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.
Kaz Hirai is a lunatic and he's going to run the PS3 into the ground.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
I've never owned a console but lately I've been considering getting a PS3. The only thing stopping me is the price which when compared to the 360 is just plain silly. It's not that I can't afford the PS3 at the current price I just can't justify paying more than double the price of the 360 for something that is only a little better. The price of the PS3 really pushes it into the luxury / enthusiast bracket for me. I want something I can just kick back on occasionally not something where I feel guilty for not using it because I've spent a fortune on it.
Just my 1c worth.
I used to have a better sig but it broke.
If only it could play PS2 games, I would be more tempted to acquire one.
I play in progrssive scan since the DreamCast, and would like to try some of the best games that the PS2 has.
But I'm afraid for Sony that PC-based emulators will get enough power with quad-cores CPU to run PS2 games flawlessly before they manage to provide a back-compatible PS3 again.
Own all three. 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. Sooo, where am I going with this state the damn obvious here...... 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! 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. 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. Well thats just my $2.50, take it or leave it.
With accessories and online costs considered, I'd say it evens out, and rather quickly at that.
Fear is the mind killer.
And if Sony cuts down the PS3 price EA and Blizzard are going to stop selling games at $70 each? I doubt it.
This is why despite a lower userbase, proportionally the games sell better.
The tie in ratio is the same as it is for the Wii and it looks like it's equivalent to the 360 when adjusted for time. Do you have any data that says PS3 games sell better across the board (not just the top tier exclusives, those sell on their own merits but the entire library combined tends to sell on the userbase's preferences)?
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
And? So they're doing slightly better than the 360 (not that the time adjusted sales really matter, what matters is the userbase you can sell stuff to). What does that get them? A medal in the special olympics? The 360 isn't the goal, the Wii is! Currently the Wii's userbase is about equal to the COMBINED userbase of the 360 and PS3. I know people love to fling around stupid claims like "it's a fad" (yeah, one that's already gone through half a console generation without ending) or "casual gamers don't buy many games" (the tie in ratio does not support that claim). What is true to some extend is "third party software tends to sell much worse than Nintendo software" but that's mostly because third party software for the system tends to be garbage thrown together by, as Iwata put it, 4th and 5th string teams while the 1st and 2nd string teams keep working on extremely expensive yet less profitable games on the HD consoles. Of course dev teams that can barely make their games not crash aren't going to compete with the highest quality game publisher in the whole damn industry on even footing.
Anyway, taking second place from the 360 is a worthless goal since it's pretty easy to make a game cross platform between the two (and the PC) so the leadership in that special race isn't going to change much. What they have to beat is the Wii which is just far off in the distance with currently no apparent chance for Sony or MS to catch up with it.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
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.
I look forward to the time when "exclusives" are no longer even pretended to be a good thing, and those who make those Faustian bargains are recognized as chumps.
From what i understand, game developers are more interested in making it easier to develop the games for the PS3. Currently it is difficult and time consuming. This makes it less profitable for developers, so they have chosen to jump ship and go to the 360.
I agree, the price difference between the two is almost the same 'for most people' with all the peripherals considered.
But that initial price shock is enough to steer potential buyers the other way and that really is hurting the PS3's bottom line.
That's right, folks. The XBOX 360 is just as expensive as the PS3.
A lot of people go around bashing the PS3, but I find that most of them don't own both systems, like I do. The PS3 is actually cheaper than the 360. Did you know that? Here's why:
1. The PS3 comes with wireless capability. The XBOX 360 requires a $100 wireless kit. That right there makes up the price difference.
2. The XBOX 360's controllers require batteries. An add-on rechargeable battery system costs about $20 per controller. The PS3's controllers are all rechargeable right out of the box.
3. If you buy something from the PlayStation store that costs $5 or more, you pay the exact amount. On the XBOX store, you have to buy "Microsoft Points" at the rate of $12.50 (USD) for 1,000 points. You have to buy these in bulk. So if you want something that costs 800 points, you have to pay for 1,000 points, leaving you with 200 points ($2.50) left over. Of course, Microsoft manipulates things, so you are always left with small amount of points left over. In other words, Microsuck is keeping your change. Bastards.
I have a bad feeling about this...
So basically you contradict yourself ?
You CAN PLAY the Wii ONLINE without having to pay anything more.
The XB360 is the only console that requires that you pay a yearly or monthly fee to play online against others.
[Citation Need]
And just where exactly did you "cherry pick" your statistics from?
I don't own an XBox, nor PS, but I'd like to know how your statistics are so absolute.
What ?
LOL, these numbers are taken right from TFA, using exactly the same data the "analysts" talk about.
It's absolutely right that for now, the PS3 sells faster than the XB360 despite the higher price point. You can see this clearly if you align launches.
You've clearly been fooled by MS cherry picking.
Most people don't realize it, because Nintendo flew past MS, despite being 1 year younger, so it skews most people's visions.
Sony can't afford a price cut. Frankly, they can't even afford the current price, as evidenced by their having squandered almost all of the profits from both the PS1 and PS2 just keeping this train wreck afloat. That's the problem with predatory tactics like loss-leader hardware: sometimes you get burned by the risk, and Sony has gotten burned big time.
Ultimately, the core problem is that people won't pay $600 for a game console. Truth be told, they don't really even tolerate $400 at launch, if the 360's sales are any indication (for all that we -rightly- speak of the PS3 as a failure, it still consistently outdoes the 360 at corresponding points in its lifetime). This is because people understand that the value of a console derives not from what the devs put into it, but from what the gamers get out of it, and that there is really only a small section of the market that can actually be swayed by "better value through bloat" marketing Kool-Aid. The proper response, therefore, is to make sure that you can afford to release your console at a price people are willing to pay for it en masse -$300 at launch seems to be the limit- and if you can't do this, then you need to scale your technology back until you can. Sony failed to do that with the PS3, and their current situation is nothing but a natural consequence of that.
Truth be told, the 360 really isn't faring too much better. Neither market is large enough to sustain third parties on its own anymore, thus the glut of cross-platform games: the increased sales from being on both platforms can be just enough to eke out a profit despite the additional cost of porting. If anything, the real benefit of Microsoft's year-long headstart may be that it hasn't benefited from the marketing fallout of its failure due to there being no real basis for comparison. The PS3 has faced that in full measure.
But the real problem that faces both consoles, really, is that the self-described "hardcore market" is dying (and no, Netcraft has not confirmed it). This fanbase's obsessive pwn-the-n00bs mentality and fetish for gratuitous complexity have between them driven away most of the new gamers who might otherwise be interested, ensuring that there a healthy influx of new players. Meanwhile, many of the existing gamers in that market have frankly grown up, and in the process have either gotten bored with gaming altogether or started wanting more from their games than the generic "hardcore" formula; these have sought greener pastures and found them elsewhere.
But then, the attitude of the so-called "hardcore" has never been a gamer attitude anyway; it was a domination fantasy and nothing more. They've poisoned this market for far too long, and as a gamer I'm frankly relieved to see them being pushed back to the margins. If the 80s and early 90s were gaming's golden age, then let this generation be the start of a renaissance of gaming for everyone. The market will be so much healthier.
True, DVD had the advantage of no rewinding. But at the time, a lot of paid-for TVs had no composite input jack, only an RF jack. The $25 RF modulators brought DVD's picture quality down near VHS's.
This is a lot of nonsense. I have a crappy Philips TV with a composite jack and an RF jack. I get basically the same picture whether I hook a player up to the Composite directly, or use the RF. In fact, my Xbox is connected to my TV via RF, through my Panasonic S-VHS which is basically just converting S-Video to RF. I realize that the conventional wisdom is that there is less bandwidth available for RF and so anything else should look better. In practice, the composite input is usually very poorly implemented and the RF may actually have a BETTER picture, because people watch TV on RF but they just play video games on composite (typical hookup anyway.) I am using this setup to get the video signal across my room; Composite is not good at long runs.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Actually you're wrong.
The PS3 is absolutely not outselling the 360 overall, nor is it doing so in Europe or North America. It is only outselling the 360 in Japan but only by around 10,000 units a week, whilst it's losing out to the 360 by around 20,000 a week in Europe and around 50,000 a week in the US.
The reason the AC parent has the stats he has (although they're rounded in favour of the PS3- the real stats are 21mill PS3s and 29mill XBox 360s) are because the PS3 had a period where it was outselling the 360, about 6 months into it's lifetime for around a year. It wasn't outselling it for the first 6months of it's life however and it has not been outselling it for the last 6, furthermore it's actually losing ground week on week in terms of the units shifted, so not only is it losing ground overall, it's losing ground at a faster rate week on week as an average trend across the last 6 months.
MS were cherry picking for a while for sure, but they're not now. They've got a healthy gain on the PS3 and it's almost certainly because the 360 is so cheap now whilst the PS3 remains too expensive.
It's also worth pointing out that MS is also selling over twice as many games per console as the PS3 so is making even more money than Sony in that repect too.
Go check the facts for yourself if you want at:
http://www.vgchartz.com/
Now if we could only pressure Sony to make the damn thing easier to code for. Having developed for both I can tell you it's night and day. The XBox dev tools are much easier to use and better integrated into IDE and speaking from mostly writing multiplayer code the API are much simpler.
PSN Online is provided free of charge, with multiplayer gaming. XBox Gold membership is something like $50/year, and is required to actually play multiplayer games on XBLive.
Sony also has less incentive than Microsoft to keep a given title's matchmaking servers going. In fact, Frequency and Dance Dance Revolution Supernova were turned off (DNAS Error -103: Title is not in service) before I could log in even once.
Most PS3 models have built in wireless support (although there were some that didn't), the XB360 Wireless Network adapter is something around $50.
Which isn't worth much if your existing network is all-wired. A lot of Wii owners had to buy a Wi-Fi gateway just to get the console onto Wii Shop Channel.