Sony calls out Xbox and Wii as flea market peddlers


Recommended Posts

anyway, as to Sony's comments, they can say whatever they want, but who wants to stay on the same console for ten years? this is not something the market is looking for. if i don't have a 720 by late next year i'll be getting quite irritated. consoles are not meant to last ten years the rate game technology is advancing, they never were.

Agreed, I'll be ready to move onto new hardware in a year or so (Y)

anyway, as to Sony's comments, they can say whatever they want, but who wants to stay on the same console for ten years? this is not something the market is looking for. if i don't have a 720 by late next year i'll be getting quite irritated. consoles are not meant to last ten years the rate game technology is advancing, they never were.

Maybe not you, but I still play my PS2 and so do many others.

In fact statistically it's still the most played console in the USA. It's now been going for 8 years 4 months or something, and still wraps up fairly impressive monthly sales. So I dunno how you can say it's not what the market is looking for. Longevity has always been a key factor in the console realm.

Current gen consoles produce their best games in their later years, so I definitely want to stay on the same console for as long as possible. Just as things start to peak, it would be counter-intuitive to start grabbing all your devs and saying prioritise the next console now.

I wouldn't necessarily say I'm gearing up to keep these consoles and not buy anything for exactly 10 years, but the way you're after a new Xbox next year, it sounds like you're ready to "ditch" the 360 after 5.

With how future proof current consoles are, I would expect us to be going nearer to 10 years, than less years the older platforms went for (PS1/PS2).

Just my thoughts, but maybe today's gamers expect things differently than me :p

My year of entry for the next consoles would be a minimum of 2011 in my mind, with at a push announcements made towards the end of 2010.

There's just too much life left in these consoles to be releasing a new console next year IMO.

Maybe not you, but I still play my PS2 and so do many others.

In fact statistically it's still the most played console in the USA. It's now been going for 8 years 4 months or something, and still wraps up fairly impressive monthly sales. So I dunno how you can say it's not what the market is looking for. Longevity has always been a key factor in the console realm.

Current gen consoles produce their best games in their later years, so I definitely want to stay on the same console for as long as possible. Just as things start to peak, it would be counter-intuitive to start grabbing all your devs and saying prioritise the next console now.

I wouldn't necessarily say I'm gearing up to keep these consoles and not buy anything for exactly 10 years, but the way you're after a new Xbox next year, it sounds like you're ready to "ditch" the 360 after 5.

With how future proof current consoles are, I would expect us to be going nearer to 10 years, than less years the older platforms went for (PS1/PS2).

Just my thoughts, but maybe today's gamers expect things differently than me :p

My year of entry for the next consoles would be a minimum of 2011 in my mind, with at a push announcements made towards the end of 2010.

There's just too much life left in these consoles to be releasing a new console next year IMO.

Those statistics are a double edged sword. While the PS2 is doing fantastic the direct cause of such good business is the PS3. It is just too much for too little in the area of games. Not to mention a lot of developers are even sticking with the PS2 instead of upgrading to PS3 (Persona for example). Sony didn't push the PS3 properly and once they removed B/C then that sealed the deal. Every PS2 sold should be seen as a potential PS3 sale. At least Microsoft understand that with the original X-Box as does Nintendo with the Gamecube.

Aside from that, the way the 360 is constructed makes it perfectly possibly to upgrade the console only and keep the peripherals in-tact. So the next "arcade" edition of the 360 might just be the only thing needed to be purchased if you already have an HDD.

Those statistics are a double edged sword. While the PS2 is doing fantastic the direct cause of such good business is the PS3. It is just too much for too little in the area of games. Not to mention a lot of developers are even sticking with the PS2 instead of upgrading to PS3 (Persona for example). Sony didn't push the PS3 properly and once they removed B/C then that sealed the deal. Every PS2 sold should be seen as a potential PS3 sale. At least Microsoft understand that with the original X-Box as does Nintendo with the Gamecube.

You seriously think that when the PS2 costs what, $129?, and the PS3 cost $500 at launch? Now $400.

The lack of BC annoys people, but people would definitely not be buying a PS3 with the main intention to play PS2 games. The console is far to expensive to be doing that.

There will be those determined they won't buy till BC comes back, but the majority buy for PS3 games/Blu Ray/PS3 features, not to play PS2 games.

Sony's issue right now is pricing before lack of BC.

I got rid of my BC PS3 because of how much they were selling on ebay for (a ridiculous amount, that's what), and bought a non-BC 40GB. I have no issues hooking up my PS2 :p

You seriously think that when the PS2 costs what, $129?, and the PS3 cost $500 at launch? Now $400.

The lack of BC annoys people, but people would definitely not be buying a PS3 with the main intention to play PS2 games. The console is far to expensive to do that.

There will be those determined they won't buy till BC comes back, but the majority buy for PS3 games/Blu Ray/PS3 features, not to play PS2 games.

Sony's issue right now is pricing before lack of BC.

I got rid of my BC PS3 because of how much they were selling on ebay for, and bought a non-BC 40GB. I have no issues hooking up my PS2 :p

Yes, I seriously think that is how Sony should look at it. But with the combined price difference and lack of BC they made that impossible regardless of never seeing it that way in the first place. It just seems to me that Sony almost doesn't care if you buy a PS3 as a gamer. And yes, being in retail I have seen alot of PS3 sales be halted because it doesn't play PS2 games. Especially when people come in after their PS3 has broken and want a new one but the new ones don't play the PS2 games. Isn't it nice to be able to play game series, trilogies or saga's that span multiple platforms on the same machine (Halo, Devil May Cry, Metal Gear Solid, Far Cry, etc)? It has been a tradition since last generation for gaming consoles to be backwards compatible. Sony started the trend and apparently think they can end it.

Yes, I seriously think that is how Sony should look at it.
But with the combined price difference and lack of BC they made that impossible regardless of never seeing it that way in the first place.

There you go, it just doesn't work like that.

BC was sacrificed as a resort to stop bleeding as much money on the PS3 and get it down in price.

There's nothing to say it's never coming back, MS work on a software based basis with emulation on the 360. Sony could do that as well, and have done it on the PSP.

Also, why should keep acting like selling the PS2 instead of the PS3 is a downer for Sony. Last time I checked the PS2 was making money on every unit sold, the PS3 losing money ;)

There you go, it just doesn't work like that.

My point isn't that it does, but that Sony has made a mistake in completely ignoring that line of thinking when both other companies have taken it to heart.

BC was sacrificed as a resort to stop bleeding as much money on the PS3 and get it down in price.

A price that was high because Sony made the mistake of throwing two experimental technologies into a machine and selling it to you before anyone really knew what the hell it was. These new technologies are The Cell and Blu-Ray. Only one of these technologies is now becoming streamlined, two years after launch of the console.

There's nothing to say it's never coming back, MS work on a software based basis with emulation on the 360. Sony could do that as well, and have done it on the PSP.

Sony themselves said it isn't ever coming back (you can re-buy old games online through the PSN, this is what the Sony rep told me), but I guess if you hold their track record of lying to heart then you can believe this.

Also, why should keep acting like selling the PS2 instead of the PS3 is a downer for Sony. Last time I checked the PS2 was making money on every unit sold, the PS3 losing money ;)

And every cent the PS2 makes and more is sucked up by the PS3's losses.

My point isn't that it does, but that Sony has made a mistake in completely ignoring that line of thinking when both other companies have taken it to heart.

For the PS3s sake the real mistake would've been not cutting manufacturing costs and getting the price lowered. The only way you can financially cut your consoles price is by getting it to break even and turn a profit.

The PS3 has to come down in price, that is priority number one.

Don't you see, while your legacy console is still selling and available in shops, people can buy it. Neither the Xbox or Gamecube are available to buy in stores.

A price that was high because Sony made the mistake of throwing two experimental technologies into a machine and selling it to you before anyone really knew what the hell it was. These new technologies are The Cell and Blu-Ray. Only one of these technologies is now becoming streamlined, two years after launch of the console.

Can't comment much on this, their decision, but in terms of Blu Ray it paid off.

Sony themselves said it isn't ever coming back (you can re-buy old games online through the PSN, this is what the Sony rep told me), but I guess if you hold their track record of lying to heart then you can believe this.

Source please?

http://www.dbtechno.com/gaming/2008/02/13/...2-games-on-ps3/

Sony have hinted at software BC a few times.

It makes financial sense to bleed the PS2 sales until they're dry, then launch a PS2 games store on the PSN. Until then, business hats would suggest let the PS2 sell until it's dead.

And every cent the PS2 makes and more is sucked up by the PS3's losses.

Actually that is how things work well.

PS3 only costs $440 odd to make now, PS2, PSP and software sales will be bringing in more profit than what's being lost, and so we've seen the games division pulling itself out of the red. This years financial figures are much better than last.

Once it breaks even this year, it means price cuts. If they hadn't made sacrifices to get manufacturing costs down we could be waiting even longer for cuts. The most logical sacrifices are those which don't affect PS3 game play/PSN features, and BC was one of them.

Edited by Audioboxer

first off i have all 3 consoles.. Sony ps3 imo sux only because thee are very few actual ps3 titles currently and being made/released. yes i know backward compatibility thats great but what about actual games specific to that console itself. xbox 360 is great and has tons of titles and as for backwards compat i really dont care that not every game from old xbox isnt able to be played. its not often that theyre played aain anyway. wii is also great and has tons of new titles all the time, its no wonder 360 and wii are way ahead of sony... sony thinks because they succeeded so well twice before that they can do it again. well they are not going about it the same as before and are hurting because of it obviously...

so what about blu-ray, ms had the addon hd dvd and so what about 360s extra addons. after you buy them and get equal to the ps3 you wind up in the same price range which makes that arguement null and void, who cares that u need to buy addons, not everyone needs these hd dvd players in their game systems and the games certainly aent using that much technology yet too or maybe very few might.

i am and always have been sony 1st then the rest, but thats changed for sure.

For the PS3s sake the real mistake would've been not cutting manufacturing costs and getting the price lowered. The only way you can financially cut your consoles price is by getting it to break even and turn a profit.

The PS3 has to come down in price, that is priority number one.

Don't you see, while your legacy console is still selling and available in shops, people can buy it. Neither the Xbox or Gamecube are available to buy in stores.

I'm arguing their mistakes, and right now they are paying for them dearly. They made a mistake with the console's construction, half of it being lopsided and the other half being experimental. Now, because of that, the costly parts are taking their tole and they are removing things that the gamers now have to pay for. Maybe if Sony just swallowed their pride and re-made the Ps3 with a more cost efficient processor we might see a bigger price drop and a better profit off the console. I mean, they seemed to think that re-making it every few months would fix problems when by now if they kept manufacturing the original PS3 then the console would in-fact be cheaper to make anyways just through the principles of mass production.

A smaller Hard Drive might bring costs down, but due to having to install games to the HDD a majority of the time they have to increase its size. I mean, sure, a 40GB hard drive vs an 80GB hard drive may save you $20-$30 but then again that is still cost cutting.

Can't comment much on this, their decision, but in terms of Blu Ray it paid off.

Yeah, two years after launch it ended up paying off. TWO YEARS!

Source please?

http://www.dbtechno.com/gaming/2008/02/13/...2-games-on-ps3/

Sony have hinted at software BC a few times.

It makes financial sense to bleed the PS2 sales until they're dry, then launch a PS2 games store on the PSN. Until then, business hats would suggest let the PS2 sell until it's dead.

That isn't backwards compatibility that you linked to. Games can be re-coded for new hardware but instead of re-releasing them in-store you might as well just let them be downloaded. That link does not mean the PS3 will play PS2 discs or PS1 discs. The Sony representative for our district also told me that these games will be roughly $10-$15 each, which means if you don't want to own a PS2 you will have to re-buy your library of games for the PS3.

Actually that is how things work well.

PS3 only costs $440 odd to make now, PS2, PSP and software sales will be bringing in more profit than what's being lost, and so we've seen the games division pulling itself out of the red. This years financial figures are much better than last.

Once it breaks even this year, it means price cuts. If they hadn't made sacrifices to get manufacturing costs down we could be waiting even longer for cuts. The most logical sacrifices are those which don't affect PS3 game play/PSN features, and BC was one of them.

Once it breaks even this year there won't be any price cuts if sony wants to make any sort of profit. A price cut means falling back into the red. Before they can price-cut they need to buffer themselves with some profit, and I doubt the PS2 alone will cut it. They do need a price cut, don't get me wrong, but that isn't what should happen judging from their position. They are almost two years behind the rest of the console world when it comes to games and online. They have taken too long to get things up and running and are sacrificing too much to do so. This console isn't a failure but it is far from a success.

I'm arguing their mistakes, and right now they are paying for them dearly. They made a mistake with the console's construction, half of it being lopsided and the other half being experimental. Now, because of that, the costly parts are taking their tole and they are removing things that the gamers now have to pay for. Maybe if Sony just swallowed their pride and re-made the Ps3 with a more cost efficient processor we might see a bigger price drop and a better profit off the console. I mean, they seemed to think that re-making it every few months would fix problems when by now if they kept manufacturing the original PS3 then the console would in-fact be cheaper to make anyways just through the principles of mass production.

I seriously doubt the PS3 has to be remade. That's a bit far out Emn1ty, seriously.

The devs are producing some pretty amazing results now with the CELL (KZ2/Uncharted 2), so I see no need for it to go bye-bye.

In traditional Sony style, they release something hardware wise that isn't the easiest to code for, but the hickups of multiplatform games have turned into a "magnifying pixels stage" by the fanboys aka multiplatform titles are pretty much 1:1.

They're gonna break even on it this year, and be able to cut prices again.

A smaller Hard Drive might bring costs down, but due to having to install games to the HDD a majority of the time they have to increase its size. I mean, sure, a 40GB hard drive vs an 80GB hard drive may save you $20-$30 but then again that is still cost cutting.

The BC was actual PS2 hardware inside the PS3, it will have cost a fair chunk.

Yeah, two years after launch it ended up paying off. TWO YEARS!

Yeah two years.

Last time I checked though, the PS3 isn't going to be off the shelf for a while to come.

Neither is Blu Ray.

In fact, Blu Ray beat HD-DVD fairly quickly.

That isn't backwards compatibility that you linked to. Games can be re-coded for new hardware but instead of re-releasing them in-store you might as well just let them be downloaded. That link does not mean the PS3 will play PS2 discs or PS1 discs. The Sony representative for our district also told me that these games will be roughly $10-$15 each, which means if you don't want to own a PS2 you will have to re-buy your library of games for the PS3.

I'm sorry but I've got as much reason to believe your Sony rep, as I do my own beliefs of that if software BC is enabled, the emulator will be able to emulate discs also.

In other words, no one really has any idea yet.

Once it breaks even this year there won't be any price cuts if sony wants to make any sort of profit. A price cut means falling back into the red. Before they can price-cut they need to buffer themselves with some profit, and I doubt the PS2 alone will cut it. They do need a price cut, don't get me wrong, but that isn't what should happen judging from their position. They are almost two years behind the rest of the console world when it comes to games and online. They have taken too long to get things up and running and are sacrificing too much to do so. This console isn't a failure but it is far from a success.

Actually, breaking even means they can afford to cut and go under with the PS3 again.

You're forgetting the PSP, PS2 and software keep profits up.

Do you think MS sell the 360 arcade at a profit? The Pro could even be at a loss (considering the Wii only makes roughly $6 per unit last time figures were put out).

The losses made on consoles tends to be eaten up by software profits and other hardware (if you have some on the market). Which means you can afford to cut your console under manufacturing costs.

Sony just for now can't cut it any more (not helped by credit crunch), once they do break even this year though, it will be more viable to cut it again.

You should find the figures I posted here interesting Emn1ty - https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?show...amp;p=590368308

Anyway, I'm baked, too tired to continue this. Thanks for the discussion Emn1ty but I'm covering ground I've discussed so many times and I'm too tired to do it all again.

don't know about these "statistics" regarding the PS2. i know plenty of people who still have them - like myself, for example? but when was the last time i turned her on, or did any of those folks i know with PS2's? when was the last time any of us bought games for the PS2? these are all pertinent questions, Sony gets away with claiming it's a "live" console" because their plants still make her and she's in stores, but that's it. besides, we're hobbyists i believe, we get excited by games and gaming gear - i'm sure anyone here will agree ten year old hardware isn't exciting.

don't forget 90% of PS2 sales go to developing and underdeveloped markets. sorry for the labeling but it's true - US sales mostly go to Central America, Japan sales mostly to China and Souteast Asia.

As for ditching the 360, AB, there you go with the spin again! Why so negative? let me tell you the story of how i got these scars...

no, i'll be ready for a new Xbox next year, let's not make that seem like a bad thing. you know what they say, the light that burns twice as bright burns half as long. do they actually say that? :unsure:

don't know about these "statistics" regarding the PS2. i know plenty of people who still have them - like myself, for example? but when was the last time i turned her on, or did any of those folks i know with PS2's? when was the last time any of us bought games for the PS2? these are all pertinent questions, Sony gets away with claiming it's a "live" console" because their plants still make her and she's in stores, but that's it. besides, we're hobbyists i believe, we get excited by games and gaming gear - i'm sure anyone here will agree ten year old hardware isn't exciting.

don't forget 90% of PS2 sales go to developing and underdeveloped markets. sorry for the labeling but it's true - US sales mostly go to Central America, Japan sales mostly to China and Souteast Asia.

As for ditching the 360, AB, there you go with the spin again! Why so negative? let me tell you the story of how i got these scars...

no, i'll be ready for a new Xbox next year, let's not make that seem like a bad thing. you know what they say, the light that burns twice as bright burns half as long. do they actually say that? :unsure:

EDIT: WTF double, why? WHY?!

Some of their points are hilariously wrong, but they do have a few points. Namely, with the built in wifi. The 60GB 360 turns out to be the same price as an 80GB PS3 if you factor in the cost of the official wifi solution. Then, you also have to consider the subscription cost of Live, though many will argue (me, included) that the experience is well worth the small charge.

Sony's problem, in my eyes, is two fold. First of all, they need to do more to show why the PS3 is more. Saying "we have blu-ray" doesn't cut it for most people. Start bragging about the built in wifi and built in controller batteries. Secondly, they need to figure out what they want the PS3 to be. When I look at it, it just seems so unfocused. Some commercials trump the gaming aspect and others brag about the multimedia experience. They never tie it together like the 360 advertisements tend to do.

Just seen this thread now but I think that's a great comment there bangbang023. Sony's effort does seem unfocused in that they are always talking about something then doing the other, or the opposite. They need to look at those essential things such as built in batteries for the controllers and wifi that you mentioned, and start talking to people in a language that they understand.

Sony should take a look at what's dominating right now in the gaming market, and that's clearly the Nintendo Wii. This means that there are tons of gamers that are just casual and don't know what advantage blu-ray is going to give you in any sort of depth. Most people will not go through the effort and check online why blu-ray or other features benefit you, so with that in mind, Sony should take many more steps in their commercials and other levels of marketing to reach their customers in a way they will understand.

The problem with them is that they seem to never realize problems with their strategies just as you and I mentioned, but they resort to these tactics that have not worked in several years now.

Keep it on track guys, it's been a few years now I thought we got the trolling out of us by now :unsure:

I wonder what Sony's thinking behind closed doors, I'd love to be the fly on the wall :p

MS look to be sensible about this ;)

No New Xbox Because "Faster" and "Prettier" Doesn't Cut It

Don't look for Microsoft's Xbox "Next" anytime soon, says company President Robbie Bach. According to Bloomberg, Bach says Microsoft's planning to stick by the Xbox 360 longer than the original Xbox because "it's getting harder to persuade consumers to upgrade."

What's more, Bach says the current console lineup's outputting groovy enough visuals that it'd take some serious arm-twisting to convince us to upgrade in the near term.

"Just coming up with something that's faster and prettier isn't going to be sufficient," said Bach. "The life cycle for this generation of consoles -- and I'm not just talking about Xbox, I'd include Wii and PS3 as well -- is probably going to be a little longer than previous generations."

Could it be? An honest-to-goodness executive making sense?

Source: http://www.pcworld.com/article/156895/no_n...tml?tk=rss_news

Edge's take on the article

Examining PS3?s Value Messageb>Sony fired the latest salvo in the console war last week with a chart that spelled out, from Sony?s perspective, the value of the three current videogame consoles.

Shockingly, Sony found that PS3 was the better value by $50-$100 compared to Xbox 360. The market-leading Wii, with its $250 price tag, undercuts PS3, but according to Sony, Wii ?lacks enhanced features? like media playback and high-definition visuals. So the value supposedly isn?t there.

Before we pick apart just how effective this sort of marketing tactic actually is, let?s revisit Sony?s chart to see the company's view on which console really does offer the best ?value.? (Sony used the entry-level package of all three consoles.)

ps3%20chart(2).jpg

Despite the Internet message board uproar that this comparison effectuated, the argument is actually fairly reasonable, in terms of bang-for-the-buck, and does point out some weaknesses in competitor?s offerings. To me, the main turn-off in the Microsoft column isn?t the $50 Xbox Live fee or even the non-standard hard drive, but (and I think many of you will agree with this) that damn $100 proprietary Wi-Fi adapter. I won?t bitch about it too much, but the configuration of many peoples? houses (like mine) makes this a required purchase, and compared to generic solutions, the add-on is quite expensive. Sony knows this?notice how high it is on the list. Admittedly, that adapter isn?t required to game online?you could just invest in a really long Ethernet cable (that?d look lovely)?but the fact that PS3 and Wii do have built-in Wi-Fi hurts Microsoft?s value proposition notably. C?mon, even the freakin? DS has it built in.

The hard drive argument against Xbox 360 is reasonable too. For a console that places so much importance on online features and content to not come standard with a larger means of storage is ironic. But you can?t blame Microsoft for excluding it?apparently, built-in hard drives are what ultimately killed the original Xbox. That, and the hard drive-less Arcade has given Microsoft marketing the bragging rights of being the first console below $200.

There are issues, though, with parts of the argument that Sony has tried to convey with this chart. For instance, HDMI is listed as ?Not Available in Earlier Models? of Xbox 360. Seriously? Are we comparing what we can buy off the shelf today, or a year ago? As far as I can tell, HDMI-equipped Xbox 360s are what are on the shelves today.

Speaking of HDMI, we all know that PS3 doesn?t come with HDMI cables (Sony's still packing low-def composites), and, depending on the brand, cost anywhere from $5 to (choke) over $100. Sony?s official PS3 HDMI/USB 2.0 cable pack sells for $80 at Best Buy. The Xbox 360 Arcade doesn't come with HD cables either, so it evens out.

I suppose we should also mention that Microsoft has been including a game pack-in with the Xbox 360 Arcade.

And incidentally, what?s up with the chart calling Wii?s online gaming service ?Limited?? I know what Sony?s getting at?the community and connectivity features of Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection aren?t as robust or plentiful as PSN or Xbox Live, but the Wii does have an online gaming service. Are we measuring the features by certain degrees now?

I?m not going to comb over any more of the items listed on the chart, because we could go on for a while. Let?s just be straight here?PS3 and Xbox 360 offer very similar bang-for-the-buck as far as high-def gaming and media playback is concerned. Where one console is missing a certain feature, it might make up for it in another area (for instance, Xbox 360 doesn?t have Blu-ray but it does have Netflix). Any of the console makers could spin a chart to make their own console look like a better value. One could probably even make a chart that included a $700 PC and argue that, from a features-to-dollar vantage point, it has better ?value? than any of the consoles.

In the end, and no console maker can deny this, it?s the games that count. Pretty obvious, huh? Even with all of the great multimedia features that consoles are offering today, I wholeheartedly promise you thNext: Let's Make Some More Chartslity that game consoles are for games.

Next: Let's Make Some More Charts

For ****s and giggles, let?s pretend we?re, say, Microsoft making a comparison chart. I suppose it?d look kind of like this:

wii_chart(1).jpg

Did Anyone Get the Message?

While I think it?s good that Sony took the initiative to draw attention to the PS3?s value, is this value chart an effective way to do it? Maybe--if Sony were able to get the message in front of mainstream consumers. Maybe. (Communicating the console?s value has been something SCE has been struggling with since announcing the PS3's original $599 price tag.) But it appears that the audience this comparo reached was largely enthusiast gamers?99 percent of whom have already made up their minds about the supposed value of all three consoles. While the press release did generate, ahem, ?discussion,? did it change anyone?s mind? Doubt it.

Sony is in the undesirable position of having to convince people that its definition of value is the right definition, whereas Microsoft can simply say, ?Look, $200 is half of $400. You can play videogames for half as much as our competitor.? When flipping through a sales flyer or walking around Wal-Mart, the average person would not likely consider Sony?s version of ?value? as much as they?d consider a console's price tag and the available games. Sony?s value argument is pretty legit, but the fact of the matter is that $399 is higher than $249 and $199, and that price disparity has an undeniable psychological effect on a buyer.

An external SCEA PR rep from the agency Porter Novelli told us the company released the chart because they ?thought it would be a good time just to remind everyone of our strong offerings,? which automatically implies that they feel people have either forgotten about the PS3?s inherent value or never seriously considered the PS3?s value, due to the higher price tag. It's highly likely that amidst this PS3 price-drop rumoring that Sony wanted to tell the core audience, "Hey, don't wait for a drop, it's a steal at $399, honest." I?d argue that today PS3 is a fine value, on par with Xbox 360, particularly for gamers in 2009, when it appears that Sony?s internal developers will really begin to bear fruit. Nevertheless, I?m glad I?m not the one that has to figure out how to get that value message across to consumers.

Meanwhile, Nintendo hasn?t felt the need to participate in this type of chest-thumping exercise, as the Wii outsells the PS3 and Xbox 360 handily, selling as many systems as factories can pump out. Apparently the mainstream has a different definition of value. We all do.

Source: http://www.edge-online.com/blogs/examining...sage?page=0%2C1

Greenberg also said they aren't "even thinking about next-gen" here

If you believe that, then wow :rofl: You're in the wrong hobbie. Me thinks people need to do some light reading on product design and cycle :yes: Same goes for PS3/Wii. Without a doubt, they are all at work on the next console and will have been for some time (Y)

Greenberg also said they aren't "even thinking about next-gen" here

If you believe that, then wow :rofl: You're in the wrong hobbie. Me thinks people need to do some light reading on product design and cycle :yes: Same goes for PS3/Wii. Without a doubt, they are all at work on the next console and will have been for some time (Y)

Where did I say they weren't working on the next console? Did you read the comments I posted?

The guys talking about launching it (and longevity of this generation), not the creation internally of the next console itself.

I've got no doubts things are being planned/worked on. You don't design and implement a console overnight heh.

So please, don't be snappy on my views like that when I'm not actually talking about the building of the next console :/

I'm pointing out that just because they say one thing, doesnt mean much in the long term. Do you really think they'd be announcing a rough date when you can expect a new console, today? Hell no, it would take a huge hit on their sales and people would start to hold off and wait for it. Especially if it was coming out in 2010, that's the last thing MS want to do.

I'm pretty sure we'll stick to the 5/6 years updates. "Future-proofing" has very little to do with it as every console is future proofed when designed. Hell, consoles are even ahead of their time in many cases (ala DC). The pc market dictates when a hardware refresh is needed most of the time, because if you limit studios with the hardware, there going to go elsewhere. Nobody loves their hardware more than the pc gamers..

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
    • Cheers everyone for the replies. It's been very useful. 👍
    • Compared to the 7735HS it is around 25-30% slower in multi-threaded tasks (according to Google search) I did a review of the 7735HS Beelink SER6 Max in 2023, but thinking about it, it's not comparable to the 7730U. For the example you gave about how it will be used, the 7730U is actually an excellent choice for its power and battery efficiency.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Woland13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      503
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      194
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      151
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      67
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!