By Ben Kuchera | Published: January 19, 2009 - 05:10AM CT

Looking at the end-of-year NPD numbers from Friday, it's clear that Sony failed to grab any real momentum away from Nintendo or Microsoft; the performance of the PlayStation 3 is simply dire. No one is arguing that the system isn't wonderful, as we called the hardware the best product in 2008, and the games available for the system were some of the year's strongest and most creative.

The fact remains that Sony has simply failed to inspire the gaming masses to go to the store and buy a PlayStation 3. The numbers can be spun, to an extent, but Sony took a bad licking in 2008. What does it need to change in 2009? We have four suggestions.

Drop the f*$&#*%^ price

Let's make this very simple. It doesn't matter if Sony can't afford it. It doesn't matter if the company packs in more games. It doesn't matter that Blu-ray is included. This isn't a matter of value. The hard truth is, in the current economy people aren't willing to pay $400 for what is primarily a toy. 

Yes, when you add up the features the price is justified, but who cares? People won't pay it. Even though the Wii and budget-model Xbox 360 fall short of the PS3 on features, people are willing to suck up the lack of an internal hard drive and other niceties and go with the cheaper options.

Microsoft is chopping features and dropping the price, while Sony keeps making the tired argument about what you get with the PS3, as if the mainstream game buyer cares what audio formats HDMI 1.3 allows on the highest-end home theaters. Yes, technically, a larger hard drive at the same price is more value. No one is arguing that. Sony needs to grow up and realize that no matter what they include, $400 just won't fly these days. 

Lower the price. Now. 

Let's get serious about online

No, I don't mean Home. When your most ardent supporters can barely muster "it's not as bad as people say, it may get better in the next six months," your social experiment to see how much people will pay for virtual shoes has been a failure. So far, at least.

Sony may turn it around. Stranger things have happened. But for many of us, Home simply isn't anything we want. I don't want to wait in line to bowl, I want to play games with my friends. Sony makes that a chore. 

What do we want? Cross-game invites. We want voice chat in all games. We want... well, we want Xbox Live on the PS3. Don't tell me that's impossible to do for free—Valve created what amounts to a PC version of Xbox Live with Steam's social features, and that doesn't cost anything. 

Or, and here's an idea: charge for it. You need to make money on the PS3. People are willing to pay for a good online strategy. Admit you're wrong, and move forward. Saying your online service is free is kind of a lame argument when your online service consists of whatever the developers want to give away on a game-by-game basis. Microsoft has a checklist of things developers have to do in terms of online play on the Xbox 360, and that strategy means when you buy a 360 game, you know what you're getting in terms of online play. This is an idea you need to steal. 

When I play Left 4 Dead or Call of Duty 4 on my PC on Steam, I have a great experience. When I play Xbox 360 games, I have a great experience. But when I play Resistance 2 on the PS3, I have a friends list that doesn't work for any other game. That's just... special.  

Stop making us wait for Thursday

Nintendo has Monday, Microsoft releases Arcade games on Wednesday, and Sony forces everyone to wait until Thursday. PS3 owners get Rock Band songs, demos, and even games later than everyone else. Why? It might be a relatively minor thing, but it sucks to hear your friends with 360s rave about some bit of content you have to wait for, based on some arbitrary rule. 

Or let's say I own both systems, and the content comes to the 360 first. That's where I'm buying it. Why wait? I know gamers who have stayed up all night to have first crack at a big download; making them wait until nearly the end of the week for their fix isn't endearing. It's just stupid. 

Remember that games are for fun

Sony wants you to know that the PS3 is a high-end, high-class piece of technology. It can play those new-fangled Blu-ray discs. You can download content. You can stream music from your network. There are obscure, art-laden commercials around the world that point these things out, or they focus on the fact that you can be bored while your girlfriend watches romantic comedies. 

Sony seems to feel the need to keep customers intimidated. Nintendo has grabbed a slice of every demographic in the United States. The Xbox 360 is now the most affordable system, with arguably the best selection of games. The PS3 is... a media box? Something that plays more expensive versions of the movies you already have? 

Why don't we ever see people just palling around and playing video games? Why does Sony feel the need to push this esoteric "experience" of this consumer electronics device instead of point out that the PS3 is supposed to be fun. 

This is a recession. People are pinching pennies, and they want to have fun. The Wii looks fun for kids and adults, the 360 is inexpensive and features an easy to use online system for playing with your buddies, and the PS3 always comes off as a luxury item. It needs to look fun, and along with the new price tag, Sony is going to have to give the thing to sell it. That could send a great message to gamers.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20090119-four-things-sony-can-do-to-turn-the-tide-for-the-ps3-in-2009.html

i see nothing new. the only one they need that i see is price drop, but a hard one like US$150 or US$100 minimum

"Sony seems to feel the need to keep customers intimidated. Nintendo has grabbed a slice of every demographic in the United States. The Xbox 360 is now the most affordable system, with arguably the best selection of games. The PS3 is... a media box? Something that plays more expensive versions of the movies you already have?

Why don't we ever see people just palling around and playing video games? Why does Sony feel the need to push this esoteric "experience" of this consumer electronics device instead of point out that the PS3 is supposed to be fun."

That statement is an epic win, and the thesis statement of any good argument against PS3 marketing. Afterall, it's the same damn console as the 360, with a BR tacked on to help Sony sell BR players. Why is it marketed this way?

Wouldnt Sony rather sell like 8M consoles this year without a price cut for a profit or sell 11M consoles this year for a loss?
The fact is Sony cares more about pulling through this recession than helping those get a PS3 who aren't willing to fork out the cash.

I think first and the last point are the only one costing them sales.. second and third are not that important... atleast they shouldn;t be in the second and third place

1: I guess but that could be suicide for sony
2: WTF? Home is a BETA ... a fucking BETA.. and you are saying a beta sucks. Online service is also free and also lags less than xbl.
3: That is just a stupid point
4: Eh, people get sucked in to all that stuff .. well some, this point is pretty crappy like number 3.

If I hear "price cut" one more time...

dude home will be a beta for ever, is a cheat, thats it. they said that the beta tag is to indicate how the "game" is an evolving game (so it will turn from boring to crappy?).

source here 

Four things that should happen, but Sony just don't have control over or just can't do them. :)

its one day.  its not a big deal. 

and so what if they own both systems?  they more than likely dont own 2 versions of the game...and im pretty sure no one is going to decide to get a game because possible content comes out 1 day earlier.