Slashdot Mirror
Game Publishers Pressuring Sony For PS3 Price Cut
Bloomberg is running a story about several video game publishers and developers who are pushing for a long overdue price cut on Sony's PS3 console. Sales of the PS3 are lagging behind both the Wii and the Xbox 360 despite the PS2's resounding victory in sales of the previous generation of consoles. One of the creators of LittleBigPlanet, a PS3 exclusive, made similar comments in an interview with Gamasutra, acknowledging that they're looking forward to the day Sony drops the PS3's price. An analyst from Janco said such an action is necessary if Sony doesn't want to "lose support from game developers and publishers."
The only way Sony can win is if they pretend they're not competing with Nintendo, and say that the Xbox 360 will be surpassed in 10 years. This conveniently ignores the high probability that the PS3 will be completely dead in ten years if they don't do something now.
I actually agree that PS3 would outsell Xbox360 in 10 years. (Probably even Wii.) The problem for Sony here is that in 10 years, MSFT would already release Xbox1440 and Nintendo - Wiiii.
Kaz Hirai is a lunatic and he's going to run the PS3 into the ground.
Japs traditionally do things with devotion. And devoted people tend to make themselves believe in what they say.
It's not like in the situation Sony management can do anything radical. They have to balance profits with long term plans. They invested lots of time/money and have no choice but to push whatever they have for sale - at a price which has a distant chance of turning a profit.
For whatever reason PS3/BD fails - management heads in Sony would roll. It doesn't matter how it would fail - it would be spectacular. That means the management to succeed have to put a kind smile on and try to sell it more aggressively.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
PS3 is a great gaming system with really nice media center features etc. Xbox 360 is a great gaming system with really good online gaming solution. Far superior online system to Playstation network but you pay for it so meh. Wii is perfect for when the mates come around etc or friends or family for a social visit. Its a hit with my young nieces and nephews, but also a hit with my mother so its very popular. However as an out and out gaming machine the wii graphics are very poor but the social benefits of its setup are plenty.
What ?
Wii is a great gaming system, and its graphics are not "very poor". This is pure nonsense, but I see where you come from.
Or are you saying the PS2 is not a great gaming system, as its graphics are even "poorer" than the Wii's, and it was still outselling the XB360 when it was alone on the "next-gen" market and even after ?
The Wii is just as great a gaming system as its competitors actually. No, actually, it's better, and the sales show it.
Sooo, where am I going with this state the damn obvious here......
The only thing that was obvious here was your bias.
Sony's product IMO is a far better system to have in the living room. I mean you can actually copy movies and music onto the damn thing unlike the 360 (yeah I know direct cd import but not mp3 support???) So to me the extra price is actually worth it!
OK, that's your opinion. But now, for the videogame market, the Wii is clearly the far better system to have in the living room.
Sony are not really competing with Nintendo or Microsoft here as their machines all concentrate on different aspects. PS3 = Home entertainment system Xbox 360 = Gaming system with kickass online play Wii = Family casual gaming fun. So not really competing here in terms of what they are trying to offer. Well the only problem here is that somebody forgot to tell the consumer that they are not competing. They see Call Of Duty World at War on all three systems. To most people they see all three as gaming systems pure and simple and do not know they differences between the xbox 360 and the ps3 and usually go for the cheaper ones.
Unfortunately, Sony forgot to tell Sony that they weren't competing with Nintendo and Microsoft, as most of their PR include Nintendo and Sony, most of their comparisons do too.
They also forgot to tell every single analyst out there that all still believe that XB360 and Wii are competing with PS3.
Even the developers didn't understand that and make games for all 3 consoles, and even more (DS, PSP, PS2).
Actually, you and a bunch of other people are the only ones still believing that they're not competing one against each other.
I would call you delusional, but perhaps the world is wrong and you're right.
I know the parents who are purchasing the systems do... If you ask a salesman, whats the difference between the Ps3 and the Xbox 360, the most common answer will just be "The PS3 has a built in Blue Ray player which the xbox 360 does not have". In reality there are many more pros and cons that can in use would change their minds about the console they would like. So overall I beleive the PS3 is worth the sale price, but most consumers will not see it that way and they only thing for Sony to do now is drop those prices and try and compete in the consumers ignorant eyes.
LOL, the "consumers ignorant eyes" ?
It confirms I know where you come from.
It's not the consumer's job to go to your product, it's your job to put your product in consumers' hands.
The consumers, the market, will then decide the value of your product, and will weigh the value against the price.
Some people have a hard time admitting that the Wii has a higher value, and the PS3 has higher value than the XB360.
The PS3 has a higher price tag than XB360, and it sells as much with sales aligned, so its value is clearly better.
It's even better when
Oh, it's "right from the article, my mistake, obviously since its in the fucking article, that makes their statistics unquestionable fact.
Guess if someone posts an article now about how Microsoft is outselling Sony, then suddenly that is fact.
I have no vested interest in either, that's why i mentioned it, I haven't been "fooled", because frankly I don't give a damn who is up/down/left/right. My point was, what makes Microsoft's "cherry picked" statistics, less accurate than these "cherry picked" statistics? Why do people simply believe these statistics because they are the newest, from these particular people?