Six Things Microsoft and Nintendo Should Steal from Sony

[Onyxmeth]

Loud_Hot_White_Box said:

Onyxmeth said:

Loud_Hot_White_Box said:

HappySqurriel said:

1) At the end of 2010 the PS3's capabilities will be similar to what the Wii's capabilities were at the end of 2006 (when it launched).

 

Yes, but how much more HD can you get than HD?  Maybe newer consoles can have more shit onscreen, etc., but at least PS3 games won't look objectively ugly in 2010 the way too many Wii games do now.  Plus, if Wii games are good enough for the masses now, cheap PS3 games on a cheap PS3 will be better than good enough then.

 

And to the posters in this thread who say something like "these features made PS3 last place" :  PS3's price actuallly made PS3 last place.  The OP's point, I think, was that the features themselves are good, currently setting PS3 apart feature-wise.  The features are now cheaper to implement, and since they are also good features, they may be good choices going forward.  I do agree with y'all that if either of the other 2 consoles was in the same price range as PS3 originally, they'd have been steamrolled.

Especially beneficial, without much extra cost, is the open-ness of PSN.  I fear that Sony is/was too slow in getting some huge PC IPs onto PS3, and that when they finally get around to it, MS will just make an exception or change their XBox Live control-Nazi ways to allow the game to come to 360, as well.  But allowing 3rd parties to charge monthly fees for their blockbuster games could have really helped PS3, if Sony could have gotten, say, Blizzard or someone to bring a huge game to PS3.

The PS3's pricing and features are not independent of eachother no matter how much you'd want them to be. Obviously the PS3 lost because of it's price, but it has it's price because of it's features. You can't have one without the other. So yes, these features did make PS3 last place, because they caused the price to jack up enormously while still selling at a loss. No company should be making a console that costs approx $840 to produce. Sometimes it's best to leave some good ideas in the pot longer and bring them out when they are ready AND cost effective.

 

Right, but the price of the features is no longer what it once was.  The relationship is not constant.

Since others could choose to integrate the features going forward, they'd have costs far lower than Sony's were in '06.  The presence of the features do not imply the higher price of several years ago, if installed now or in the future  You can't insist that the features will increase the price to untenable levels, therefore.

The features might be great while at the same time it's true that putting them in a console too early was untenable.  Putting them in later may be beneficial. 

People try to knock the features but all they can legitimately say is that some features were installed too early because the price was still too high.  They still might be good features that other companies might want to look at in the future.

 

Ok that I can agree with. That is where the article fails though, because he says they should be in the 360 and the Wii, and we all know these features will continue to be too expensive until at least the beginning of the next cycle of consoles. This is why you can't seperate the features from the price, because if the 360 and Wii had done what the article suggested, and had those features in their consoles, Microsoft and Nintendo would be as broke as Sony is now. The features were mistakes BECAUSE they came too early, not because they aren't awesome.