A lot of people out here think I'm a Sony-basher and that's not true. I actually wanted a PS1 & PS2 especially so I could play all the games I missed that weren't on my home company's side, Nintendo's. I CAN play other systems and have many times. What soured me on Sony was reports of Sony craftsmanship. I like my stuff to last with me for years. I have a two tabletop mini-arcades one being a Game & Watch Mario's Cement Factory that will be 23 years old this year (yes as old as Kwaad himself!) and a Coleco Pac-Man that will be 22 this year (old enough to graduate from college!). And they still work like the day I first got 'em. I am displeased with Sony's business practices and where they have led the industry in regards to quality control and attitudes more than anything though I can respect their ability to become the champ in the industry.

I actually worry more about Microsoft becoming a leader in this industry. They will ruin this gamething if they ever got real control. As a competitor I don't mind them—they give out a solid product that many people seem pleased by—but as an industry leader I'll stand against 'til the day I die.

OK now that that's out the way here's something I've been thinking about.

Do you think that Sony should have gone all out and produced and sold their next console as a PSX rather than they did as a PS3?

I ask this question because it seems Sony was going for the enthusiast, high-end, videoaudiotechnophile, cosmopolitan audience with the PS3.

I heard rumors of the PSX2 a while back and it was basically the gargantuan version of what the PS3 was.

Price will always matter and when you go to certain price levels you will bar yourself from certain audiences. Some don't pay past $200 or even $150 for game machines.

Sony created a specialist audience machine, a niche machine for a mass market. That won't work EVER. You CAN sell to niche audiences and survive. Thrive even. How many people buy Rolls-Royces everyday? But that company makes profit from concentrating their resources and attention catering it to the needs/wants of their dedicated base.

Advertising will be different and production costs will be different. You make for less people so production is slightly less complicated. Less storage and warehousing. You sell smaller quantities for higher prices and make your money THAT way. Catering to the needs of a few. The total opposite of the mass market strategy.

I think Sony should not have played this $600 game with the PS3 because it was never going to work. It's simply too high and even the XBox 360 is too high. They sell it at a loss thinking not to scare off more potential customers but they don't realize that they have ALREADY scared off most of the customers. And as a result they scare off the developers eventually. Bad business practice. Selling more systems actually HURTS them if they don't make up the difference in software sales & Blu-Ray disc sales.

So shouldn't they have gone all out and created the ultimate version of the PS3 that would be like the PSX? An all-in-one media device that plays games, plays Blu-Ray, edits movies, is a DVR, maybe does Tivo, runs Linux, acts as a stereo/surround player and has Bose-like speakers and all that high-level jazz?

NOT selling it at a loss but REALLY staying true to their "I would work another job to buy one" mentality. Putting the price out at $1000 plus and presenting it beyond a gamemachine but more as an all-in-one mega media device. A TRUE PlayStation that plays EVERYTHING.
Selling it to upscale audiences & their emulaters?

They wouldn't have the volume of sales but they WOULD have the power of profit being that it sells at such a high margin. And no one could complain about price because of all the stuff in the box and that it was never intended to be like the other Playstations. Full-powered Cell to do all these things.

What do you think about that? That would make more sense to me.

John Lucas

By home company, do you mean you work for Nintendo?

To answer your question:  no.  There is already a device that does all of what you mentioned, and that is a PC.  A PC plays all formats, can play hd movies, can output to resolutions far greater than 1920x1080 (1080p), has graphical capabilities that surpass consoles within a few months of their release (meaning already), and can be upgraded at the users choosing, not just when another SKU is released.

You are still forcasting a doom for the PS3 that has not come to pass yet.  Btw, the sales forum had a post that showd that the 360 is barely more expensive than a lot of successful consoles: 

Those are inflation adjusted.  So, saying that the 360 costs too much is not a graet argument.  As for the PS3, it was #4 on that chart, and yet still has sold quite well considering much of the console's worth is forthcoming.  Let it go and let this thing playout!  

Btw, as for Sony's craftmanship...this was also it's own thread recently and we have all documented cases where most consoles had problems.  However, the PS3 is very well built and aside from a small batch has had NO PROBLEMS.  The 360 is the one that has had to be replaced a lot, not the PS3.  PS1 and PS2 had problems but still worked for quite some time.  The PS3 (including mine) has had no such problem.  

Please take your Nintendo agenda away or at least get off of Sony's case.  Please? 

Oh please. End this argument. If I worked for Nintendo do you really think I'd be up here in some forum yapping away? Let's get real now.

And this is not a slam against Sony. PS2 WAS shoddily built & I AM happy that PS3 is not the same and that XBox 360 has picked up the shoddily built mantle. NO system should have a reputation for being shoddy and that we have to expect beta, gamma, and delta versions of the systems to work out the kinks. It didn't use to be that way.

I'm asking a question. I feel if Sony was gonna go on this route they should have gone all out because the current situation is not gonna work.

To me it doesn't matter either way. I wouldn't buy either one. These are videogames; I keep this very much in perspective. No game system is worth that much not even Nintendo's.

I'm trying to bring a fresh discussion to the forum so enough of the attacking.

And by home company I mean the company I support the most. I like Nintendo's games and will always buy their systems unless they stop their committment to putting out that quality.

John Lucas 

Well I answered the question and I feel like the premise is ridiculous.

The question of whether you worked for Nintendo was legit because I don't consider myself a part of "my home company" of sony just because the last 2 generations I only bought a PS1 and PS2.  I had an NES, SNES, Genesis, but not DC, N64, GC.  I thoroughly enjoyed Mario Kart and would have bought it if they had it online (I played it with friends when we got together).  I think you've missed out on a lot of "quality" by refusing to buy anything but Nintendo's systems.  As much as I bash microsoft and hope for them to lose in just about everything they do, I would consider getting a 360 if they let you upgrade hard drives more easily and didn't charge for online games.  Blue Dragon intrigues me, as do the plethora of shooters that are bound to include one I'd like.

I don't think you should rule out purchasing other consoles, and I don't think you should constantly question what Sony is doing and look for any opportunity to say it's over.  No, they should not have released an even MORE expensive console.  Of course not.  Their main problem right now is the pricepoint of the console.  The 2nd problem is lacking some more console selling games.  Those are coming, so until those games come and don't sell, can we stop the 2nd guessing and the outrageous questions of whether they should have given up on the console race entirely (which is what you are suggesting).

PS2 isn't a system that needs to be replaced? About 40% of PS2:s i know, are re-buys because old console has broke. Just like Hus would say "i want my kiddii fixed".

No, I'm not rich. My money is limited as well as my physical space so I have to make the best decision for my dollar. I like other games but I most like Nintendo's hence I bought Nintendo's systems. I wanted a Dreamcast. Wallet said uh-uh. Room space said hmmmmm. I wanted a PS2. Wallet said uh-uh. Room space said welllll. I wanted an XBox JUST to play Raw 2 which I felt was the only good 6th gen wrestling game representative in presentation and game engine outside of the Asmik/AKI legendary titles. Wallet said wait awhile. Room space said where?

I used to live in an apartment complex as a teen. Upstairs my NES & SNES, downstairs my friend had a Genesis. I loved going downstairs to play his Genesis AND LATER Sega CD. I LOVED the Sega Channel. That not good enough for you? Still think I'm some Nintendo-employee or cultist?

Who said I don't consider wanting to buy other consoles? But you gotta make a decision. Those guys who buy all the consoles are not that many people honestly. Some MAY buy two. It takes a LOOOOT of cash supporting 3 separate platforms and all the games you'd like to play. I don't have neither the time nor the space nor the cashflow nor the priority in life to want to be doing that. I've got plenty of games on my Gamecube I've barely scratched into. Just been buying 'em up, playing them a little, and then putting them off to the side. Just now getting back into them. I got a full-time job and I do other things besides play games. Some days I play nothing at all. Not Wii not anything. A week sometimes. And it was that way before. Only 24 hours in a day, 7 days in a week. And a portion of that is dedicated to sleep.

If I had to pay for air I'd suffocate due to my car problems crushing my wallet along with the gas prices. Money is tight kid & I got student loans I'm trying to get off my back. So when I go for a system I'm going for the one I feel will give me the best consistent experience for my dollar. I'm not one to fritter away my funds and can squeeze a dollar tighter than Scrooge McDuck when I have to. Nintendo has a proven track record with me for over 25 years in software, hardware, and interface. I don't HAVE to look at reviews or previews to wonder if I would like their games or not. I don't have to get consumer feedback on the durability of their products (I could show you the clip of the Gulf War Game Boy & the Car Dragged Gamecube but I'll pass for now). So they got my trust and I haven't been let down yet. They are the best developer in the business bar none. Anyone will tell you that. So I support them FIRST over any others. Down the line when my physical space improves and my leisure funds are little more flexible I'll think about picking up some competition's systems. It's all about priorities.

I feel if Sony went all out & made a PSX-like device things would be a little better for 'em. That's MY opinion. I want to see what OTHERS think about my proposal.

John Lucas 

 What is this in response to?

johnlucas:   if you can't find room for a console then you must live in a closet.  I can understand money limitations, but room?  Anyway, everyone I've known that had an NES and SNES had problems with it at some point.  Trying to blow into those things to get to work or align them perfectly in the console.  I suppose you've just been lucky.

I'm glad you've enjoyed only Nintendo games for 10+ years, though.  I couldn't have done it. 

you said in one of your postings that you never had problems with ps2.

and i must agree with bdbdbd response: i know also some people which bought minumum two ps2s...

i remember the time when i worked at a game developer company and in our party room

the ps2 died after 1 year.  and many dvds had scratches... 

but anyway - this is discussed in another tread weeks ago 

to the topic:

i don't think a multimedia ps3 makes sense ... i personaly prefer the idea of a cheaper ps3 (maybe no blueray) with more games -> but its too late now: it is how it is :)

I have said many times that if Sony would have released practically anything at $300 it would have been the fastest selling game console of all time ... We would be talking about how the PS3 sold 10 Million consoles in 4 months rather than how Nintendo Sold 6 Million consoles in 4 months. Anything Sony could have done to dramatically reduce the price would have changed their outcome.