Kyros said: DO not or CAN not? Here's a hint: it's option two. lol, of course they could. Now the question is: Does it make sense financially. Its a two year old device so I can hardly believe that couldn't make it cheaper. Now they will have to write off huge development costs. In the end its the question between a better quarter now or better quarters in the next years. They made the decision to have more money now which is valid. If it is sensible? Who knows. Every company in the world is in danger of dying. ??? I was talking about this generation of consoles. Gamecube and XBOX died a premature death last gen because the userbase was not big enough that third-party devs would have given them full support. The PS3 will not have this problem (unless people stop buying them alltogether) It sells much better than either of these and developers essentially make all games PCPS360 now anyway. And for Sony? It has a hard time but not worse than other big asian electronic companies. Becoming a bit leaner and more focused wouldn't hurt them.

 

The Gamecube and Xbox were not in the same situation.  There is a global economy crisis right now, and Sony (not just the gaming division but the company as a whole) is in the headlines as one of the companies being very much effected by it.  Again, they are laying thousands of people off and looking at all divisions of their company that aren't making money.  Do you really think the executives and shareholders aren't questioning the value of the PS3 right now? 

I'm not saying the PS3 is going to "die" per se, but something is going to give at some point.  Sony is in the middle of downsizing their company, they are selling a $400 console that doesn't make them any profit and is being massively outsold by the competition, and as far as anyone has been able to tell so far, the BluRay drive and Cell processor in the PS3 are making it very hard for them to effectively lower the price.  If Sony could think of any way to drop the price on the PS3 and still come out alive, don't you think they would have done it by now?  They simply CAN'T drop the price.  They don't have the means.  Do you honestly think they WANTED to stand by and watch the Wii continue to rule and the 360 Arcade get down to $199?

I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks the year head start for 360, the high cost of BluRay and Cell, and the price cuts for the competition haven't seriously hurt the PS3, they're delusional.  The PS3 isn't necessarily in danger of dying, but you can't possibly think the potential isn't there, now more than ever before.

Domicinator said: Kyros said: DO not or CAN not? Here's a hint: it's option two. lol, of course they could. Now the question is: Does it make sense financially. Its a two year old device so I can hardly believe that couldn't make it cheaper. Now they will have to write off huge development costs. In the end its the question between a better quarter now or better quarters in the next years. They made the decision to have more money now which is valid. If it is sensible? Who knows. Every company in the world is in danger of dying. ??? I was talking about this generation of consoles. Gamecube and XBOX died a premature death last gen because the userbase was not big enough that third-party devs would have given them full support. The PS3 will not have this problem (unless people stop buying them alltogether) It sells much better than either of these and developers essentially make all games PCPS360 now anyway. And for Sony? It has a hard time but not worse than other big asian electronic companies. Becoming a bit leaner and more focused wouldn't hurt them.   The Gamecube and Xbox were not in the same situation.  There is a global economy crisis right now, and Sony (not just the gaming division but the company as a whole) is in the headlines as one of the companies being very much effected by it.  Again, they are laying thousands of people off and looking at all divisions of their company that aren't making money.  Do you really think the executives and shareholders aren't questioning the value of the PS3 right now?  I'm not saying the PS3 is going to "die" per se, but something is going to give at some point.  Sony is in the middle of downsizing their company, they are selling a $400 console that doesn't make them any profit and is being massively outsold by the competition, and as far as anyone has been able to tell so far, the BluRay drive and Cell processor in the PS3 are making it very hard for them to effectively lower the price.  If Sony could think of any way to drop the price on the PS3 and still come out alive, don't you think they would have done it by now?  They simply CAN'T drop the price.  They don't have the means.  Do you honestly think they WANTED to stand by and watch the Wii continue to rule and the 360 Arcade get down to $199? I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks the year head start for 360, the high cost of BluRay and Cell, and the price cuts for the competition haven't seriously hurt the PS3, they're delusional.  The PS3 isn't necessarily in danger of dying, but you can't possibly think the potential isn't there, now more than ever before.

 

I don't believe the "can't" aspect at all.  In theory, the added sales from a price drop would cause more software sales and therefore more royalities thereby offsetting the price cut.  You have to look at the broader picture, not just the gaming market.  Sony needs to be careful about pricing the PS3 so as not to screw over their hardware partners in the Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA).  The standalone players need to generally be cheaper than the PS3 since the PS3 has multiple functions.  If the PS3 is lowered to $299 before Christmas, it robs the partners of standalone sales because why buy a standalone when the PS3 is the same price and does more?  After Christmas when the partners have made their holiday $ and they are getting closer to lowering their player prices again, then Sony can further reduce the PS3.  There are important partnerships in place here.  It puzzles me as to why people don't seem to realize that the majority of the decisions that Sony has made about the PS3 have been based on furthering Blu-ray rather than the gaming market.  Whether you agree or disagree with their approach, it is the route they've chosen to take.  There's much more money to be made on Blu-ray than gaming.

I tried Second life, and while it was okay for about a minute or so, it wasn't that interesting...Unless Sony is planning on turning Home into Sims, were you can get a digital family, and digital jobs and digital money, it's going to be hard to sell this...oh...that would make Home a game, and a free game at that to compete with the you know..."real" games sony is ACTUALLY trying to sell, like LBP and R2.

Why should they? The development costs have been spend already, if you take away the write-offs for the sunk costs they will make quite a bit money with PS3 games and BluRay discs. At 17m after 2 years they will be selling much more consoles than either Gamecube or XBOX, so I don't see your point.

I've been saying the same thing about Facebook and Myspace.

but heck, didn't stop them from becoming ridiculously popular.

dougsdad0629 said: The important thing to remember that was said by the editor that liked it was, "Home isn't for everyone." You are never gonna please everyone. I'm personally not interested in Home, but I'm at least open-minded enough to see how other people might like ths FREE (remember in doesn't cost you anthing unless you choose) service. I've never seen so much bitching about something that didn't cost you a dime and is in no way mandatory.

I guess having 1 in 4 people like it isn't bad...oh wait...

Anyways, I think they were just really pressured to release it this year and this is what we get because of that pressure.  Something that is boring, lifeless, waste of time, buggy and something that people just aren't going to return to.

I know people keep screaming that it's free and it's still beta, but PA put it best saying that "it's no virtue giving away something for free that no-one in their right mind would buy."  To make the lack of life and that barren feeling even more insulting, we're expected to pay to make it seem not so barren.  Again, no-one in their right mind would buy generally translates to no-one in their right mind should spend money on that no-one in their right mind would buy thing.

As for the beta excuse, that's just a shield and a weak one at that.  As I said, Home was forced to be released long before it was ready so they just say it's a beta and will always be in a beta kind of like Google.

That's just bullshit.

I don't know about Google, but generally to be in beta a game has to meet these cryteria or something close to it:

• No placeholder art and all art present
  
• All gameplay features present
• No showstopper bugs
• The only changes that are allowed are minor bug fixes

So how many of these does Home fit?

• It has placeholder pixalated videos and it's pretty clear everything isn't there (and I know it's a platform that should continually have updates but it should also start with enough options to give you a complete feeling.  It doesn't have that).
  
• I seriously hope that isn't all the gameplay they have.  Six flash arcade machines and a handful of dances isn't fun.
• I had two showstopper or A bugs: 1) I got stuck on another player and had to warp zones, and 2) I couldn't enter a zone.  Yes, I continued but they kept me from progressing further in the game unless I did some sort of hacky fix. 
  
• I can only hope they do more changes.  More changes means they aren't in beta.

So stop using the it's free and and it's in beta defense.  Home is released and it's free because no-one in their right mind would buy it.

It perhaps had the potential to be cool, but since it was released way too early it lost anything it had going for it.  Right now it's just another dot on a long list of failures from this gen.

 

Failures? Just out of interest what do you mean? Graphics are insane and almost unbelievable when you think back 2-3 years. Some of the best games ever have been released.
Call of Duty4 is definitely the best shooter I have ever played.
People may have critizised Assassin's Creed but the whole world was amazing.
New IP like Uncharted, Assassin's Bioshock, Mass Effects, LittleBigPlanet has been released and finally PC developers have taken over the consoles and everyone is better off for it.
Now give me God of War 3 and everything is ok.

Home is not much more than a 3D chatroom. Who would have thought? Give me a break.

SMcc1887 said: In my opinion I would rather have Free Playstation Home with loads of stuff coming to it than pay money for a Dashboard on XBL. I doubt i'm the only one who feels this way

So that would explain the J man having the new dashboard with a silver account... oh wait

Kyros said: Right now it's just another dot on a long list of failures from this gen. Failures? Just out of interest what do you mean? Graphics are insane and almost unbelievable when you think back 2-3 years. Some of the best games ever have been released. Call of Duty4 is definitely the best shooter I have ever played. People may have critizised Assassin's Creed but the whole world was amazing. New IP like Uncharted, Assassin's Bioshock, Mass Effects, LittleBigPlanet has been released and finally PC developers have taken over the consoles and everyone is better off for it. Now give me God of War 3 and everything is ok. Home is not much more than a 3D chatroom. Who would have thought? Give me a break.

 

So because its had some successes it can have no failures?

And here is a good place to start when you're looking for *some* of those failures.

no no of course there were failures. But it sounded like this gen was somehow worse then the last one. And this is simply not true. I have already found more games this gen that are worth playing than in the complete PS2 game library.