in Europe and South Korea. Units for those markets never had in-built Emotion Engine chips, so not even early adopters in those markets had the chance to buy a totally compatible unit.
Notice how Sony didn't pull that stunt out of the gate in either Japan or the US? Why do you think that might have been? Perhaps because it felt that it couldn't pull that kind of shit in either of those markets? Or perhaps it thought that if European and Korean gamers were crazy enough to pay its inflated prices (£425 in the UK, which is $850!) then it could shaft them further by removing hardware to cut costs.
Now it seems, by stealth (because they sure aren't trumpeting the fact), Sony have done the same in the US. And, somehow, me pointing it out is offensive to you?
I've owned more consoles/gaming PCs than most in my time. I have (or have had) an Atari 2600, a Commodore 128, an Atari ST-FM, an Atari STE, two Sega Megadrives (Genesis to you), two Atari Lynx (one of each model), a PC Engine, a PlayStation, a Dreamcast, and a PlayStation 2. I've also lived with friends that owned other consoles. There are few major console titles that I haven't played.
Yet so far, I've yet to buy either a PS3, an Xbox 360 or a Nintendo Wii. Why? Because, so far, none of them has really engaged me in any way. I'm trying so hard to want to buy another Sony console but Sony itself seems to be coming up with more and more reasons why I shouldn't ever do that.
It's a shame. All Sony had to do to earn my money was to not try to rip me off with a less than compatible unit (why didn't a single European PS3 have hardware emulation) and a price tag that was, even after accounting for taxes, 45 percent more than US gamers were paying for the same system.
Thanks for the fanboi Sony vs Microsoft rant though. The all-caps "SONY"s were a nice touch.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg