Sony on PS3: You're "paying for potential"

[popisdead uk]

Weeeeeeell, you're paying for potential and a damn good BD player. To be honest with you, I do fine with the games already out on it. I am not the type of person that keeps buying a games. I have a few that I play and that's it. Plus I use it for DVD watching as well as Blu Ray. I don't get what is the deal with people complaining about the games out for it.....

How many games can you own and play because remember, each game is like $50 and I don't have to tell you that the money can add up VERY quickly if you get lost in this world where you MUST continuously increase your game library. I think people should stop complaining about this and look at the issue REALISTICALLY. The PS3 of course can be better and could definitely be improved but I really don't see how the 360 library is considered BETTER.

Sure it has a bunch of exclusive titles such as Halo and Gears of War and Bioshock (which is coming for PS3 in the fall) but so what? I like the PS3 the way it is right now and am looking forward to updates and improvements.

Couldn't agree more!

[Coldgunner]

Weeeeeeell, you're paying for potential and a damn good BD player. To be honest with you, I do fine with the games already out on it. I am not the type of person that keeps buying a games. I have a few that I play and that's it. Plus I use it for DVD watching as well as Blu Ray. I don't get what is the deal with people complaining about the games out for it.....

How many games can you own and play because remember, each game is like $50 and I don't have to tell you that the money can add up VERY quickly if you get lost in this world where you MUST continuously increase your game library. I think people should stop complaining about this and look at the issue REALISTICALLY. The PS3 of course can be better and could definitely be improved but I really don't see how the 360 library is considered BETTER.

Sure it has a bunch of exclusive titles such as Halo and Gears of War and Bioshock (which is coming for PS3 in the fall) but so what? I like the PS3 the way it is right now and am looking forward to updates and improvements.

here here

[spenser.d]

He's just reassuring of the future, and making the PS3 sound like it's going to hit the 10 year cycle Sony always tout.

If you want to start reading between the lines and bringing out conclusions of it's been said cause it's underperforming or whatever, that's fine. People see comments in different lights.

You could see it as bad PR in one sense, but it's just really Sony going on about the 10 year life cycle as I said above. Quite welcoming they do do that, I certainly don't want my PS3 locked up and non-existent after 5/6 years.

He's definitely NOT saying that :laugh:

Of course Sony will think the PS3 is worth it right now, it's their console. They'd tell you it's the best to buy, like MS/Nintendo would say as well.

Some gamers do as well, those that are happy with their purchase.

Of course he's not actually saying that. That's just the feeling I get from the article. They realize that a lot of people dont' think it's worth it. I'm not trying to imply that they think that it's not worth it, just that they realize that a lot of other people do. And I'm not reading between the lines any more than you are just because I'm drawing a different conclusion than you.

-Spenser

[The Gunslinger]

You answered your own "question" in there :p

Early adopters and people who have the cash to make investments in devices when they are higher priced will always do so.

Probably partly due to their interest in bleeding edge technology.

The general public doesn't really enter this equation on potential - Most of them will buy a PS3 when it's ?199, or once it's been out a few years.

The PS2 or PS1 were not sitting at 30/40/50million after 1 year 8/9 months.

Lol, I realised that...but I had already typed the whole thing.:laugh::

But I dont think they were referring to early adopters.

In my mind their argument sounds like this...Here, buy this seed for $100. In a few years time, it will grow into a tree, and from that tree you will get fruit. But then, why would you buy the seed and wait, when in a few years time you can buy the fruit itself for $50?

They should be saying...Here buy this fruit for $50. It has seeds that can be replanted and give you fruits for many years to come.

[popisdead uk]

Technology doesn't work that way though mate, unfortunately :(

New technology costs more money, they can't be giving it away for free.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Of course he's not actually saying that. That's just the feeling I get from the article. They realize that a lot of people dont' think it's worth it. I'm not trying to imply that they think that it's not worth it, just that they realize that a lot of other people do. And I'm not reading between the lines any more than you are just because I'm drawing a different conclusion than you.

-Spenser

Well I don't really know how you can define a "lot of people not happy".

Just guess work really.

There are people unhappy, but there always is.

Probably a year ago, I'd give you a lot of people not happy with the PS3, but in recent times, I wouldn't say it was anywhere near as high with all the recent improvements to the service, and actual top quality games coming out/being shown.

I'd say sales of the PS3 this year show a general happiness with the device, seeing as it looks like it's sitting in second place in sales globally.

It's a shame you're getting that feeling from the article, but oh well, that's the nice friendly world of PR and how it's interpreted.

[spenser.d]

Well I don't really know how you can define a "lot of people not happy".

Just guess work really.

There are people unhappy, but there always is.

Probably a year ago, I'd give you a lot of people not happy with the PS3, but in recent times, I wouldn't say it was anywhere near as high with all the recent improvements to the service, and actual top quality games coming out/being shown.

I'd say sales of the PS3 this year show a general happiness with the device, seeing as it looks like it's sitting in second place in sales globally.

I didn't say people weren't happy. I said that people didn't think it was worth it, at least not yet. You're putting words in my mouth to create your own argument now. Those people are generally the one's that haven't bought it yet, but want one, and I know a lot of those people (and in general, there are just a lot of them), and they mainly haven't bought it because they can't justify the price - they don't think it's worth it. Now we have Sony PR telling them that it's justifiable because of it's potential. But we already agreed that spending on potential alone without thinking that it's worth it right now is stupid spending.

-Spenser

[coresx]

Problem with Sony and Playstation these days is with the PS1, PS2 success dictated their life span. The same can not be said for the PS3 which is getting humped by the Wii and losing most games to the 360 which is romping in the US and with it's cheaper price and better library of games for the normal gamer will likely nail 2nd place. Microsoft are in this for the long haul since it's profit making for them now so that should give Sony time to lick their wounds and see were consumers take them over the coming years but Sony could easily cut the PS3 short compared to the PS1 and PS2 if Microsoft jump the gun again but it won't be early like last time more like year 6 or 7.

Sony can't keep trumping potential, I don't want to wait 7 years for the next God of War, Shadow of Colossus like we had to do on PS2. That's just not the way to play it. Microsoft designed the hardware(lol, RROD) and software better and we are getting the top games in reasonable time, Halo 3, and two Gears of War before Killzone 2 and LBP release. That's the way to do it. The 360 will still be kicking out top games in it's latter years, difference with the PS3 is the 360 can actually do it early on as well. Best of both worlds.

[The Gunslinger]

Technology doesn't work that way though mate, unfortunately :(

New technology costs more money, they can't be giving it away for free.

Totally agree... Just saying that justifying the high price against future potential doesnt make sense. They should be saying, we have a really powerful system, that is well worth the price. Those that appreciate the technology will get it. Trying to justify the higher cost to the general public wont have much effect. They will still hold off until something cheaper comes along. The general public usually invests in mature technologies, i.e. potential has been reached / surpassed.

Edit: Btw...Look at the PS2 sales. It is a mature cheap technology, and it is still selling well.

[popisdead uk]

Problem with Sony and Playstation these days is with the PS1, PS2 success dictated their life span. The same can not be said for the PS3 which is getting humped by the Wii and losing most games to the 360 which is romping in the US and with it's cheaper price and better library of games for the normal gamer will likely nail 2nd place. Microsoft are in this for the long haul since it's profit making for them now so that should give Sony time to lick their wounds and see were consumers take them over the coming years but Sony could easily cut the PS3 short compared to the PS1 and PS2 if Microsoft jump the gun again but it won't be early like last time more like year 6 or 7.

Sony can't keep trumping potential, I don't want to wait 7 years for the next God of War, Shadow of Colossus like we had to do on PS2. That's just not the way to play it. Microsoft designed the hardware(lol, RROD) and software better and we are getting the top games in reasonable time, Halo 3, and two Gears of War before Killzone 2 and LBP release. That's the way to do it. The 360 will still be kicking out top games in it's latter years, difference with the PS3 is the 360 can actually do it early on as well. Best of both worlds.

The PS3 is doing just fine against the 360 considering the difference in time they have been available. I would rather wait for a title to be right, than the constant stream of sequels we seem to get nowadays that invariably end up crap.

Totally agree... Just saying that justifying the high price against future potential doesnt make sense. They should be saying, we have a really powerful system, that is well worth the price. Those that appreciate the technology will get it. Trying to justify the higher cost to the general public wont have much effect. They will still hold off until something cheaper comes along. The general public usually invests in mature technologies, i.e. potential has been reached / surpassed.

I understand your point mate :)

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

Problem with Sony and Playstation these days is with the PS1, PS2 success dictated their life span. The same can not be said for the PS3 which is getting humped by the Wii and losing most games to the 360 which is romping in the US and with it's cheaper price and better library of games for the normal gamer will likely nail 2nd place. Microsoft are in this for the long haul since it's profit making for them now so that should give Sony time to lick their wounds and see were consumers take them over the coming years but Sony could easily cut the PS3 short compared to the PS1 and PS2 if Microsoft jump the gun again but it won't be early like last time more like year 6 or 7.

Sony can't keep trumping potential, I don't want to wait 7 years for the next God of War, Shadow of Colossus like we had to do on PS2. That's just not the way to play it. Microsoft designed the hardware(lol, RROD) and software better and we are getting the top games in reasonable time, Halo 3, and two Gears of War before Killzone 2 and LBP release. That's the way to do it. The 360 will still be kicking out top games in it's latter years, difference with the PS3 is the 360 can actually do it early on as well. Best of both worlds.

(Y)

Although MS never actually manufactured the 360, so RROD isn't exactly down to them. It was outsourced which was a huge mistake and hopefully they don't repeat it, which I'm sure they won't.

[popisdead uk]

(Y)

Although MS never actually manufactured the 360, so RROD isn't exactly down to them. It was outsourced which was a huge mistake and hopefully they don't repeat it, which I'm sure they won't.

The problem had nothing to do with out sourcing the manufacturing of the console, it was the design (that MS came up with). The same factory that makes unreliable 360's, makes reliable PS3's.

[Sethos]

I was just waiting for the next "Wait a bit longer"-ish comment.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

I didn't say people weren't happy. I said that people didn't think it was worth it, at least not yet. You're putting words in my mouth to create your own argument now. Those people are generally the one's that haven't bought it yet, but want one, and I know a lot of those people (and in general, there are just a lot of them), and they mainly haven't bought it because they can't justify the price - they don't think it's worth it. Now we have Sony PR telling them that it's justifiable because of it's potential. But we already agreed that spending on potential alone without thinking that it's worth it right now is stupid spending.

-Spenser

Well I dunno, misunderstanding.

I'd say if you weren't happy, you don't think the device is worth it.

Unless you're not happy, but you're willing to hold on for potential (cha-ching!), which is where this article comes in.

We have a few members on here with PS3s, that through the comments you sometimes see in this section, you'd think why on earth does "person x" own a PS3, or still have it? :o They'll never give you a good answer though :laugh:

I gotta chalk part of that up to them believing it will get better, else they'd just sell. Why on earth would anyone want to own something that they dislike that's completely optional?

I mean I might dislike my car (don't actually, an example), but I gotta own it to get about :laugh: But I sure as hell don't need to own a console if I don't like it. That money I spent would be better off spent on something else, no? Seeing as it was a couple hundred bucks, not pocket change.

So in a way, what this PR is also essentially doing, is appealing to those disgruntled who do CURRENTLY own a PS3.

[Fonze]

Where will their potential be when the Xbox 720 comes out before they even reach the half way point in the PS3's life cycle? The next Xbox will certainly have more power than a PS3, will more than likely include a Blu-Ray drive, and will probably not sell for significantly more than a PS3. Given Microsoft's history with DirectX and the ease of developing for the Xbox360 compared to the other consoles, I'd expect there to be a much shorter time for the console to reach its potential and start seeing games that can really take advantage of the new hardware.

Also, as stated earlier in this thread, as Blu-Ray becomes more popular (if HD VOD doesn't replace it that is), the stand alone players will drop in price and will be a better choice for consumers looking for a Blu-Ray player.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Where will their potential be when the Xbox 720 comes out before they even reach the half way point in the PS3's life cycle? The next Xbox will certainly have more power than a PS3, will more than likely include a Blu-Ray drive, and will probably not sell for significantly more than a PS3. Given Microsoft's history with DirectX and the ease of developing for the Xbox360 compared to the other consoles, I'd expect there to be a much shorter time for the console to reach its potential and start seeing games that can really take advantage of the new hardware.

Also, as stated earlier in this thread, as Blu-Ray becomes more popular (if HD VOD doesn't replace it that is), the stand alone players will drop in price and will be a better choice for consumers looking for a Blu-Ray player.

You do realise the Xbox 720 or whatever it's called will in NO way be competing with the PS3 when released?

Why not?

Games library and pricing says hello.

There was a reason the PS2 completely smacked about the 360/PS3 when they first came out - People don't adopt in mass numbers till nearer the end of a consoles lifespan when things are more affordable and have larger games libraries.

Unless the 720 goes down the route of the Wii and is a 360 1.5 :rofl:, it will come out at the usual high end price as it will be bleeding edge technology.

And the 720 coming out half way through the PS3's lifespan would be "normal" from previous standards. The PS2 came out 5 years into the life of the PS1, and the PS3 5 years into the life of the PS2.

However this generation I do hope outside of the Wii, the next wave of consoles take a bit longer to come out. Never has hardware been so future proof with this generation (unless you want to argue DVD and BR), so no need to rush boys.

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

And there is nothing to say Microsoft will kill off the 360 as soon as the "720" is released. It could "smack about" the PS3/720 for a good year or two before people migrate to the next generation.

Just as I'm sure the same will be said for the PS3 when the PS4 is out. We'll see some great titles in 20xx when the PS3 is ending it's lifespan and the best games are released that really zap all the processing power

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

And there is nothing to say Microsoft will kill off the 360 as soon as the "720" is released. It could "smack about" the PS3/720 for a good year or two before people migrate to the next generation.

Just as I'm sure the same will be said for the PS3 when the PS4 is out. We'll see some great titles in 20xx when the PS3 is ending it's lifespan and the best games are released that really zap all the processing power

No ones killing anything off when the next gen consoles hit, unless they want to shoot themselves in the foot.

MS had to do it in the past, they shouldn't have to do it this time.

It could "smack about" the PS3/720 for a good year or two before people migrate to the next generation.

I think you mean PS4/720.

And yes, a 360 by previous history, should be selling better than a PS4 and 720 on launch. Cheap and large game library.

[theyarecomingforyou]

To me, he seems to be marketing the console on potential, as if that's a selling point on it's own. He's also half-admitting that the PS3 isn't the machine it should be right now, which is poor marketing. To me, he's saying "the PS3 is will be worth the high price down the road, even though it's not really worth it now," which is a stupid thing to say.

Exactly. My brother is a fan of console gaming - he owns all three, plus Rockband - but every time I talk to him his response to the PS3 is always very so-so. If a game is multi-platform he'll always grab it on X360. There are some great exclusive titles (MGS4, Killzone II, etc) but so far the PS3 has been quite disappointing, hence having to talk about "potential".

Oh well, I'm fine with PC gaming.

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

I think you mean PS4/720.

And yes, a 360 by previous history, should be selling better than a PS4 and 720 on launch. Cheap and large game library.

Well I did actually mean PS3, because it's hard enough to work out when either console is hitting stores, but I'm just assuming the next Xbox will be released before the PS4. So both the competiting consoles would be the PS3 and Xbox 360 vs 720, and then whenever the PS4 launches that will replace the PS3 in time as main competitor.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Well I did actually mean PS3, because it's hard enough to work out when either console is hitting stores, but I'm just assuming the next Xbox will be released before the PS4. So both the competiting consoles would be the PS3 and Xbox 360 vs 720, and then whenever the PS4 launches that will replace the PS3 in time as main competitor.

Yeah well fair enough if you do, but I don't want to enter another argument on whether or not the 360 or PS3 will be "slapping" each other about sales wise in 3/4 years.

I was just talking about how previous generation consoles are pretty much 99% guaranteed (as long as their still on the market), to slap about next gen consoles for a period of time at launch and beyond for the reasons I gave.

I think that's a pretty stone wall prediction, where as trying to guess if the 360 will be slapping the PS3 about in 4 years is not.

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

Fair do (Y) That's all I was saying too.

[spenser.d]

<snip>

I think you're taking him a little too literally.

What he's getting at is that, if Microsoft releases the '720' in, say, 2011 or 2012 (a six or seven year lifespan for the 360), which I think is pretty realistic, Sony isn't going to (and can't feasibly) wait until 2016 (a ten year lifespan for the PS3) to launch the PS4. It'd be a huge hit to the Playstation franchise if they did. The 'potential' for the PS3 will end when the next generation hits the market, and the way it's going, the '720' will probably hit the market first of the two, at which point Sony will have to answer, and they won't be able to do so on the PS3.

-Spenser

[Coldgunner]

I think the 10 year lifespan idea is to overlap with the PS4 release, like how the PS2 is at the moment.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

I think you're taking him a little too literally.

What he's getting at is that, if Microsoft releases the '720' in, say, 2011 or 2012 (a six or seven year lifespan for the 360), which I think is pretty realistic, Sony isn't going to (and can't feasibly) wait until 2016 (a ten year lifespan for the PS3) to launch the PS4. It'd be a huge hit to the Playstation franchise if they did. The 'potential' for the PS3 will end when the next generation hits the market, and the way it's going, the '720' will probably hit the market first of the two, at which point Sony will have to answer, and they won't be able to do so on the PS3.

-Spenser

They won't do that though :p

They've launched a new console 5 years into the previous two times now.

I'd say 5/6 years again, and we'll see the PS4. Although I am hoping 6/7 years tbh.

The 10 year lifespan is the life of the current console, not the amount of time till they launch the next console.