By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Rpruett on 12 March 2009
Edit Thread
Squilliam said:
Rpruett said:
Dark Chaos said:

MS just entered the console business and entered late. Facing the monster PS2 it didnt do well but it never had any reputation, no game library. NOTHING.

PS3 on the other is a absolute failure.

 

So ur saying if MS suddenly lost their 80% OS market share to 20% and lost money that is not a failure?

OR

If Apple release $600 Nanos and lost money on them. Went from first to 20% that is not a failure??

 

 

Were not talking about Operating Systems or any other product but consoles.   Every new generation brings a new set of circumstances.   And the point is,  Microsoft had to dump billions of dollars (Even in this generation) to maintain any form of momentum that they had.   As a matter of fact both HD consoles had to.   Sony is not a lone.

 

And if you want to classify failures as such :

Nintendo has been an absolute failure since the SNES if you count the numbers (And until the Wii).  Sega was an absolute failure since the Genesis.  Microsoft has been an absolute failure since the success of the Wii. (It still can't sell as well despite being cheaper). 

 

 

Market share directly relates to having a competitive price. Which Sony has yet to have.  Simply  because they are cramming too much technology into one piece of equipment.  Like i've said,  we know that a PS3 within a 150$ dollars of the 360 sells better on a WW basis.   Sony has more flexibility as it pertains to price than either Nintendo or Microsoft but their biggest limiting factor to more market share is price. Which has historically shown to be generally the biggest factor that drives sales.

 

Both the 360 and PS3 have been absolute 'failures' as you classify them.  /shrug

Nintendo never lost billions of dollars on consoles. I think that sums up the position on Nintendo.

Microsoft is making money on the Xbox 360 operations and it is extremely possible they will post a net profit overall, especially if the next generation is delayed to 2012 or beyond. So improved marketshare, profitable and establishing the brand as a viable gaming console means they could become or could already be considered a success if brand equity is factored into the equation as well.

Its Sony's failure to have a competitive price at this point. Its not an excuse and should never be used as such. Nintendo and Microsoft are both able to cut the price a lot faster because Nintendo was always profitable on the Wii and Microsoft has much more software revenue and more options to cut the price as they made their console better from a business perspective if you consider the bill of materials and licencing compared to the PS3.

Sony pays:

  • Cell royalties.
  • Blu Ray royalties/extra cost for hardware.
  • RSX royalties.
  • XD ram royalties for the technology and extra fabbing cost due to the custom nature of the design.

 

 

I'm not sure what is more of a failure the PS3 or the Xbox 360...

Like you said,  Sony did just about everything wrong this generation and the fact that Microsoft is still worried about competition from Sony is kind of odd.  The 360 can't get rid of the PS3 despite being half the cost (Doing so many more things correctly **according to you**)  Kind of weak if you ask me.  The 360 shouldn't be outsold by the PS3 for any singular week (With how horrible of a failure the PS3 is).

Despite the fact that the PS3 and 360 are tracking very similarly (Actually the PS3 is tracking higher in it's lifespan). Yawn. This argument is stale and old.  The PS3 isn't a resounding video game changing success that the PS1/PS2 were.  Although it's not the failure that it's quite often painted to be.

When/If Sony discontinues the PS3 early,  they lose tons of game support, sales fall off the map, they have trouble 'giving' away the system.  Then you can come back and talk about how big of a failure the PS3 is/was.  Not until though.