I like how he said that PS3 and 360 aren't differentiated at all and failed to mention any games.. How do you say anything about a game console without looking at its primary function.

Kyros said: That is very important since Nintendo is all about gaming, but Sony has other divisions to fall back on in case they do make a mistake. Exactly. Not subsidizing their consoles is no virtue or something that somehow makes their consoles more successful, but a necessity. Nintendo also could do this because they have some incredibly successful software titles so they always have a core of customers and games. If other manufacturer like Sega loose a generation they totally loose developer support and die.

Agreed.  Nintendo HAD to make a profit, and Sony could afford to be more risky, and it paid off big in the last few generations.  Unfortunately for Sony, it didn't work so well this generation, so now they need to focus more on profit than marketshare.

drkohler said: Where do all these analysts/morons come from? Are they hatched in some CNN news rejects lab? It does seem there is an endless supply of those  "analysts" in the States, it is really amazing..

 

fixed ^__^

Sony killed the PS3 when they decided to make a system that would "last 15 years", without taking into account that people wouldn't be willing to pay ludicrous amounts of money for a system that is no more fun than their previous console.

HD, and the other bells and whistles haven't changed a single thing in the games.

Microsoft made the same mistake, but on a slightly smaller scale.

dib8rman said: This article would of been fine if they just replaced Sony with Nintendo, then I probably wouldn't have cared to read any of it. But I actually wanted to see what they could come up with. By the by isn't CNET owned by Microsoft?

No they are owned by CBS.

Shanobi said: Sony killed the PS3 when they decided to make a system that would "last 15 years", without taking into account that people wouldn't be willing to pay ludicrous amounts of money for a system that is no more fun than their previous console. HD, and the other bells and whistles haven't changed a single thing in the games. Microsoft made the same mistake, but on a slightly smaller scale.

That is mostly true. However the problem lies within the gamers themselves. Living in a fast food society, they want new games every other week. And let's face it, innovative games with new twists are the rarest species in this world. So to feed the gamers, publishers have to resort to the next best thing to survive: Recycle old ideas and make them prettier to look at by throwing more powerful consoles at it. It works in a way (obviously not in Japan), but it's still recycled ideas only.

 

It could simply be that M$ is doing more of the right things to put them where they are now.

No, that does not include RROD.

Pristine20 said: psrock said: The PS3 was a risk from the beginning. The problem is with so much invested, The stockholders are demanding some profits. Sony is caught in between, do they cut prices and outsell the 360 and lose tons of money or keep the price the way it is, sell enough to stay close and give itself a chance to make some money. In the end, they choose money as most companies would but i believe it will cost them more because in holiday times, with the economy the way it is, MS will gain the advantage price wise. Sony is not the same company we grew up with, they need to rethink their strategy. I said this before, but they need to realize their brand isn't as strong as it used to. They have to learn to compete in a smart way and more importantly, THEY NEED TO FOCUS ON WHAT THE CUSTOMERS WANT because sometimes i feel they are out of touch. You should realize that if the price of the ps3 drops, its double-whammy for sony. Why? Because the they'd be selling more consoles with each at an even higher loss. If they drop the price by just $50, each new ps3 owner would hve to purchase at least 6 games with it to offset the new loss not counting the old one. Their other divisions are also currently bleeding money so there won't be anything to fall back on. Do you want sony to collapse and have M$ as the last bastion of core gaming? I'm hoping even xbox fans would answer NO to this question except they've all enjoyed the M$ monopoly on the OS market. Vista for $350, now thats a steal.

I would have to disagree with you on that point, as I bought Vista Ultimate w/SP1 64-bit for $64.95 from this website: http://www.microsoft.com/student/discounts/theultimatesteal-us/default.aspxBut then again, that's not on topic. I would have to agree that some of the users on her state that for Sony to cut the price, they will lose money. But if they keep the PS3 at the price it is now, it won't sell as much. They already made their own grave for the PS3 from the start. People don't want an expensive system just to play games and have fun. We consumers don't want the same rehashed genres (FPS) with better graphics. We just want something to have fun at an affordable price. Quite frankly, that's what the Wii is about. Sure the PS3's production price will be lowered over the years the same way the PS2 had it, but something needs to be done NOW about the system and it's price.Sure the consumers would benefit by a low price, but not the company. Their business plan for selling an expensive console at a loss and then make it up in the long term is the most arrogant and pathetic excuse for a business plan. My parents and friends would agree on that, but the only reason we now notice Sony's trend is because it's now hurting them and it's easier to see this. Sony's game division needs to take some notes on Nintendo and what they did with the Wii.Does anyone remember DBZ when Trunks was going against Cell and he decided to increase his power so much that his physical body became slow due to his bulky size? The same thing with with the PS3. All that power and components is too expensive and has caused the system to suffer in sales. The little engine that could in DBZ who showed Trunks how to become stronger with a lean and balanced body mass was Gohan who defeated Cell, which in our picture is the Wii as it is balanced and has just enough power to get the job done with games. I may have made a stupid analogy, but some people may get as to what I'm saying finally. Cell (not the PS3's lmao) in our picture is the consumer, and the defeat is actually the victory of gaming that justifies price, power, gameplay and library. If that sounds confusing or makes no sense, I'm sorry because it's hard to explain (I'm autistic and it's late at night where I live), so bear with me.And I absolutely hate the excuse Sony makes for selling the console for $400 because they stripped out parts to reduce price. People aren't going to pay for a system so that they can stop using their PS2 and play those games on a better system. It's the reason why people are not flocking to the PS3 as well, it's not the price, but the wide range of games consumers want to play on the system. I bet you if Sony included B/C again on the system AT a $400 price point, I guarantee that the PS3 would shine. It's the ONLY reason why I don't have a PS3 right now. I didn't own a PS2 because I liked having a GCN better due to some Nintendo games, but I liked the PS2 due to the Final Fantasy and Kingdom Hearts games. I would love to see how the visuals would look like on the PS3, but I'm not going to buy the system until they give consumers the B/C. I would be praising the PS3 for great gaming, but mainly gaming developers are not making a shitload of games on the PS3 due to what people want what they wanted on the PS2. We have games that are racing, shooters, sports--THE SAME AS LAST GEN. Some developers, such as Media Molecule who made LBP are trying to change that, but consumers want more games that are creative rather than rehashes.