By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Doctor_MG on 22 April 2022
Edit Thread
ConservagameR said:
Doctor_MG said:

Bold 1: Misunderstanding the direction of the market to offscreen devices (which IS where the market was at the time if you look at all the "second screen experiences during E3 2012) is NOT comparable to attempting to control the entire ecosystem via an always online system functionality to prevent used game purchases and modular hardware. One is a misunderstanding, the other is anticonsumer. 

Bold 2: This is literally the equivalent of "We have a device for you, buy a 360". The difference is, the PS3 offered complete and total backwards compatibility with PS1 and PS2 on a hardware level, a Blu Ray drive that was actually relatively cheap in comparison to what you had on the market at the time, and it wasn't even drastically more than it's competition (20GB was 499.99, 20GB Xbox 360 was 399.99). Also, at the time, 360 did not offer HD DVD functionality without an add on (or Blu Ray of course), did not offer WiFi without an add on,  and did not have an HDMI input. Unlike the Xbox One to the PS4, what the PS3 was offering (A PS1, PS2, PS3, Blu Ray player, integrated Wifi, HDMI) was pretty good. The increase in price was worth it, despite being a lot for the time. The comment was a bad one for publicity purposes, absolutely. 

Bold 3: Absolutely agree with this as a concept. However, sometimes a manufacturer just deserves to have lower marketshare. For example, in no universe do I think the Xbox One deserved to have as much marketshare as the PS4. I do think that the original Xbox and Gamecube should have had much more marketshare than they were given, however. 

I think it's literally both. If MS anticipated 8th gen would go mostly if not full online, or if they could force that, then grabbing as much market share as possible would have been of upmost importance. This would explain why they wanted to basically force you to find a way to get online so you could be on XB One, and at the same time, be locked into their ecosystem where they didn't have to be too generous. Since that didn't work out, look how more open and generous they've become.

The biggest PS3 problem almost has to be the entry price. Most console gamers are casual consumers and many of the purchases are made by the parents, who don't want to spend any more than they have to as long as their kids will still have fun. Value doesn't mean much to most once the asking price is just too high. Since that didn't work out, look how they solved the price problem with PS3 Slim and every console since.

Yes, in general, the closer the major competitors remain in terms of market share and profits, the more it will benefit the gamers, and yes, when any company is asking for it, they deserve to pay for their negative actions so they become more reasonable or so they don't do it again, period.

Bold 1: : "if they could force that" that is exactly the anti-consumerism I am talking about. There was no need at the time to force an always online connection. 

Bold 2: Most early adopters are neither casual gamers or parents. In fact, Sony was pretty famous for going after the over 20 crowd in comparison to their contemporaries. 

Bold 3: I'm not stating they deserved higher sales. I'm stating that, in comparison to the Xbox One, PS3 had a value associated with its higher price point. Xbox One had kinect to blame for its expense, PS3 had blu ray functionality, PS1, PS2 BC, and wifi out of the gate. In comparison, I can see why PS3 was more costly.