But why buy a player, when you can buy a PS3 and get game playing as well?

Dead Sqrl,


I understand you are asking yourself which HD console to purchase. The ps3 or wii? I know its going to be hard to shrug off the sony loyatly but I assure you the grass is greener on the other side. Buy a 360.

Thanks,

Elendar

rocketpig said: ssj12 said: Sony really needs to advertise more on folding@home, their network, and the full experience not just games. I think if people actually knew all the things the PS3 could truly do sales would triple because it's worth every dime for every feature it has. That's just it; most people don't care about that other stuff. Convergence devices only succeed if the consumer doesn't have to pay a huge premium because such a large portion of them don't use a device beyond its primary function. Case in point: I reluctantly co-purchased a PS3 with a friend for reviewing purposes. Why the hesitation? The price and games. I DO NOT want Blu-ray or HD-DVD. There aren't many movies I want on the formats and there isn't enough of a performance boost over upscaled DVD to make it worth my while. I also don't want Linux; I already own four computers, thankyouverymuch. I don't want to compute on a slow machine using an inferior interface. F@H? Are you joking? Yeah, it's a nice thing to do but I'm not going to tout a $500 machine's ability to help cure diseases as a primary selling feature. The PSN, while showing potential, is still massively inferior to XBL. I hope they shore up this feature but it's definitely not something Sony should be bragging about at this time. And don't even bring up Home... I already tried Second Life on PC and hated it. To be brief, make it about the games, Sony. Stop dilluting your machine by offering features most people don't give a crap about and reaffirm why they bought the damned machine in the first place, gaming.

 

Additional features can become a major selling point. Also do you realize half the features in the console right now are, guess what, asked for by PS fans.

For example; Remote access to the HDD by the PSP, was requested. 

The general fact that the system makes it so that you dont need additional items is a major plus. Why have a CD player when you can use your console? I havent had a CD player in 5 years because of my PS2. Same with a DVD player. Did I just screw up your whole argument because theres plenty of people just like me who use our logic at buying an item that does multiple things then just one? Common sense tell me that 5 in 1 = less space taken up then 1 in 1 items. Ipod video sells well, how many people complain about it being able to play videos and music for it's stupidly high price? no one.

If Sony advertised it as a gaming console with features x, y, z then that will make people think "hey this is a good deal."

 

dallas said: But why buy a player, when you can buy a PS3 and get game playing as well?

Many people, myself included, prefer separate devices. This is especially true after you've killed a few optical drives in consoles by using them as movie players (pretty common, really).

I would much rather have had the ability to buy a PS3 sans Blu-ray for $400 and then in 2008 or 2009, purchase a Blu-ray/HD-DVD player(s) for $150 or less.

And judging by sales of the PS3, it's painfully obvious that I'm not the only one who thinks this way.

@ SlorgNet

I agree, especially US media seems to be severely biased. The PS3 performs well on par as compared to the much praised XBox 360 last year at a higher price tag. Unlike for Microsoft fans a cheap PS2 alternative is well supported and widely available for Playstation fans at a price most parents are easily able to afford as a birthday present for their kids.

The PS3 price point is objectively a non-issue compared to the mass failing of XBox 360 hardware. Yes the PS3 is expensive, but still great value for what is being offered, it's sturdy, multi-functional, offers free online play, it's offers much better backwards compatible with a much huger legacy game library, etc.

In my opinion the current gen can roughly cut in 5 markets:

Hard Casual (e.g. Brain Training, "Wii Sports", Nintedogs, Singstar, Home)

Casual (e.g. Mario Party. VP, "Wii Sports")

Core (e.g. Mario, Striker Charged, Kart Wii, Madden)

Hard Core (Zelda, MP3, Bioshock, etc.)

Multimedia (Blue Ray, FreeView, Online Videos,etc.)

 

As i see it, the Big three concentrating on each market that way:

-	Nintendo	Microsoft	Sony
Hard Casual	20%	2%	15%
Casual	25%	8%	20%
Core	30%	30%	20%
Hardcore	25%	50%	20%
Multimedia	0%	10%	25%

 

Nintendo: Doesn't concentrate on one gamer market in the moment so much. Through its low price and different control it has success in all of those 4 market, together that makes a great success.

Microsoft: Is concentrating on the core and hardcore market. It has good success in that segment, but the market begins to be satisfied, so you can expect MS to concentrate go more and more to the casual market where it has currently nearly no success, the first sings are already here. As for the multimedia, i think MS does not this market so much as Sony, and for that is has a good success in that market.

Sony: Sony is aiming nearly for everything. It has motion control (Bowling is comming), Singstar, Buz, Eye and home. That would cover real good the Hard Casual and Casual market. But Sony has a big problem: The price. I don't think many (hard) casuals can justify $500 for games, so no success in that market. In the (Hard) Core market it has maybe some success. But here either the price the problem or the current leak of great games. I can see that changing through the holiday season. $500 is not a low price, but core and hardcore gamer would pay that, if Sony had a great lineup, say like the 360 at the moment. In the Multimedia market Sony has good success. Ok Blue Ray has not yet won the format war, but it is looking good at the moment. Without the PS3 Blue ray had been dead, before the war even started.

Sonys problem is, that is fighting to much wars with its console and therefore need more time on each market to have success. I can see it put up a fight for the (hard) core market, once really good games arrive. I can see it put up a fight on the casual market if the price goes down and Blue ray has one. I can see it winning more on the multimedia market with the free view, because more PS3 sold means more Blue ray player are getting used.

If you look at another perspective, Sony is fighting against 3 other companies with the PS3 at the moment. Nintendo, Microsoft and Toshiba. These 3 other don't have that big problem, they can somehow coexist and would still have at least one market were they could do just fine.

Well, that was just a short version of my 2 cents. ;)

ssj12 said: Additional features can become a major selling point. Also do you realize half the features in the console right now are, guess what, asked for by PS fans. For example; Remote access to the HDD by the PSP, was requested.  The general fact that the system makes it so that you dont need additional items is a major plus. Why have a CD player when you can use your console? I havent had a CD player in 5 years because of my PS2. Same with a DVD player. Did I just screw up your whole argument because theres plenty of people just like me who use our logic at buying an item that does multiple things then just one? Common sense tell me that 5 in 1 = less space taken up then 1 in 1 items. Ipod video sells well, how many people complain about it being able to play videos and music for it's stupidly high price? no one. If Sony advertised it as a gaming console with features x, y, z then that will make people think "hey this is a good deal."

Yes, additional features can be a selling point. You're still not understanding my argument. Convergence devices can work if the price is kept within reason. Obviously that didn't happen with the PS3 and Sony is doing a great job of keeping customers away in droves.

And the video iPod argument is a terrible one. The iPod was already incredibly popular and Apple released the video iPod at the same price point with added features. Again, no additional cost to consumers. The same thing applies to playing CDs on your PS2. That functionality cost you absolutely nothing to use.

I agree with the article pretty much completely. Sony seems to have completely lost the balance they had with the PS2. They had a system that supported both gaming markets very well, and they have completely lost sight of that. Every time I see a game like Little Big Planet or Singstar announced from Sony for the PS3 I can't help but wonder if at this point they are just completely confused. Do they not understand at all that the PS3 retains little to none of the appeal that made the PS2 successful?

elendar said: Dead Sqrl, I understand you are asking yourself which HD console to purchase. The ps3 or wii? I know its going to be hard to shrug off the sony loyatly but I assure you the grass is greener on the other side. Buy a 360. Thanks, Elendar

 yea it might be greener, but he will have to watch out for those red rings.

rocketpig said: dallas said: But why buy a player, when you can buy a PS3 and get game playing as well? Many people, myself included, prefer separate devices. This is especially true after you've killed a few optical drives in consoles by using them as movie players (pretty common, really).

I really doubt that a device that has playing movies as its next to most popular usage, would be so easily breakable, especially from a company that has practically invented electronics.  With PC's, of course you have the ability to watch movies, but most pepple dont watch that many movies from their computer, and instead prefer a DVD player, because that hooks up to a living room TV.  Well,  the so does the PS3 =)