| Noobie said: 1. So u agree we need games which can take advantage of motion controller.. so if PS3 adds motion controller and make games which take advantage of the controller , wots wrong with it.? wot advantage a new console will have over making motion controller and motion controller games for PS3.? I still don't get it why we need a new console. i think even you accept Wii has more than one controller. So if PS3 make few games which need motion controller than they can bundle a motion controller with it.? can't they? After all why we need a new console, which will require new OS, new compilers, new game engines and only then we will be able to make new games on it. PS3 has much more processing power than wii, it has option to attach external controller and one can attach different controller with it.. so why not just give this option to PS3 instead of taking the expensive route.? 2. SO wots the point here??? PS3 already have full length games like Burnout to be purchased directly from PSN and u can buy it on the disk too. so is it any different.? Tomorrow they can add more full length games over PSN.. so why we need a new console for it. 3. In 2006 the XBOX360 was on the market for whole yr. Still PS2 sold around 12 million and XBOX sold less than 7 million. In 2007, the XBOX sold around 8 - 9 million, PS2 sold 10 million and PS3 sold 8 - 9 million. So the simple conclusion i see is that ppl buy the console which has the quality games and which is cheap too. only in 2008 PS2 sold less than the HD consoles cuz many games either looked too outdated and many companies dropped the support for PS2 so many of the new games were not available on PS2. Each new console needs around 2 yrs after launch to get the tech ready and in the case of PS3 it took over 2 yrs to get support, game engines and infrastructure ready for it. So until or unless PS3 is not seriously lacking in game output (like XBOX displayed at 4k resolution and PS3 is displaying at 1k resolution and reasonable number of ppl have TV or screend taking advantage of 4k resolution of XBOX) only then they will require to replace it.. 4. Thats wot i m saying that the time when the PS3 will become affordable is a little far.. so thats why its going to stay a little longer.. i mean it seems totally stupid that when PS3 hit $200 spot and is profitable and is ideal for customer u replace it with a new console with a $400 price tag and which maynot be profitable for Sony.. i don't see any sense in it.. or u r trying to say that when PS3 will be profitable at $200 price spot, the PS4 will be at $150 and profitable.???? I think we r going in cyclic argumentation.. so i won't bother to reply again.. My point is only that if with PS3 they r in red for 2 - 3 yrs and when PS3 will start giving them profit they r not going to dump it. Nintendo can dump their console anytime cuz they never loose money on the hardware. where, as as far as i understood, u r trying to say that when PS3 will become profitable hardware wise they r going to dump it and launch a new console which will push the Sony Computer Entertainment division again in red and thats the right strategy.. Honestly speaking i can't find sense in it. but i do respect ur opinion. |
You're still looking at it fromt he wrong perspective. Try to think more about the consumer perspective, and you'll see what wrong with your arguments.
It's all about how the consumer views and uses the product, not about what it can do or what it is made for. Sometimes you can rebrand your product. It's very expensive and difficult, and you can never be sure of success. To rebrand the PS3 to a motionsensing console would be extremely difficult, and quite possibly detrimental to sales.
In 2006, the xbox and the next generation was a vague promise and the PS2 was still the coolest thing around. Even though it had dropped to about half its best year sales (21 million). It was clear that the PS2 was going out of style, however, and it had even started to hit the population roof in some countries (Japan), but it was still the only viable option. Today, it is not, and sales reflect that. And exactly where do you think the PS3 will be when faced with the same situation? When new consoles emerge, stronger and better than the PS3, more modern, recieving spanking new games.
And I don't understand how you can spin the PS3's high price as a positive factor. Yes, it is possible today to create a console more powerful and less expensive to manufacture than the PS3. So the PS4 might launch at the same price, or just above, the PS3.
What's important is that people want your product, and that they want it bad enough to pay what you're asking for it. PS3 has problems on this point. It's actually losing to everything except the PS2. Quite clearly, the way Sony is doing business right now is not what consumers in general want. So the question is, if Sony keeps on doing what it's doing, how is that going to change the public opinion?
Also, a tip would be to, when you're finished writing, replace all the wot with what. It makes your arguments look stupid, regardless of their validity. Correct spelling and use of language can be a useful tool in any argument.
This is invisible text!
