American Ninja Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 Video game retailer GameStop recently held a conference call to discuss its corporate earnings. In it, GameStop noted that both the Xbox 360 and PS3 are bound for a price cut some time this year. They're predicting a $50 price cut for both machines (the PS3 would start at $349 if this prediction comes true). However, GameDaily notes that "they did not get that information from the manufacturers, however; it's merely the retailer's educated guess."Price drops are a regularity in the industry, and we think the PS3 is due for one this year as well. An increasingly attractive software lineup coupled with a price drop is certain to boost Sony's install base. Source: http://www.ps3fanboy.com/2008/03/19/gamest...-ps3-price-cut/ :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Budious Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 I predict a $70 price drop! I'm never impressed by this retailer, I pretty much blow them off and go to K-Mart to buy my games now because all their employees are twits at any location I visit. Electronics Boutique was a much better retailer before GameStop bought them up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayepecks Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 Sony needs to quit pussyfooting around and just make it equal to the 360 if they want to really start a war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randomnut Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 It's not just due for one, it *needs* one now. Although even if it does, being able to get a 360 for under ?150 will win hands down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted March 21, 2008 Subscriber² Share Posted March 21, 2008 As long as it remains the cheapest Blu Ray player it will still sell. It doesn't need to be the exact same price as the 360 to sell, it needs more games to sell. That it shall get this year. I'd still expect a price cut this year, just not soon :( 3rd/4th quarter cut I'd guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayepecks Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 As long as it remains the cheapest Blu Ray player it will still sell.It doesn't need to be the exact same price as the 360 to sell, it needs more games to sell. That it shall get this year. I'd still expect a price cut this year, just not soon :( You're not looking at this from a standard consumer's perspective. Do video/audio buffs want the Blu-Ray? Yes. Do standard consumers? Mostly no. Do the parents buying the console for their child look at the amount of games, or the price? Mainly the price. If Sony wants to beat Microsoft now, it needs to level the playing field. They've already got the advantage of Blu-Ray, so why not drop the price $50 to make it equal? Sure, more games will help, but both of the consoles are going to get good games. The 360 already has a packed library, so it's going to take Sony a while to win based on games (if they do). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted March 21, 2008 Subscriber² Share Posted March 21, 2008 (edited) You're not looking at this from a standard consumer's perspective.Do video/audio buffs want the Blu-Ray? Yes. Do standard consumers? Mostly no. Do the parents buying the console for their child look at the amount of games, or the price? Mainly the price. If Sony wants to beat Microsoft now, it needs to level the playing field. They've already got the advantage of Blu-Ray, so why not drop the price $50 to make it equal? Sure, more games will help, but both of the consoles are going to get good games. The 360 already has a packed library, so it's going to take Sony a while to win based on games (if they do). It won't take them a "while" to win over the games base if they come out with the same franchises that were on the PS2 - Which they are doing. The reason it's taken a while so far, is there isn't a GT/FF/MGS/GoW in sight. All we've had so far are new IP's, or existing IP's that weren't the cream of the crop. I genuinely think when we start to see the franchises that were massively popular on the PS2, on the PS3, many people who own a PS2 will make the change to the PS3. I don't think im far fetched in believing that. While previous exclusives to the PS2 have gone multiplatform, the main contenders like your MGS, your GT, and your FF haven't. Losses such as DMC4, while potentially affecting PS sales, really don't have the kind of impact, say losing MGS4 to the 360 would. People bought into the PS2 for a reason, price yes, but also games. You could have a $49 console called a "PS2" but if the library was mince, not many would buy it - One reason the PS3 is struggling just now. It doesn't exactly have a "mince" library, but it's not a "WOW" library. Consoles are on a 10 year platform, so we have a long way to go. Well Sony claim their console is on a 10 year platform. If the PS3 can still be selling after the same amount of years the PS2 is, Sony won't be worrying about not leading the pack after a year. The console race, while a race to get to the top, is also about stamina and longetivity. Sony won't care if FF13/Versus ships in 2009 (argubaly the "biggest" exclusive), it just means they might be trailing the pack for a little longer. Their goal is to be 1st within "10 years", not get to 1st in 6/12 months, then finish in 2nd/3rd. I'm not questioning the longetivity of the other current platforms, im just saying Sony will have confidence due to how long the PS2 has been going, in comparison to MS' and Nintendo's PS2 competitors. As for parents only buying what is cheapest, might be true in some cases, but if your child asks for a PS3 for christmas, well you either buy one, or don't if you can't afford it. If your child is a MGS/FF nut, they'll get their PS3 at somepoint within the life cycle. If you're that interested/invested in a certain franchise you'll get it at somepoint. Whether that means getting something more affordable just now (a 360) and getting your PS3 a year later. Sony doesn't lose out there, it's not like the MGS nut is buying a 360 and condemning himself to never buy a PS3 ever. Also to be fair, it's not like the margin is HUGE between the consoles. There is a difference, but the PS3 is below ?300 now which the PS2 retailed for, so it's more "respectable" than ?425. There is probably 130 million odd PS2's out there now, I do ask the question why can't their be similari> amount of PS3's after 8/9 years? If you're going to say "PRICE!!!!", i'll just stare at you and say, the console's not going to be the price it is today, for 10 years. If you're going to say the 360 is leading, and is much more of a challenge than the xbox was - I'm going to agree, but all I'll say is if 120/130 million people enjoyed the franchises they seen on the PS2, why wouldn't they enjoy seeing them on the PS3? Thanks to the Wii, love it or loathe it, lots of new people have been introduced to gaming. Some of them may have been stereotypical of what a gaming console was before (for kids, waste of time, ect), but now after trying casual gaming, which is an "easier" entry to gaming then a 1,000 combo a second fighting game, they may feel more confident to try "hardcore" gaming. What will that mean? A potentially larger audience to tap into this generation than there was last. So with a larger audience, why can't one of the hardcore consoles this generation meet or even eclipse PS2 sales? Some may say no chance of anything hitting 120/130 million sales, that's fair enough, your prediction but it is a fairly shut up shop prediction - Not much room for anything else happening in your eyes if your that "sure". But right now it's like trying to predict the weather forecast in "10 years" time - By logic, what you say has chancei> to come true, but right now it is a bit of a stab in the dark as opposed to predicting what tomorrows weather will be like. Do video/audio buffs want the Blu-Ray? Yes. Do standard consumers? Mostly no. A "standard consumer" who wants HD movies has no reason not to invest in Blu Ray/PS3. Well to be fair, it really is their "only" choice just now if they do their research. Or the most sensible choice - Unless you buy a PC drive which is the cheapest, but how many PCs are hooked up to HDTVs? Sony won't be in a rush to cut prices due to that factor. Edited March 21, 2008 by Audioboxer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CUBBYJR2005 Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 I wish there were other games stores to compete with gamestop and eb too bad we dont have game stores to compete with them besides bestbuy and circuit city and toyrus and walmart and costco and etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayepecks Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Wow... taking things a bit far, aren't we? (N) No crap the console's not going to be the price it is today for 10 years. But, hello there, neither is the 360! If you're being beaten by price point as a main factor, why not even the challenge? There's a reason why parents are going to buy the 360 before the PS3 -- because of the price. If you're going to say "PRICE DOESN'T MATTER!!!!!" (a hyperbole of course, but you seem to be taking my statements completely out of context as well, so I'll just return the favor), I'll just stare at you and say you're being silly. If you offer someone products that are essentially interchangeable and one's $50 less than the other, of course they're going to go for the cheaper of the two. And for every exclusive the PS3 has coming, the 360 has one as well. If you want to talk about major franchises getting sequels, how about Gears of War 2, Splinter Cell: Conviction, the next Banjo-Kazooie game, Halo Wars and the Wingnut Halo game? Not to mention new IPs such as Too Human. Sure, Metal Gear Solid 4 and the next Final Fantasy game are going to sell more systems. But those are going to be short-term sales gains, just as the exclusives I mentioned for the 360 are going to be. And then you're not taking into account the library the 360 has already amassed, which you completely skipped over from my first post. Like I said: it's going to take Sony a "while" to win people over who have already made their next-gen purchase. And the advantage that Sony had with Grand Theft Auto is now gone since the first next-gen installment is coming out on both platforms at the same time. That's a big hit right there. You're acting as if everyone in the world has an unlimited amount of money, Audioboxer. That's simply not the case. I don't know how it is in Europe, but I don't personally know a single person in America who has a 360 and a PS3. I didn't know a single person that had a PS2 and an Xbox until after this generation of consoles launched, either. The average parent is not going to buy their kids both consoles. You're talking about $800 worth for consoles... it ain't happening for most people. Doesn't matter if it's separated by a few years, most parents are not going to do that, plain and simple. It doesn't matter if there's a franchise some kid wants, if (s)he's already made his decision, it's too little, too late. The standard consumer who wants HD does have an incentive to go PS3, sure. But do you think that's going to be the deciding factor of many people? Because I very seriously doubt it. We saw how long it took for HDTVs to take hold. It's going to be a while, and I don't think people buying a console for the next year or so are really going to care about that unless they're audio/video buffs, as I've already said. Furthermore, you're forgetting the 360's rental service. It doesn't matter if you're in first in the 10th year alone of a console's life cycle if you've lost all other 9 years :laugh: Like I said: if Sony wants to really start a war, it's going to even the prices and take away the primary non-software incentive people had for getting a 360. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted March 21, 2008 Subscriber² Share Posted March 21, 2008 (edited) Wow... taking things a bit far, aren't we? (N)No crap the console's not going to be the price it is today for 10 years. But, hello there, neither is the 360! If you're being beaten by price point as a main factor, why not even the challenge? There's a reason why parents are going to buy the 360 before the PS3 -- because of the price. If you're going to say "PRICE DOESN'T MATTER!!!!!" (a hyperbole of course, but you seem to be taking my statements completely out of context as well, so I'll just return the favor), I'll just stare at you and say you're being silly. If you offer someone products that are essentially interchangeable and one's $50 less than the other, of course they're going to go for the cheaper of the two. And for every exclusive the PS3 has coming, the 360 has one as well. If you want to talk about major franchises getting sequels, how about Gears of War 2, Splinter Cell: Conviction, the next Banjo-Kazooie game, Halo Wars and the Wingnut Halo game? Not to mention new IPs such as Too Human. Sure, Metal Gear Solid 4 and the next Final Fantasy game are going to sell more systems. But those are going to be short-term sales gains, just as the exclusives I mentioned for the 360 are going to be. And then you're not taking into account the library the 360 has already amassed, which you completely skipped over from my first post. Like I said: it's going to take Sony a "while" to win people over who have already made their next-gen purchase. And the advantage that Sony had with Grand Theft Auto is now gone since the first next-gen installment is coming out on both platforms at the same time. That's a big hit right there. You're acting as if everyone in the world has an unlimited amount of money, Audioboxer. That's simply not the case. I don't know how it is in Europe, but I don't personally know a single person in America who has a 360 and a PS3. I didn't know a single person that had a PS2 and an Xbox until after this generation of consoles launched, either. The average parent is not going to buy their kids both consoles. You're talking about $800 worth for consoles... it ain't happening for most people. Doesn't matter if it's separated by a few years, most parents are not going to do that, plain and simple. It doesn't matter if there's a franchise some kid wants, if (s)he's already made his decision, it's too little, too late. The standard consumer who wants HD does have an incentive to go PS3, sure. But do you think that's going to be the deciding factor of many people? Because I very seriously doubt it. We saw how long it took for HDTVs to take hold. It's going to be a while, and I don't think people buying a console for the next year or so are really going to care about that unless they're audio/video buffs, as I've already said. Furthermore, you're forgetting the 360's rental service. It doesn't matter if you're in first in the 10th year alone of a console's life cycle if you've lost all other 9 years :laugh: Like I said: if Sony wants to really start a war, it's going to even the prices and take away the primary non-software incentive people had for getting a 360. It doesn't matter if you're in first in the 10th year alone of a console's life cycle if you've lost all other 9 years :laugh: You failed to grasp my point. Being 1st in the 9th year means you have sold the most consoles after 9 years. Even if you've lost certain years, you've obviously won others. Look at how the PS2 is selling JUST NOW - With the 360 and PS3 and Wii all out! If Sony can get the PS3 to sell like that in it's 8th year when the PS4/720/Wii HD might be out... well you can see my point on how it's a battle right till the console is taken off the shelf in retail for good. I don't do a console war on who wins/loses each individual year, what matters after 10 years (or the "end") is you are on top with the most consoles sold. Of course each year matters for reflection/predictions/to analyze, but still, there is only one "winner" in terms of units sold after 10 years, regardless of who reigned for the first 3 years, for a year in the middle, or up until the last year. Note: I'm chucking "10 years" around, as that's the cycle Sony say the PS3 will be on. And for every exclusive the PS3 has coming, the 360 has one as well. If you want to talk about major franchises getting sequels, how about Gears of War 2, Splinter Cell: Conviction, the next Banjo-Kazooie game, Halo Wars and the Wingnut Halo game? Not to mention new IPs such as Too Human. Sure, Metal Gear Solid 4 and the next Final Fantasy game are going to sell more systems. But those are going to be short-term sales gains, just as the exclusives I mentioned for the 360 are going to be. Yes the 360 has exclusives as well as the PS3, duh! What it comes down to is what exclusives have more leverage with the overall gaming community. That is yet to be seen, but coming off selling 130 millions PS2s, we know certain PS franchises are popular. What MS have managed to do this time around is get more exclusives, such as GoW and ME that were missing during the xbox era. Many xbox 1 franchises were popular, the obvious Halo springs to mind, but clearly last generation there wasn't enough in the way of exclusives. As I said above, that's changed this generation with the 360, but we'll need to wait and see how it faces up against the well known PS franchises once they hit - That is something no one can really answer for yet, as well, none of the big franchises for the PS are out yet! No crap the console's not going to be the price it is today for 10 years. But, hello there, neither is the 360! If you're being beaten by price point as a main factor, why not even the challenge? There's a reason why parents are going to buy the 360 before the PS3 -- because of the price. If you're going to say "PRICE DOESN'T MATTER!!!!!" (a hyperbole of course, but you seem to be taking my statements completely out of context as well, so I'll just return the favor), I'll just stare at you and say you're being silly. If you offer someone products that are essentially interchangeable and one's $50 less than the other, of course they're going to go for the cheaper of the two. I didn't say price didn't matter, you even said you took that out of context - Uh why? What im saying is as long as Sony stay within a good range of the 360 they still remain competitive. The PS3 is going to struggle to ever be cheaper than the 360, due it coming into the market a year later, and having more expensive hardware/manufacturing costs. Wasn't the Xbox always cheaper than the PS2? I know the 360 will always come down in price as well. My point was, with 130+ million PS2 owners, that's a lot of people Sony can look to tap into. When prices are right, and games are out on the PS3 for those interested it won't matter what any other console costs, they'll likely pick up a PS3. Of course some of Sonys previous install base may be lost forever, maybe someone who only loved DMC4 and now has it on his/her xbox. However out of 130 million, you can bet a decent share of those people liked MGS/FF/GT/GoW or some other PS exclusive franchise. Which ties into my point of the console race being about the whole 10 years, not the 1st year or two. The PS3 and 360 are not exactly interchangeable, both offer very different hardware options and aside from multiplatform titles, both will offer an array of exclusives. If you think price is the only factor, I think you need to think again - Especially when they will always be competitively priced from now on in. My point in the original post, there isn't a HUGE gap between them, it's noticeable on the wallet, but not as extreme as it was in the past. You're acting as if everyone in the world has an unlimited amount of money, Audioboxer. That's simply not the case. I don't know how it is in Europe, but I don't personally know a single person in America who has a 360 and a PS3. I didn't know a single person that had a PS2 and an Xbox until after this generation of consoles launched, either. The average parent is not going to buy their kids both consoles. You're talking about $800 worth for consoles... it ain't happening for most people. Doesn't matter if it's separated by a few years, most parents are not going to do that, plain and simple. It doesn't matter if there's a franchise some kid wants, if (s)he's already made his decision, it's too little, too late. Again, you fail to grasp my concept of time/price. Consoles generally sell their most in the last few years of their life span. Let's say, the last 3 years? At that point, you can probably buy a PS3 AND 360, for what the cost of one them was at launch. This is where the time element comes in, a console race is not won in the 1st/2nd year, heck, things will be at their fiercest in the last few years. You do not need to be a millionaire to be a console gamer, and you don't need an "unlimited amount of money". I'm 20, yes I don't have a mortgage yet, but I do have monthly expenses. I bought my Wii/PS3/360 and HDTV all myself from working in my part-time job. I also pay all my transport fee's to and from Uni, which do amount to hundreds of pounds - Of which I can claim back, but im still out of pocket for a year. Last time I also checked, if we're going to use younger kids, parents don't tend to buy things their kids don't ask for. If anything it's sadly the opposite, parents going nuts to try and get their kids everything - Eg, what I now call "Wii Syndrome" - Spending crazy amounts of money over RRP to get a device. Your kidding yourself if you don't think the majority of parents go wild at christmas with their kids. By going wild I don't mean spending craaazy amount of money, I just mean if their kid asks for one thing in particular, many parents are likely to try their hardest to get that item for their kids. Unless they ask for a ferrari :laugh:, but a PS3 is hardly the cost of a ferarri. The standard consumer who wants HD does have an incentive to go PS3, sure. But do you think that's going to be the deciding factor of many people? Because I very seriously doubt it. We saw how long it took for HDTVs to take hold. It's going to be a while, and I don't think people buying a console for the next year or so are really going to care about that unless they're audio/video buffs, as I've already said. Furthermore, you're forgetting the 360's rental service. A lot of people are saying they only bought their PS3 just now FOR HD (Blu Ray). So I definitely think for some it is a deciding factor - As it is the cheapest/best player on the market so far. It may not remain the best, but it will see a nice return whilst it is. As for the uptake, thats an ongoing battle of opinion/prediction - Many think HD will take ages to take off, others think it will be quicker. I base my view on the uptake of HDTVs - Your kidding yourself if you don't think they are becoming popular, and hence I connect HDTV to a want for HD content. I don't see why the 360's rental service enters this equation. If anything, downloading HD content will take even longer than buying physical copies of HD content to take off. I was replying to your remark that "standard consumers mostly don't want blu ray". DVDs are more popular and will remain for a while, but something you need to consider is this. The PS2 sold 130 odd million consoles to date - DVD players have sold WAY more than that. At this early stage in the HD war, people are investing, not in the numbers that people invest in DVD, but all the PS3 needs to see is a "good" return for the decision to include BR to have been effective. A couple million sales due to people wanting HD, and investing in the PS3. Returns like that for Sony will be noticeable at this early stage in the console race. The PS3 does not need HD to completely take off and outsell DVD 90:10, for it to see a nice return in sales. Heck the last few months of it outselling the 360 has been partly to do with the Blu Ray winning announcements - Yeah yeah I know shortages may come into play as well. My post was not to start a PS3 vs 360 debate, it was to show that IMO a lot of people are writing off the PS3 verrrry early on. Randomnut seems to think it will "crash and burn" to quote his own words. I'm merely giving my insight into why I think it won't. You don't need to agree, but I hardly think im making outrageous points. Wow... taking things a bit far, aren't we? That's a little "unfair". All I did was write a respectful post on how I feel about the current state and what the future may hold - If you're about to enter saying "taking things to far", then don't bother writing a reply to what im saying. I like to discuss things, and I feel writing a lot, is better than writing some of the one liners people try to pull off in here. Edited March 21, 2008 by Audioboxer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayepecks Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 I don't see how I'm being unfair when all we're doing with these long, drawn-out posts is repeating ourselves. You failed to grasp my point.Being 1st in the 9th year means you have sold the most consoles after 9 years. Even if you've lost certain years, you've obviously won others. Look at how the PS2 is selling JUST NOW - With the 360 and PS3 and Wii all out! If Sony can get the PS3 to sell like that in it's 8th year when the PS4/720/Wii HD might be out... well you can see my point on how it's a battle right till the console is taken off the shelf in retail for good. I don't do a console war on who wins/loses each individual year, what matters after 10 years (or the "end") is you are on top with the most consoles sold. Of course each year matters for reflection/predictions/to analyze, but still, there is only one "winner" in terms of units sold after 10 years, regardless of who reigned for the first 3 years, for a year in the middle, or up until the last year. Note: I'm chucking "10 years" around, as that's the cycle Sony say the PS3 will be on. First off: I understood your point perfectly. You didn't comprehend mine. My point was that if they get so far behind, it doesn't matter if they're not able to make it up until the last year. There is a MAJOR difference in what the PS2 is doing right now with what you're implying for the PS3. The PS2 won its console war when it was still going on, and now it's continuing to sell well. If a console doesn't do well in the generation it's in, how on earth do you expect it to do well after unless they really cut the price (which is what we're discussing to begin with)? I'm not saying each individual year is a "win" or "loss", so yet again, please do not put words in my mouth. Of course it's the combined sales. But after a certain amount of time, the majority of the people who would buy a console are going to have one. Sure the laggards will get consoles extremely late, but what does it matter if the war's over? You keep acting like if Sony's console can do well late in life it's going to win. I'm sorry, but if you "win" a generation by refusing to advance to the next generation of hardware where the others are already dominating, that's not really winning. I really don't see Sony doing the same thing twice with the Playstation 4, anyways. They'll make sure it's released much closer to the next Microsoft and Nintendo offerings. Yes the 360 has exclusives as well as the PS3, duh! What it comes down to is what exclusives have more leverage with the overall gaming community.That is yet to be seen, but coming off selling 130 millions PS2s, we know certain PS franchises are popular. What MS have managed to do this time around is get more exclusives, such as GoW and ME that were missing during the xbox era. Many xbox 1 franchises were popular, the obvious Halo springs to mind, but clearly last generation there wasn't enough in the way of exclusives. As I said above, that's changed this generation with the 360, but we'll need to wait and see how it faces up against the well known PS franchises once they hit - That is something no one can really answer for yet, as well, none of the big franchises for the PS are out yet! If it's such a "duh" point, then why did you completely disregard it in your post? The franchises each has are probably going to offset one another. Look at all the sales Microsoft's exclusive franchises can get, and look at the sales Sony's can get (look back to the previous generation if you have to for sales statistics). They look pretty even to me. You don't win a chess game by trying to create a stalemate. It's funny that you say we need to wait to see how it will all play out, yet your entire argument all along has been the opposite -- that these franchises will revive the Playstation 3 and propel it to a win. Quit living in the past -- this isn't the Playstation 2, this isn't 130 million units sold. This is now that we're talking about, and this is the future that we're talking about. Do you remember the Nintendo 64? Nintendo relied on its past success and it bit them in the ass. You can't rely on past success in any industry. It's foolhardy. I didn't say price didn't matter, you even said you took that out of context - Uh why?What im saying is as long as Sony stay within a good range of the 360 they still remain competitive. The PS3 is going to struggle to ever be cheaper than the 360, due it coming into the market a year later, and having more expensive hardware/manufacturing costs. Wasn't the Xbox always cheaper than the PS2? I know the 360 will always come down in price as well. My point was, with 130+ million PS2 owners, that's a lot of people Sony can look to tap into. When prices are right, and games are out on the PS3 for those interested it won't matter what any other console costs, they'll likely pick up a PS3. Of course some of Sonys previous install base may be lost forever, maybe someone who only loved DMC4 and now has it on his/her xbox. However out of 130 million, you can bet a decent share of those people liked MGS/FF/GT/GoW or some other PS exclusive franchise. Which ties into my point of the console race being about the whole 10 years, not the 1st year or two. The PS3 and 360 are not exactly interchangeable, both offer very different hardware options and aside from multiplatform titles, both will offer an array of exclusives. If you think price is the only factor, I think you need to think again - Especially when they will always be competitively priced from now on in. My point in the original post, there isn't a HUGE gap between them, it's noticeable on the wallet, but not as extreme as it was in the past. Because you clearly took my post out of context, so I returned the favor. You can't simply boil my argument down to "PRICE!!!" and your argument down to "PRICE DOESN'T MATTER!!!" You're a smart guy. I know you grasp that point, so don't try and hide it. Being competitive isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about winning here. If Sony wants to win this console war (or at least beat the 360), eventually it's going to have to make the price point even with the 360. So why not do it now? Why not do it now -- at an earlier time -- and create sales that are going to last longer? I sincerely doubt Microsoft would make a price cut simply to retaliate, so what would the harm here be? You're forcing consumers to decide, and shouldn't that be what you (Sony) want in this situation? You take away the only real hardware incentive the 360 has. That's a pretty damn big incentive to make such a move in my book. Again: stop living in the past. You can't compare generations when the Playstation 2 had the upper hand and now that the Playstation 3 does not. The PS2 had the sales lead from the get-go. There was no reason to cut prices when it had such a massive lead. The Playstation 3 does not have the lead, and there is reason to cut prices. Had the Xbox not cut its price last generation, it would have been a dead platform. When Microsoft cut the price of the Xbox, it began selling more units than the Playstation 2. And Microsoft reacted too late and cut its price late in the console's life cycle -- far too long to wait to make such a move. Sony shouldn't repeat Microsoft's mistakes here. Again, it's not exactly rocket science. You keep using the argument that the Playstation 2 sold well, so the Playstation 3 will as well... wrong! Again: look at Nintendo. Look at Atari before it. Do you notice a pattern here? Every single hardware manufacturer that has gotten too big for its britches and relied upon previous success has killed itself (although Nintendo found a way to come back two generations later, unlike Atari). You also keep saying that the Playstation 2 fans will come to the Playstation 3... says who? Tons of people who owned the PS2 have already bought a 360 or Wii. There's no reason to think consumers you lost are going to come back. I'm sorry, but us hardcore gamers are in the minority. You owning all three consoles is most definitely not indicative of the rest of the world. Like I said -- I don't know a single person who has more than one console right now, personally (as in not online). Tell me, besides yourself, do you know any? Let me even be more blunt: do you know any non-hardcore gamers that own more than one console from the current generation? It's extremely rare, and if you're going to rely on those sales, you're doomed to fail. Again, I don't know about Europe, but most parents in America aren't going to buy their kids multiple consoles. Even in many middle- to high-income families. A lot of people are saying they only bought their PS3 just now FOR HD (Blu Ray). So I definitely think for some it is a deciding factor - As it is the cheapest/best player on the market so far.It may not remain the best, but it will see a nice return whilst it is. As for the uptake, thats an ongoing battle of opinion/prediction - Many think HD will take ages to take off, others think it will be quicker. I base my view on the uptake of HDTVs - Your kidding yourself if you don't think they are becoming popular, and hence I connect HDTV to a want for HD content. I don't see why the 360's rental service enters this equation. If anything, downloading HD content will take even longer than buying physical copies of HD content to take off. I was replying to your remark that "standard consumers mostly don't want blu ray". DVDs are more popular and will remain for a while, but something you need to consider is this. The PS2 sold 130 odd million consoles to date - DVD players have sold WAY more than that. At this early stage in the HD war, people are investing, not in the numbers that people invest in DVD, but all the PS3 needs to see is a "good" return for the decision to include BR to have been effective. A couple million sales due to people wanting HD, and investing in the PS3. Returns like that for Sony will be noticeable at this early stage in the console race. The PS3 does not need HD to completely take off and outsell DVD 90:10, for it to see a nice return in sales. Heck the last few months of it outselling the 360 has been partly to do with the Blu Ray winning announcements - Yeah yeah I know shortages may come into play as well. My post was not to start a PS3 vs 360 debate, it was to show that IMO a lot of people are writing off the PS3 verrrry early on. Randomnut seems to think it will "crash and burn" to quote his own words. I'm merely giving my insight into why I think it won't. You don't need to agree, but I hardly think im making outrageous points. A lot of people? Do you have a source to back that up, because I've read plenty of articles that have said the exact opposite about the amount of people who use Blu-Ray in their PS3, even knew it was in their PS3, and bought the PS3 because of it. I think you're just making that point up based on what you've read on technology forums, which isn't exactly the best audience to survey. I don't think it's really an argument of how long it will take for Blu-Ray to take off, because historically it's taken quite a while for new formats to gain footing. VHS, DVD, HDTV sets, HDTV service, all of them have taken a long time to get standard adoption. Why is it going to be any different for Blu-Ray? I made no such remark that "standard consumers mostly don't want blu ray," so please don't quote something I didn't say as you're taking it completely out of context when you fabricate a quote like that. The point was that Blu-Ray is not going to be a selling point for most standard consumers. It's not going to make a difference to them. Again you're assuming that people are buying the PS3 for the Blu-Ray, and you know what they say about assuming ;) Articles have all stated that, statistically, the matter is otherwise, so why is this even a point of yours? I think your post was to start a PS3 vs 360 debate, because in no way, shape or form was anyone -- myself included -- writing the PS3 off. Why else did you create such a long, drawn-out post about the PS3 vs 360? :) I'm not sure randomnut's comment is anything like what you're implying (and honestly, I'm not entirely sure what he's saying). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted March 21, 2008 Subscriber² Share Posted March 21, 2008 (edited) I don't see how I'm being unfair when all we're doing with these long, drawn-out posts is repeating ourselves.First off: I understood your point perfectly. You didn't comprehend mine. My point was that if they get so far behind, it doesn't matter if they're not able to make it up until the last year. There is a MAJOR difference in what the PS2 is doing right now with what you're implying for the PS3. The PS2 won its console war when it was still going on, and now it's continuing to sell well. If a console doesn't do well in the generation it's in, how on earth do you expect it to do well after unless they really cut the price (which is what we're discussing to begin with)? I'm not saying each individual year is a "win" or "loss", so yet again, please do not put words in my mouth. Of course it's the combined sales. But after a certain amount of time, the majority of the people who would buy a console are going to have one. Sure the laggards will get consoles extremely late, but what does it matter if the war's over? You keep acting like if Sony's console can do well late in life it's going to win. I'm sorry, but if you "win" a generation by refusing to advance to the next generation of hardware where the others are already dominating, that's not really winning. I really don't see Sony doing the same thing twice with the Playstation 4, anyways. They'll make sure it's released much closer to the next Microsoft and Nintendo offerings. If it's such a "duh" point, then why did you completely disregard it in your post? The franchises each has are probably going to offset one another. Look at all the sales Microsoft's exclusive franchises can get, and look at the sales Sony's can get (look back to the previous generation if you have to for sales statistics). They look pretty even to me. You don't win a chess game by trying to create a stalemate. It's funny that you say we need to wait to see how it will all play out, yet your entire argument all along has been the opposite -- that these franchises will revive the Playstation 3 and propel it to a win. Quit living in the past -- this isn't the Playstation 2, this isn't 130 million units sold. This is now that we're talking about, and this is the future that we're talking about. Do you remember the Nintendo 64? Nintendo relied on its past success and it bit them in the ass. You can't rely on past success in any industry. It's foolhardy. Because you clearly took my post out of context, so I returned the favor. You can't simply boil my argument down to "PRICE!!!" and your argument down to "PRICE DOESN'T MATTER!!!" You're a smart guy. I know you grasp that point, so don't try and hide it. Being competitive isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about winning here. If Sony wants to win this console war (or at least beat the 360), eventually it's going to have to make the price point even with the 360. So why not do it now? Why not do it now -- at an earlier time -- and create sales that are going to last longer? I sincerely doubt Microsoft would make a price cut simply to retaliate, so what would the harm here be? You're forcing consumers to decide, and shouldn't that be what you (Sony) want in this situation? You take away the only real hardware incentive the 360 has. That's a pretty damn big incentive to make such a move in my book. Again: stop living in the past. You can't compare generations when the Playstation 2 had the upper hand and now that the Playstation 3 does not. The PS2 had the sales lead from the get-go. There was no reason to cut prices when it had such a massive lead. The Playstation 3 does not have the lead, and there is reason to cut prices. Had the Xbox not cut its price last generation, it would have been a dead platform. When Microsoft cut the price of the Xbox, it began selling more units than the Playstation 2. And Microsoft reacted too late and cut its price late in the console's life cycle -- far too long to wait to make such a move. Sony shouldn't repeat Microsoft's mistakes here. Again, it's not exactly rocket science. You keep using the argument that the Playstation 2 sold well, so the Playstation 3 will as well... wrong! Again: look at Nintendo. Look at Atari before it. Do you notice a pattern here? Every single hardware manufacturer that has gotten too big for its britches and relied upon previous success has killed itself (although Nintendo found a way to come back two generations later, unlike Atari). You also keep saying that the Playstation 2 fans will come to the Playstation 3... says who? Tons of people who owned the PS2 have already bought a 360 or Wii. There's no reason to think consumers you lost are going to come back. I'm sorry, but us hardcore gamers are in the minority. You owning all three consoles is most definitely not indicative of the rest of the world. Like I said -- I don't know a single person who has more than one console right now, personally (as in not online). Tell me, besides yourself, do you know any? Let me even be more blunt: do you know any non-hardcore gamers that own more than one console from the current generation? It's extremely rare, and if you're going to rely on those sales, you're doomed to fail. Again, I don't know about Europe, but most parents in America aren't going to buy their kids multiple consoles. Even in many middle- to high-income families. A lot of people? Do you have a source to back that up, because I've read plenty of articles that have said the exact opposite about the amount of people who use Blu-Ray in their PS3, even knew it was in their PS3, and bought the PS3 because of it. I think you're just making that point up based on what you've read on technology forums, which isn't exactly the best audience to survey. I don't think it's really an argument of how long it will take for Blu-Ray to take off, because historically it's taken quite a while for new formats to gain footing. VHS, DVD, HDTV sets, HDTV service, all of them have taken a long time to get standard adoption. Why is it going to be any different for Blu-Ray? I made no such remark that "standard consumers mostly don't want blu ray," so please don't quote something I didn't say as you're taking it completely out of context when you fabricate a quote like that. The point was that Blu-Ray is not going to be a selling point for most standard consumers. It's not going to make a difference to them. Again you're assuming that people are buying the PS3 for the Blu-Ray, and you know what they say about assuming ;) Articles have all stated that, statistically, the matter is otherwise, so why is this even a point of yours? I think your post was to start a PS3 vs 360 debate, because in no way, shape or form was anyone -- myself included -- writing the PS3 off. Why else did you create such a long, drawn-out post about the PS3 vs 360? :) I'm not sure randomnut's comment is anything like what you're implying (and honestly, I'm not entirely sure what he's saying). I don't see how I'm being unfair when all we're doing with these long, drawn-out posts is repeating ourselves. *Shrug* Don't get involved then :p First off: I understood your point perfectly. You didn't comprehend mine. My point was that if they get so far behind, it doesn't matter if they're not able to make it up until the last year. There is a MAJOR difference in what the PS2 is doing right now with what you're implying for the PS3. The PS2 won its console war when it was still going on, and now it's continuing to sell well. If a console doesn't do well in the generation it's in, how on earth do you expect it to do well after unless they really cut the price (which is what we're discussing to begin with)? But that's what I mean with the "writing off". The PS3 isn't "not doing well", it might not be meeting expectations, but it actually sold more in its 1st year WITH competition than the 360 did in its 1st year without - Not much, but it did. It's also not incredibly far behind either. So I don't think it's going to get that far behind it can't catch up - If anything I think the PS3 could catch up this year. That's just my opinion, but it's why I wrote the large post I did. I'm not saying each individual year is a "win" or "loss", so yet again, please do not put words in my mouth. Of course it's the combined sales. But after a certain amount of time, the majority of the people who would buy a console are going to have one. Sure the laggards will get consoles extremely late, but what does it matter if the war's over? You keep acting like if Sony's console can do well late in life it's going to win. I'm sorry, but if you "win" a generation by refusing to advance to the next generation of hardware where the others are already dominating, that's not really winning. I really don't see Sony doing the same thing twice with the Playstation 4, anyways. They'll make sure it's released much closer to the next Microsoft and Nintendo offerings. Ok agree to disagree, I believe the consoles sell more late in the generation. The 360 sold 10 odd million year 1, and 7 odd million year two - If that's peak sales, then where does it go now? Down the way? Both will sell a lot more later on when price is lower, and each have a meatier library. So yes, I think Sony can do better later on, when they have better exclusives out, and the PS3 is cheaper. As for "refusing to advance to the next generation"... eh? The PS2 is still selling, as, well, people still want one. How is that a minus, or anything negative on the PS3? Sony have 3 products on the market just now, all selling, and all earning money. They will continue to support the PS2 as long as it sells, and that's just a sensible decision (Y) With what you wrote, do you think the war is over? Or when do you think it's over, first few years? You keep using the argument that the Playstation 2 sold well, so the Playstation 3 will as well... wrong! Again: look at Nintendo. Look at Atari before it. Do you notice a pattern here? Every single hardware manufacturer that has gotten too big for its britches and relied upon previous success has killed itself (although Nintendo found a way to come back two generations later, unlike Atari). You also keep saying that the Playstation 2 fans will come to the Playstation 3... says who? Tons of people who owned the PS2 have already bought a 360 or Wii. There's no reason to think consumers you lost are going to come back. People don't just abandon franchises they like. I think you're very naive if you believe Sony can't manage to convert many of the PS2 fanbase over. All they need to do is offer the same franchises they did on the PS2, and try to bring in more of the same. I'm sorry, but us hardcore gamers are in the minority. You owning all three consoles is most definitely not indicative of the rest of the world. Like I said -- I don't know a single person who has more than one console right now, personally (as in not online). Tell me, besides yourself, do you know any? Let me even be more blunt: do you know any non-hardcore gamers that own more than one console from the current generation? It's extremely rare, and if you're going to rely on those sales, you're doomed to fail. Again, I don't know about Europe, but most parents in America aren't going to buy their kids multiple consoles. Even in many middle- to high-income families. Over 10 years, heck, even over 3/4/5 years many people could easily afford 2 consoles. 2 Christmases out of 5 for the children :p It didn't happen last generation as Sony dominated with software. I think you'll see a lot more multiplatform gamers this generation, as many will just find it hard to completely abandon franchises they liked previously. Just because someone doesn't buy two consoles within 6 months like myself, doesn't mean they won't later on. A lot of people? Do you have a source to back that up, because I've read plenty of articles that have said the exact opposite about the amount of people who use Blu-Ray in their PS3, even knew it was in their PS3, and bought the PS3 because of it. I think you're just making that point up based on what you've read on technology forums, which isn't exactly the best audience to survey.I don't think it's really an argument of how long it will take for Blu-Ray to take off, because historically it's taken quite a while for new formats to gain footing. VHS, DVD, HDTV sets, HDTV service, all of them have taken a long time to get standard adoption. Why is it going to be any different for Blu-Ray? My only sources are an increase in PS3 sales with NPD figures in the last few months, and more people on forums starting to ask which Blu Ray player to get/or have already chosen a PS3. I'm also thinking, now that the war is over, Blu Ray is the ONLY choice - No one is going to invest in HD DVD anymore. So if Blu Ray is the only choice, well, Blu Ray player sales are going to go up. Blu Ray will have an impact for Sony and the PS3, and I think it will at least be an effective enough impact to give them a good return in console sales. I made no such remark that "standard consumers mostly don't want blu ray," so please don't quote something I didn't say as you're taking it completely out of context when you fabricate a quote like that. The point was that Blu-Ray is not going to be a selling point for most standard consumers. It's not going to make a difference to them. Yeah you did, You're not looking at this from a standard consumer's perspective.Do video/audio buffs want the Blu-Ray? Yes. Do standard consumers? Mostly no. Anyone looking into HD will consider Blu Ray when looking to buy a console. If you have an HDTV in your house, but no movie player, it may have an impact in your decision on what console to buy. I think your post was to start a PS3 vs 360 debate, because in no way, shape or form was anyone -- myself included -- writing the PS3 off. Why else did you create such a long, drawn-out post about the PS3 vs 360? :) I'm not sure randomnut's comment is anything like what you're implying (and honestly, I'm not entirely sure what he's saying). I couldn't care less if people rant on about a 360 vs PS3 debate, I didn't write my post to start one, I told you why I wrote my post. Innevitable comparisons are made between the PS3 and 360, but by not being a PS3 vs 360 debate, I mean not a debate trying to say which one is "better". All I was aiming for was an optimistic look at the PS3's future, seeing as a lot of what we see around here isn't that positive. You don't need to agree, I just thought it was a breath of fresh air to see another opinion on it. Oh for the record, Anyway back to the topic, for the reasons I outlined above I really think GTA4 will be a big push for the 360. All this stuff about 2008 being the "year of the ps3", imo more like the year the ps3 fails, considering it's lost the majority of its good exclusives. The PS3 is going to spectacularly crash and burn this year, it's just death throws now. Randomnut's opinions. I just felt writing something a little more optimistic might be a different read for some. Isn't it nice to read both sides of the opinion from time to time? Positive and negative. ps. I'm not saying you can't reply to my post, and everyone one of your points, conflict with mine, that's fine just a clash of opinions. All im doing is clarifying why I wrote, what I wrote - It's not flamebait, or to start arguments - I actually thought what I wrote, even if opinionated, and bound to be not shared by everyone, was fairly respectful in the sense it won't "annoy" anyone, or be worthy or reporting to a moderator for rule breaking. Edited March 21, 2008 by Audioboxer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soniqstylz Posted March 22, 2008 Share Posted March 22, 2008 <3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayepecks Posted March 22, 2008 Share Posted March 22, 2008 But that's what I mean with the "writing off".The PS3 isn't "not doing well", it might not be meeting expectations, but it actually sold more in its 1st year WITH competition than the 360 did in its 1st year without - Not much, but it did. It's also not incredibly far behind either. So I don't think it's going to get that far behind it can't catch up - If anything I think the PS3 could catch up this year. That's just my opinion, but it's why I wrote the large post I did. I'm sorry, how is anything I'm saying "writing off" Sony in any way? I do not see your point at all. If I were to say "Sony's done this generation, there's no way to come back," then that would be writing them off. I'm not writing them off at all. I think they can come back and beat Microsoft in terms of overall sales if they get their act together, but so far I simply haven't seen that. The fact that they still haven't standardized their online platform, haven't solidified exactly what a Playstation 3 is (the SKUs keep getting added or removed, whereas the 360 has been pretty consistent in what they offer), and haven't made it so all these SKUs are backwards compatible tells me they keep messing up whatever strategies it is they have. If Sony wants to win, they need to get at the same price point and create standardization. They haven't yet. It's sad too, because they have the hardware to be winning, and they're slowly getting some better games. Ok agree to disagree, I believe the consoles sell more late in the generation.The 360 sold 10 odd million year 1, and 7 odd million year two - If that's peak sales, then where does it go now? Down the way? Both will sell a lot more later on when price is lower, and each have a meatier library. So yes, I think Sony can do better later on, when they have better exclusives out, and the PS3 is cheaper. As for "refusing to advance to the next generation"... eh? The PS2 is still selling, as, well, people still want one. How is that a minus, or anything negative on the PS3? Sony have 3 products on the market just now, all selling, and all earning money. They will continue to support the PS2 as long as it sells, and that's just a sensible decision With what you wrote, do you think the war is over? Or when do you think it's over, first few years? Consoles sell well after the early adopters but before the laggards, with the early and late majority. It's economics. They're not going to sell best late in their life, but rather somewhere in the middle. Of course the early part isn't going to be the strongest selling. But it's going to be stronger than at the tale end of the life cycle, when the next generation of consoles begins to come out. I don't think you can win a generation by refusing to advance. Sony had already won the last generation and refused to advance, and it's put them in a pickle currently. Yet again, let me clarify this, because you don't seem to be understanding what I'm saying... not sure if it's my fault or yours... the Playstation 2 is not the Playstation 3. If Sony is going to refuse to advance to the next generation and continue to sell its Playstation 3 instead, it has nothing to win. Nintendo and Microsoft can just as easily continue to produce great games on the 360 and Wii, so putting all your eggs in that basket is a surefire way to lose. As I've been saying: You cannot win by refusing to advance. The Playstation 2 had already won. These late sales for it are because it won. You mean to tell me that if the Playstation 3 loses when Microsoft and Nintendo advance to the next generation that people are going to want to buy more Playstation 3s? That's really doubtful. People are going to want to buy the winning console(s). That is why people still buy Playstation 2s and not original the original Xbox. And guess what? Sony's in the same position Microsoft was with the original Xbox right now. I never once said the console war is over. I never even implied it. Not even close. I have no clue where you got that from. If Sony doesn't want to start acting, though, it will lose within the next few years. Microsoft acted too late last generation -- I hope Sony doesn't make the same mistake. People don't just abandon franchises they like.I think you're very naive if you believe Sony can't manage to convert many of the PS2 fanbase over. All they need to do is offer the same franchises they did on the PS2, and try to bring in more of the same. People don't just abandon franchises like that? How about the Nintendo 64 and GameCube? They sure did abandon Mario, Metroid, Zelda, etc. I'm not being naive. I'm being realistic. You're being naive if you think a few isolated franchises are going to be the sole reason why a large amount of people buy your console. It didn't work for Atari, it didn't work for Nintendo, so why is it going to work for Sony? Of course they're going to get some people to buy a Playstation 3 because of a franchise or two. But if you think every single person who ever liked a Final Fantasy game that now owns an Xbox is going to buy a Playstation 3, you're dead wrong. It's easy to say "all they need to do is offer the same franchises they did on the PS2, and try to bring in some more" than it is to actually do that. A few franchises already left the Playstation brand. What's to stop more if the console doesn't sell? Over 10 years, heck, even over 3/4/5 years many people could easily afford 2 consoles. 2 Christmases out of 5 for the children It didn't happen last generation as Sony dominated with software. I think you'll see a lot more multiplatform gamers this generation, as many will just find it hard to completely abandon franchises they liked previously. Just because someone doesn't buy two consoles within 6 months like myself, doesn't mean they won't later on. I don't get why you don't grasp this concept. People are reluctant to buy something when they already have the alternative, especially when it's technology. You keep making all of this up, how it's magically going to work how everybody is going to have a 360/Playstation 3/Wii.... Prove it. It's never happened with a generation before where people tend to own all the consoles. Hell, even in the SNES/Genesis days it was rare if you owned both consoles. Why is it going to be different now? People don't just throw $300 or $400 around willy nilly to appease their kids. I don't know how you grew up as a child, but I didn't get that and neither did anyone I know, and I live in an upper middle-class area in America. It's not going to happen. I don't understand why you seem to think Sony is less likely to have people abandon it than Atari and Nintendo. Those two both had larger franchises than Sony currently does, but people sure did seem pretty darn eager to abandon them. Why is it magically going to happen this time around? My only sources are an increase in PS3 sales with NPD figures in the last few months, and more people on forums starting to ask which Blu Ray player to get/or have already chosen a PS3.I'm also thinking, now that the war is over, Blu Ray is the ONLY choice - No one is going to invest in HD DVD anymore. So if Blu Ray is the only choice, well, Blu Ray player sales are going to go up. Blu Ray will have an impact for Sony and the PS3, and I think it will at least be an effective enough impact to give them a good return in console sales. Increased NPD sales do not indicate by any means that people are buying because of Blu-Ray. And I already told you that asking people on a technology forum is nothing akin to real life. You have a completely different group of people than you would with the general population. That'd be like going to the Middle East to ask if America should stay in Iraq and then portraying it as America's opinion. Sure Blu-Ray is the only choice, but why does that mean people are all of a sudden going to buy the PS3? Because it has a built-in Blu-Ray player? Most consumers don't use their consoles for watching movies, and instead buy a stand-alone player. Same thing happened with DVD and the PS2/Xbox. Yeah you did,Anyone looking into HD will consider Blu Ray when looking to buy a console. If you have an HDTV in your house, but no movie player, it may have an impact in your decision on what console to buy. No, I did not. You are taking my quote completely out of context and misconstruing it. You fabricated a quote. I didn't say that (quotation marks mean word-for-word, if you didn't know), and I most certainly did not say it in the concept you are implying. Let me give you the entire quote, so we don't have some sort of selective memory questions going on here: You're not looking at this from a standard consumer's perspective.Do video/audio buffs want the Blu-Ray? Yes. Do standard consumers? Mostly no. Do the parents buying the console for their child look at the amount of games, or the price? Mainly the price. If Sony wants to beat Microsoft now, it needs to level the playing field. They've already got the advantage of Blu-Ray, so why not drop the price $50 to make it equal? Sure, more games will help, but both of the consoles are going to get good games. The 360 already has a packed library, so it's going to take Sony a while to win based on games (if they do). Clearly the implication, as I have already stated, is what I just told you: "The point was that Blu-Ray is not going to be a selling point for most standard consumers. It's not going to make a difference to them." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted March 22, 2008 Subscriber² Share Posted March 22, 2008 (edited) I'm sorry, how is anything I'm saying "writing off" Sony in any way? I do not see your point at all. If I were to say "Sony's done this generation, there's no way to come back," then that would be writing them off. I'm not writing them off at all. I think they can come back and beat Microsoft in terms of overall sales if they get their act together, but so far I simply haven't seen that. The fact that they still haven't standardized their online platform, haven't solidified exactly what a Playstation 3 is (the SKUs keep getting added or removed, whereas the 360 has been pretty consistent in what they offer), and haven't made it so all these SKUs are backwards compatible tells me they keep messing up whatever strategies it is they have. If Sony wants to win, they need to get at the same price point and create standardization. They haven't yet. It's sad too, because they have the hardware to be winning, and they're slowly getting some better games.Consoles sell well after the early adopters but before the laggards, with the early and late majority. It's economics. They're not going to sell best late in their life, but rather somewhere in the middle. Of course the early part isn't going to be the strongest selling. But it's going to be stronger than at the tale end of the life cycle, when the next generation of consoles begins to come out. I don't think you can win a generation by refusing to advance. Sony had already won the last generation and refused to advance, and it's put them in a pickle currently. Yet again, let me clarify this, because you don't seem to be understanding what I'm saying... not sure if it's my fault or yours... the Playstation 2 is not the Playstation 3. If Sony is going to refuse to advance to the next generation and continue to sell its Playstation 3 instead, it has nothing to win. Nintendo and Microsoft can just as easily continue to produce great games on the 360 and Wii, so putting all your eggs in that basket is a surefire way to lose. As I've been saying: You cannot win by refusing to advance. The Playstation 2 had already won. These late sales for it are because it won. You mean to tell me that if the Playstation 3 loses when Microsoft and Nintendo advance to the next generation that people are going to want to buy more Playstation 3s? That's really doubtful. People are going to want to buy the winning console(s). That is why people still buy Playstation 2s and not original the original Xbox. And guess what? Sony's in the same position Microsoft was with the original Xbox right now. I never once said the console war is over. I never even implied it. Not even close. I have no clue where you got that from. If Sony doesn't want to start acting, though, it will lose within the next few years. Microsoft acted too late last generation -- I hope Sony doesn't make the same mistake. People don't just abandon franchises like that? How about the Nintendo 64 and GameCube? They sure did abandon Mario, Metroid, Zelda, etc. I'm not being naive. I'm being realistic. You're being naive if you think a few isolated franchises are going to be the sole reason why a large amount of people buy your console. It didn't work for Atari, it didn't work for Nintendo, so why is it going to work for Sony? Of course they're going to get some people to buy a Playstation 3 because of a franchise or two. But if you think every single person who ever liked a Final Fantasy game that now owns an Xbox is going to buy a Playstation 3, you're dead wrong. It's easy to say "all they need to do is offer the same franchises they did on the PS2, and try to bring in some more" than it is to actually do that. A few franchises already left the Playstation brand. What's to stop more if the console doesn't sell? I don't get why you don't grasp this concept. People are reluctant to buy something when they already have the alternative, especially when it's technology. You keep making all of this up, how it's magically going to work how everybody is going to have a 360/Playstation 3/Wii.... Prove it. It's never happened with a generation before where people tend to own all the consoles. Hell, even in the SNES/Genesis days it was rare if you owned both consoles. Why is it going to be different now? People don't just throw $300 or $400 around willy nilly to appease their kids. I don't know how you grew up as a child, but I didn't get that and neither did anyone I know, and I live in an upper middle-class area in America. It's not going to happen. I don't understand why you seem to think Sony is less likely to have people abandon it than Atari and Nintendo. Those two both had larger franchises than Sony currently does, but people sure did seem pretty darn eager to abandon them. Why is it magically going to happen this time around? Increased NPD sales do not indicate by any means that people are buying because of Blu-Ray. And I already told you that asking people on a technology forum is nothing akin to real life. You have a completely different group of people than you would with the general population. That'd be like going to the Middle East to ask if America should stay in Iraq and then portraying it as America's opinion. Sure Blu-Ray is the only choice, but why does that mean people are all of a sudden going to buy the PS3? Because it has a built-in Blu-Ray player? Most consumers don't use their consoles for watching movies, and instead buy a stand-alone player. Same thing happened with DVD and the PS2/Xbox. No, I did not. You are taking my quote completely out of context and misconstruing it. You fabricated a quote. I didn't say that (quotation marks mean word-for-word, if you didn't know), and I most certainly did not say it in the concept you are implying. Let me give you the entire quote, so we don't have some sort of selective memory questions going on here: Clearly the implication, as I have already stated, is what I just told you: "The point was that Blu-Ray is not going to be a selling point for most standard consumers. It's not going to make a difference to them." I'm sorry, how is anything I'm saying "writing off" Sony in any way? I do not see your point at all. If I were to say "Sony's done this generation, there's no way to come back," then that would be writing them off. I'm not writing them off at all. I think they can come back and beat Microsoft in terms of overall sales if they get their act together, but so far I simply haven't seen that. The fact that they still haven't standardized their online platform, haven't solidified exactly what a Playstation 3 is (the SKUs keep getting added or removed, whereas the 360 has been pretty consistent in what they offer), and haven't made it so all these SKUs are backwards compatible tells me they keep messing up whatever strategies it is they have. If Sony wants to win, they need to get at the same price point and create standardization. They haven't yet. It's sad too, because they have the hardware to be winning, and they're slowly getting some better games. Ahhh I didn't mean to pinpoint you as writing them off directly, sorry bout that. It was more of an insight towards those who claim it's all over just now. The loose ends, are the reason 2008 SHOULD be the year of the PS3. In the sense that the PS3 makes a comeback this year and is actually "what it says on the tin". I'm confident they'll all be tidied up, heck Sony put their neck on the line in many interviews of recent saying everything will be out this year. "Everything" as in their Network updates/Home - Game delays not included :/ If they don't output it all, id be very suprised, and then yeah, they definitely have a BIG problem then. Consoles sell well after the early adopters but before the laggards, with the early and late majority. It's economics. They're not going to sell best late in their life, but rather somewhere in the middle. Of course the early part isn't going to be the strongest selling. But it's going to be stronger than at the tale end of the life cycle, when the next generation of consoles begins to come out. I don't think you can win a generation by refusing to advance. Sony had already won the last generation and refused to advance, and it's put them in a pickle currently. Middle to end they sell best I'd still say. When I keep saying end, I don't really mean like the last "month" they are on the shelves. I should of clarified that. So I agree with what you're now saying. As for Sony not advancing, I still don't understand that point. What did you suppose they do differently? The PS3 was NOT ready for launch for the 360, hell it wasn't ready for launch when it came out. They still had GoW and FF12 to hit as well on the PS2 when the 360 came out, even if the PS3 was ready at the same time, it wouldn't of launched when the 360 did. Maybe 6-8 months later, some might argue 12 months was a little late. Yet again, let me clarify this, because you don't seem to be understanding what I'm saying... not sure if it's my fault or yours... the Playstation 2 is not the Playstation 3. If Sony is going to refuse to advance to the next generation and continue to sell its Playstation 3 instead, it has nothing to win. Nintendo and Microsoft can just as easily continue to produce great games on the 360 and Wii, so putting all your eggs in that basket is a surefire way to lose. As I've been saying: You cannot win by refusing to advance. The Playstation 2 had already won. These late sales for it are because it won. You mean to tell me that if the Playstation 3 loses when Microsoft and Nintendo advance to the next generation that people are going to want to buy more Playstation 3s? That's really doubtful. People are going to want to buy the winning console(s). That is why people still buy Playstation 2s and not original the original Xbox. And guess what? Sony's in the same position Microsoft was with the original Xbox right now. I know it's not the Playstation 2, but everyone is looking at it to carry on from the Playstation 2. It has a hugely successful name to live up to, every Playstation console so far has "won". You do build up a reputation from that, and a reputation doesn't mean nothing. Something Sony took for granted at the launch of the PS3 with some high flying arrogance, but at least they've settled down now and got onto track. No console is going to fail as miserably as the Gamecube/Xbox did in comparison to the PS2 again, so yeah I do think the PS3 will easily be selling when the PS4 hits. Sony are no where near in the position the original xbox was in, the original xbox lacked IPs, and had nothing to build from. The PS3 has MANY great brand and franchises to show off, that gamers KNOW are good and as I said above it's coming on from the PS2. So maybe your "general consumers" will go by reputation and say "hey, the PS2 was great, ill get a PS3!" People don't just abandon franchises like that? How about the Nintendo 64 and GameCube? They sure did abandon Mario, Metroid, Zelda, etc. I'm not being naive. I'm being realistic. You're being naive if you think a few isolated franchises are going to be the sole reason why a large amount of people buy your console. It didn't work for Atari, it didn't work for Nintendo, so why is it going to work for Sony? Of course they're going to get some people to buy a Playstation 3 because of a franchise or two. But if you think every single person who ever liked a Final Fantasy game that now owns an Xbox is going to buy a Playstation 3, you're dead wrong. It's easy to say "all they need to do is offer the same franchises they did on the PS2, and try to bring in some more" than it is to actually do that. A few franchises already left the Playstation brand. What's to stop more if the console doesn't sell? Ok maybe some do, but I find it VERY hard to imagine those that love MGS, FF and GoW for example don't want to carry on with the story. Not every single person, but a lot of people IMO. Oh well, we will agree to disagree on the abandoning of franchises. I think existing franchises can easily secure console sales - As I said not saying EVERYONE will return for more, but I believe a large amount of people will. Gamers love um, games? So if what they loved playing on the PS2, replicates itself on a PS3, why would they not at least consider buying a PS3? It would be strange if they didn't :blink: I don't get why you don't grasp this concept. People are reluctant to buy something when they already have the alternative, especially when it's technology.You keep making all of this up, how it's magically going to work how everybody is going to have a 360/Playstation 3/Wii.... Prove it. It's never happened with a generation before where people tend to own all the consoles. Hell, even in the SNES/Genesis days it was rare if you owned both consoles. Why is it going to be different now? People don't just throw $300 or $400 around willy nilly to appease their kids. I don't know how you grew up as a child, but I didn't get that and neither did anyone I know, and I live in an upper middle-class area in America. It's not going to happen. I don't understand why you seem to think Sony is less likely to have people abandon it than Atari and Nintendo. Those two both had larger franchises than Sony currently does, but people sure did seem pretty darn eager to abandon them. Why is it magically going to happen this time around? I didn't say everyone is going to have all 3 consoles. I'm speculating that it's far more likely for more people to own multiple consoles this generation. Um, consoles/games are probably one of the most popular purchases for christmas as well. So im sorry if you didn't get a console for christmas, but millions and millions of people do. I'd say people are less likely to abandon Sony, as they have a massive following from the PS1 to PS2. As I said, every playstation console till now has won each console race. For them to sink without trace miiiiiillions of people need to abandon them. I'd say it's more likely they'll lose some people, but keep a lot onboard. If they do offer similar franchises and games to what everyone loved on the PS1 and PS2. Increased NPD sales do not indicate by any means that people are buying because of Blu-Ray. And I already told you that asking people on a technology forum is nothing akin to real life. You have a completely different group of people than you would with the general population. That'd be like going to the Middle East to ask if America should stay in Iraq and then portraying it as America's opinion.Sure Blu-Ray is the only choice, but why does that mean people are all of a sudden going to buy the PS3? Because it has a built-in Blu-Ray player? Most consumers don't use their consoles for watching movies, and instead buy a stand-alone player. Same thing happened with DVD and the PS2/Xbox. Look, im drawing conclusions from what word on the net is - I mean where else can I? I'm not a huge paid analyst, so for my arguments I use what I can - And word is people are buying PS3s for Blu Ray. People buy the PS3 since the standalone players are more expensive and/or not profile 2.0. Even shops ARE recommending the PS3 as a player. Again I go with what I read, I can't go interview every retail chain in the UK to see how standalones are doing. I just read what is online, and no I don't mean just from forum users, im talking about news articles as well. You are taking my quote completely out of context and misconstruing it. You fabricated a quote. I didn't say that (quotation marks mean word-for-word, if you didn't know), and I most certainly did not say it in the concept you are implying. Let me give you the entire quote, so we don't have some sort of selective memory questions going on here:Clearly the implication, as I have already stated, is what I just told you: "The point was that Blu-Ray is not going to be a selling point for most standard consumers. It's not going to make a difference to them." Wtf? How can I "fabricate" a quote. It says what it says. Whether or not it means what you wanted it to say, that's another thing. I really want to know what the hell a dictionary meaning is for "standard consumer". People love to chuck that phrase about all over the joint, and manipulate these pawns to be plain dumb, or knowledgeable on certain subjects when they want them to be. Sorry for the rant, but people seem to think every consumer not totally geeked out to be a complete dips**t! (again, not directly aimed at you, im just off on a rant in general) My parents for example, know very little about anything technical, but they done all their own research into an HDTV and clued themselves up. When any level headed person doesn't know enough, they seek help - Only idiots jump into pools head first without doing research/asking for knowledge from others - That is how you waste money. They came away knowing all about HD, got themselves a 1080p set, and were going to invest in Sky HD to get HD movies. I jumped in there though, and just said don't pay for Sky HD, just watch our movies on the PS3. Now I know some completely helpless people do exist, but to conclude my rant, with the way "general consumer" is chucked about willy nilly, you never know on NW if the forum poster merely means an intelligent person of society who merely needs to do a little more research, or one of the numbskulls who know nothing and make decisions based on what they think, rather than what they know. Everything is going HD, and if you buy a TV in an electrical outlet, you'll be told about Blu Ray and/or see it on display on the TVs. That's how it is in the UK anyway. Whether or not you invest in it, is another thing - But as long as people are getting told, they're going to be at least considering looking into Blu Ray and/or their options for playing movies. The consumers you talk about are hugely swayed by marketing and I think you should all know that by now - How did Blu Ray win? Uhhh marketing played a huge part if it's anything to believe - HD DVD a hell of a lot cheaper, but consumers buying Blu Ray? There you go, price overturned in favour for a more expensive product. Price is important, i'll never dispute that - it can push a race in your favour, but when it comes to entertainment other things such as content on the platform, whether it be movies or games, and a reputation goes a long way as well. Anyway im putting this discussion to bed. Clearly we are on hugely different wave lengths with some of our thoughts, not that anything is wrong with that, but to be honest im pretty worn out :p I stick by everything I've wrote as I believe most of it - Some of my views have been altered through the discussion (Y) I'm still largely optimistic, but meh, some of you would fire in here in a second and go "OF COURSE YOU ARE!!!111". I'm sure ye all love me anyway :wub: In a few years i'll either have some people saying, "hey Audioboxer you should be paid to be an analyst!", or a mountain of "HAHA YOU WERE WRONG!" comments to face. Good thing is, i'll happily admit if im wrong. You can't and won't always be right. I love ye all anyway, no matter how it ends ;) I'll just kick yer asses online if you give me grief :shifty: Edited March 22, 2008 by Audioboxer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narlzac85 Posted March 22, 2008 Share Posted March 22, 2008 longest posts I've ever seen... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy0 Posted March 22, 2008 Share Posted March 22, 2008 With regards to the original article ... well duh! longest posts I've ever seen... Don't you just love it? :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts