A very risky move on Sony's part making this sort of statement. It's much more risky of a statement than Nintendo would make.
Proud member of the SONIC SUPPORT SQUAD
Tag "Sorry man. Someone pissed in my Wheaties."
"There are like ten games a year that sell over a million units." High Voltage CEO - Eric Nofsinger
^ Yea, I bet Nintendo would never dare having creepy crying robot babies in their commercials either. Only Sony is brave enough to do that.
I LOVE ICELAND!
The kind of risk he's talking about is really investment based. You know, quite frankly the kind that Nintendo does is better for the industry than what Jack Tretton is talking about.
Sure if you wanna go on a straight line, and you really want to go far you have to be a little risky. Sony has been very good at that, in fact they've made their share of contributions on that end extensively, and continue to do so.
However, the entertainment medium isn't just going on a straight line. This is not a technology business. Sony used to grasp that at the beginning, but somewhere along the line they became so fascinated with advancing technology that they lost focus on the fact that, at its basis, gaming is really just entertainment, using technology(not the other way around). And entertainment isn't meant to be a straight line indefinitely, especially when the same old kinds of technology have advanced so much already.
| Carl2291 said: Sony launched the PS3 at $600. PS3 at the time took ~$800 to make. Losing $200 per console is a pretty big risk... |
That wasn't a risk. That was arrogance in an attempt to corner the next gen DVD market.
There was no reason their console had to cost $800 anyway -- Microsoft made a better console for much less money.
psychoBrew said:
That wasn't a risk. That was arrogance in an attempt to corner the next gen DVD market. There was no reason their console had to cost $800 anyway -- Microsoft made a better console for much less money. |
Losing $200 per console isn't a risk? Okay...
And at the other part, depends on your opinion... This kinda sums up my opinion on it though.
Carl2291 said:
Losing $200 per console isn't a risk? Okay... And at the other part, depends on your opinion... This kinda sums up my opinion on it though. |
Losing $200 per console was the price they were willing to pay to corner the next gen DVD market. I already said that. If there was any risk, it's not the good kind that evolves gaming so I'm not sure why the consumer would care unless they wanted an all in one device instead of a gaming console.
psychoBrew said:
|
Red- Are you contradicting yourself there?
Green- That was taking a big risk. If PS3 had the success of PS2 or Wii, losing $200 per console when you sell so many units could have possibly crippled Sony.
psychoBrew said:
That wasn't a risk. That was arrogance in an attempt to corner the next gen DVD market. There was no reason their console had to cost $800 anyway -- Microsoft made a better console for much less money. |
Microsoft made a better console? Are you shitting me? Give me five reasons how Microsoft made a better console.
Total Championships: Nintendo - 4, Sony - 2, Atari - 1, Microsoft - 0, Sega - 0
angrypoolman said:
Microsoft made a better console? Are you shitting me? Give me five reasons how Microsoft made a better console. |
My guesses...
nintendo made a huge risk yes - in making the wii and casual games - now there too afriad to stop making those casual games
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
