By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Loud_Hot_White_Box on 17 May 2008
Edit Thread
colonelstubbs said:
kowenicki said:
TinouX said:
Blu Ray is one of the reasons, but not the sole reason. Sony f-uped this generation in so many ways. BR wasn't ready for mass adoption yet; the price of the PS3 was too high such that there are many people who want it but won't shell out the cash until the price goes way down; the marketing was pompous; lack of high profile games relative to their competition; huge delays on their system seller (ie. MGS4); etc.

They can still end up in second place worldwide, but this generation is a wash for them.

Spot on. Arrogance and over reliance on perceived brand loyalty has severely harmed them... speaking as a PS1 and PS2 owner.

"The next gen starts when we say so" that was just so embarrasing.


Christ did they really say that?


Though it was kinda true in some ways.  360 didn't light up the world its first year, even though it had no next-gen competition.  Only PS3 was bringing mandatory hard drives for developers to use in their games (and Rockstar has said that GTAIV was limited by one thing: lack of a mandatory hard drive in 360).  Only PS3 was bringing an HD/next-gen optical drive usable in games (up to 50gb rather than 9gb).  

As for "perceived brand loyalty" OP, there's a study out there somewhere stating that a higher *percentage* of PS2 owners responded that they would be buying PS3 than the percentage of Xbox owners who said they would be buying 360.  Factor in the install base difference and there you have it... 

It really comes down to price in a way, and when PS3 is at $299 it will really, really take off.  The value of the Blu-Ray drive for that price will heavily drive sales.  Standalone sales are tiny in comparison to the PS3 game plan, so if Sony wants PS3s in homes and won't be losing much by dropping price, they'll do it.  I bet Sony doesn't want *other* companies undercutting PS3 prices too much, rather than vice versa.

And of course, while we talk of successive "generations" of consoles and in some sense the 360, PS3, and Wii are part of one generation, the lifecycles of various consoles have different (planned and real) lifespans, period.  PS3's life cycle started one year after 360's, and will last 3-6 years longer on the back end, in part due to Blu-Ray.  This isn't to say there won't be a PS4 for 7 years, but just to say that Sony knew PS2 was still selling and could afford to tolerate slower PS3 sales upfront in order to use better tech that would be more future-proof and turn into another long term cash cow like PS2.  PS3 will still be going strong when PS4 is released, while 360 will be much more of a non-factor. 

And PS3 sales actually aren't that slow, basically tracking 360's sales since *it's* launch.  "Severly harmed," huh?  Oh, you must have assumed that PS3 would blow by 360 then without a problem.  I'll chaulk that belief up to Sony/Playstation aura and brand recognition, I guess.