By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
misterd on 22 December 2008
Edit Thread
forevercloud3000 said:
misterd said:

 

I told no one to STFU-  It was the original acticle and poster that was telling Time to STFU - I just mocked them for it.

Now you still haven't addressed any major points:

1) Sony has lost 3 billion on the PS3, and looks to lose even more.

A: PS1 lost alot too when it was released, PS2 lost even more, PS3 lost even more then them. Sony knew this would happen already, they don't care. Their plan is to recoup on the losses down the line with game sales and then make profit off of the system later down the 10 year life cycle(and yes, I said 10 year life cycle)

2) Sony has dropped from a 70% to 20% market share.

A: They are the most exspensive on the market which puts them out of the reach of common consumers within this recession. This is temerary. Casualty of trying to be innovative with their hardware. Will be recouped within 10 year life cycle so who cares.

3) The PS3 still doesn't have a game that looks like it'll reverse their fortune.

A: Playstation has never survived off of one game. It has always been the mass bulk of quality that drove the PS franchise to the top. THey are doing the same this gen as well. Refer to IGNs charts on PS3 excels at quality games over quantity as the 360 does. THe PS3 also has more quality games then 360 does. When the PS3's price drops all of this will become much more apparent to the consumer and they will realize what a marvelous thing the PS3 is.Oh yea, 10 year life cycle!

4) The console is now selling less than it did a year ago, is firmly entrenched in third place, and is losing ground each week - slowly to the 360, quickly to the Wii.

A: Yea, It started selling less then last year right around the same time the 360 went for a price cut. But no, don't mention that little tid bit for they have nothing to do with each other....right?

You explain to me how these facts don't show the PS3 as a major misstep by Sony, and I'll concede that Time was completely off the mark.

A: The PS3 issues are simply being massively overblown for different reasons by media and fanboys alike. Here are some facts to throw into the hater machine. PS3 has more quality games then the 360 had each consecutive year in it's life span. PS3 is better made hardware by a mile then the 360 OR Wii is and is truthfully the best deal for a system. PS3 does just about on par with the 360, its main competitor at a much higher price point. The PS3 is/ or at least was gaining on the one year lead the 360 had on it. The PS3 can out last the other two systems with pure staying power, seeing as they have taken the time to add in features and things that later on down the line consumers will definitely be looking at. Lastly, BluRay, check the recent sales on N4G and other sites, it is prevailing. Oh and 10 year life cycle, BELIEVE IT!!!!

 

 

PS3 FTW!

Thank God you can at least give a cogent argument, something the original critic simply failed to do.

As I said earlier, then repeated, I wouldn't describe the PS3 as a flop. However, as a business decision, it was a bad one, badly executed, and it is hard to deny that it has hurt Sony far more than they had planned. There is no indication that they were planning on XBox-type deficit with the PS brand - if they had, they would have given the heads up so this wouldn't look as bad as it does (MS did let it be known early on that they were prepared to lose a fortune to get the XBox established).

Let's also be fair in acknowleging that while Time blows the issue out of proportion, that's what news always does. No one sells magazines with headlines like "PS3 not doing terribly well, but all things considered it could be much worse."

 As for the 10 year cycle, we'll see how that plays. At this rate, by the time the PS3 hits its 5th year, Nintendo will be able to launch a PS3 level Wii2 for a lot less money than the PS3 debuted, which tells me that Sony lept a generation to far with the PS3. They should have done a more consumer friendly console with fewer bells and whistles. The real question though is whether Sony can push the PS3 for 10 years. They could do it with the PS1 and PS2 because they were the most successful of their generation.  By the time the console is widely affordable ($200), the competition will be ginning up excitement for their next consoles, and the PS3 risks being left in the shadows.

And while the recession can be blamed on this years sales, it can't be used for the first year,which was abyssmal. Every gamer I know of laughed when Sony announced the $600 tag, and were insulted by comments like "its underpriced". Their ego got the better of them, and we'll see whether they can fix the damage with the PS4.

And why did they need to mention the 360 price cut? Is it somehow more comforting to know that your sales are being hurt because consumers are defecting to the competition?

Lastly, I'll grant the library has come together nicely this year. Unfortunately I remember when Nintendo tried winning the console war with "quality over quantity" and the PS1 cleaned its clock. The problem is the quality will inevitably follow the leading console, as developers chase the biggest user base. If Sony has the smallest base, and is unwilling to pay for exclusives, then it will have trouble drawing the critical third party support it needs. It will have to try to make up the difference with first and second party exclusives, which, again, failed for Nintendo.

PS - I have a BR player and a good number of titles, so I believe in the viability of the format to collectors like me. I am not yet convinced it will gain DVD level acceptance, and definately skeptical of the PS3's ability to act as the primary gateway to the format.