Sony Responds to NPD Figures

[fitbabits]

Gamasutra (http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=13615) is reporting that Sony felt the need to respond to the recent figures released by NPD.

The statement quotes NPD data as showing "a 24 percent increase in retail dollars generated year-over-year for the PlayStation brand in North America with total sales of $447 million, due in part to the addition of the PS3 platform as well as the strong launch performance of God of War II for PS2 at retail."

Despite the PlayStation 3 being outperformed not only by the Xbox 360 and Wii, but also the Nintendo DS, PlayStation 2, PSP and even Game Boy Advance, the statement goes on to assert that, “PS3 saw a month-over-month increase of 2 percent with sales of 129,638 units, we continued to find ourselves supply constrained in March due primarily to the shift in manufacturing focus to the PS3 PAL version to support the launch of the system in Europe.”

[LikeTheRazor]

So basically they're doomed.

[Haemorrhage]

Man, I wish I had Sony's PR team working for me. They can put a good spin on any thing.

[Yeti2005]

I laughed out loud when I read "we continued to find ourselves supply constrained in March". Really? Because the PS3 is plentiful in the US and reports from Europe seem to be the same.

[Johan]

"...we continued to find ourselves supply constrained in March"

Speaks for itself, as others have pointed out. :rolleyes:

[Itchyeyes]

Man, I wish I had Sony's PR team working for me. They can put a good spin on any thing.
I'm of the opposite opinion. Every time I see a statement like this from one of the console manufacturers it just sours my opinion of them. If you want my business show me some good games, or something you have planned for the system. Hearing some PR man spin your sales numbers does nothing but drive me further away from your company.

[CaptStu]

I mean, seriously. I have a PR background. Sometimes it's better to say nothing at all than to possibly make the situation worse by opening your mouth. In this case, I chuckle a bit at the notion of them being supply constrained.

[Mdot23]

I guess the good games are supply constrained too, right?

[51|RandoM]

The supply contrained stuff is silly, but don't ignore the meat of the message.

Their revenue is still up 24% over last year. Those dollars, primarily generated by the ps2, are what is going to keep the ps3 afloat until the library matures and the manufacturing costs come down.

[MaiXu]

How odd, there has been a 24 percent decrease in my interest generated year-over-year by the PlayStation brand!

Serendipitous!

[Jack B]

Supply Constrained? Where? Mars..., because it sure isn't Japan, North America or Europe.

Oh, I forgot about Africa and South America. That must be it then. Sony is supply constrained in Africa and South America.

Or maybe they meant their profits are being constrained by the high cost of warehousing the PS3's retailers aren't re-ordering. Or the high cost of paying for month long lunch breaks for their factories.

[Aleman]

The Wii and DS were supply constrained too ;)

[CaptStu]

Their revenue is still up 24% over last year. Those dollars, primarily generated by the ps2, are what is going to keep the ps3 afloat until the library matures and the manufacturing costs come down.

I don't think that's bottom line revenue. I don't see how it can be considered profit.

[Johan]

I don't think that's bottom line revenue. I don't see how it can be considered profit.

It's not. They lost LESS money in their gaming division. Woopie! Their one consistently profitable division lost LESS! :rolleyes:

Random is spinning some of his own pr.

[51|RandoM]

I don't think that's bottom line revenue. I don't see how it can be considered profit.

I didn't say it was profit, nor does it need to be profit.

It is revenue, you either know what that means, or you don't.

[Johan]

I didn't say it was profit, nor does it need to be profit.

It is revenue, you either know what that means, or you don't.

The wheels are spinning! That "meat" you saw in the message is a pretty cheap cut of beef!

[agentgray]

we continued to find ourselves supply constrained
My local Wal-Mart, Target, Best Buy, Circuit City, 7-11, Dunkin' Donuts, Krispy Kreme, and neighborhood lemonade stand has some.

[Typical_Michael]

At my local Best Buy, they use PS3s as a display stand for 360s. Or something like that. It always made me laugh.

[kokyunage]

It's not. They lost LESS money in their gaming division. Woopie! Their one consistently profitable division lost LESS! :rolleyes:

Random is spinning some of his own pr.

This is an silly counter point considering the competition (MS Gaming Division) isn't exactly a role model in the "make money and be profitable" department.

[CaptStu]

I didn't say it was profit, nor does it need to be profit.

It is revenue, you either know what that means, or you don't.

I know what it means. That's exactly why I brought it up. The inference to an unknowing person is unfettered success. That's not the case. It's good they're seeing double-digit percentage increases in year-to-year revenue. Just a point I made.

[Zander]

I can't possibly be the only person freaking SICK of the term "playstation brand". It's screams spin and a "head in the sand" mindset.

[BabyJesus]

Spin, Spin, Spin......

[51|RandoM]

The wheels are spinning! That "meat" you saw in the message is a pretty cheap cut of beef!

A 24% increase in revenues with one console in decline and one console hardly moving is a cheap cut of beef?

Whatever Johan. ;)

If it makes you feel better, than feel free to:

http://img489.imageshack.us/img489/4741/onozev8.gif

[51|RandoM]

I know what it means. That's exactly why I brought it up. The inference to an unknowing person is unfretted success. That's not the case. It's good they're seeing double-digit percentage increases in year-to-year revenue. Just a point I made.

Then please explain your point.

Your position appeared to be that only profit could be applied back into the company to support its endeavors. An increase in revenue is just that, an increase in revenue, more money to work with.

Unfretted? Playing too much guitar hero?

No worries, you guys will be doing this for the next quarter... and some of you will keep doing it even after things have picked up. Everybody needs their passtime, I suppose.

[Arglor]

yet again. Increase in revenue is bad! SONY sux!

I'm so glad the xbox is doing so well. raking in the profit with those pc exclusives. I'm so pleased.

Cause i humbly await out MS overlords to nickel and dime my gaming additction to death.

[Vandenh]

Revenue means nothing.

It is the last line of PR defence. When you find no positive numbers you can always say you have revenue and if you are lucky you might even have more revenue.

[Reanimated]

"supply constrained"



AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHA

*gasp*

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHA

[Johan]

This is an silly counter point considering the competition (MS Gaming Division) isn't exactly a role model in the "make money and be profitable" department.

It would indeed be silly, if I had made some type of spinning p.r. comment to the effect that the meat of the message for MS is that their revenue is up, without pointing out that they're still losing money in their entertainment division. Or the fact that they have a $38 billion cash hoard! Ha! They're in deep trouble now, MS!

Which, silly me, I DIDN'T DO! :D But Random did!

A 24% increase in revenues with one console in decline and one console hardly moving is a cheap cut of beef?

It is when you spin it while ignoring the massive losses that continue in their gaming division. Losing less is nice, but doesn't make you money! :D

You certainly add a predictably contrarian spin to things. And the reactionary OMGONOZ is certainly a nice added touch. Make it seem as if others are overreacting and you are the voice of reason, despite the fact that you obviously reasoned your way out of giving an accurate picture of a continuing loss of money in Sony's gaming division!

Losing less is nice, but doesn't make you money! OMGONOZ!

Everybody needs their passtime, I suppose.

You certainly have found yours! The little Dutch boy, bravely holding back the tide! The voice of reason. The sage of EvAv. :rolleyes: Struggling against the ignorant hordes of barbarians, eh??

[CaptStu]

Unfretted? Playing too much guitar hero?

I saw that and edited it for the word I meant. Yeah, too much of something.

Not going to debate with you. I know that will only draw us into a vicious circle. But, I'll let Johan do my fighting today.

[Philonious]

Alright I tried to get people's opinion on this in another thread, so please excuse the repetition. The PS3 is doing poorly, no doubt. But is anyone surprised that the PS2 is still going this strong? And since it is, why the hell aren't developers and Sony backing it more?

Also, as Joystiq pointed out, Wii sales are down a whopping 41% since January. Has their production slowed down that much? A drop in supply after launch is understandable, but 41% since January doesn't make sense if they are truly only limited by their supply why the hell is production down 41%? Something is up there.

[fitbabits]

Incidentally, I just got figures for Japan and they are as follows (one week sales):

DS: 133,000
Wii: 75,000
PSP: 24,000
PS2: 12,000
PS3: 11,000

Averaging the above figures out for a one month period would get you:

DS: 532,000
Wii: 300,000
PSP: 96,000
PS2: 48,000
PS3: 44,000

This raises two questions:

1. Doesn't everyone already have a DS?
2. With Japan's "Golden Week" (think Green/Black Friday for US) coming up, how much of a bump will these figures take?

[Rook34]

Huh. Seems to me that at our store we have the same6 PS3's in our store we did 2 months ago. No one wants them. Supply constrained, my ass.

Keep on spinnin', Sony!

[camberiu]

The head of Sony's PR machine.


http://www.howstrange.com/gallery/iraqi_information_minister.jpg

[Philonious]

Fits, if you're going to do that to give an "accurate" portrayal of how things stand shouldn't you include and average for the 360 as well?

Also, DS sales will probably get nuts'er next week with Pokemon coming, right?

*edit* Sorry I thought you were doing Japan/NA combo stats. Still I'd interested to see how thing were selling on a monthly basis across all territories.

[agentgray]

My new response to anything thing by any exec or PR firm.

http://www.nintendaddio.com/img/spindoctors.jpg

[NeoCutter]

And I actually have one....

[CaptStu]

My new response to anything thing by any exec or PR firm.

http://www.nintendaddio.com/img/spindoctors.jpg

It took me a few seconds to figure the picture out ... But, the Spin Doctors. Pure comedy gold. :D

[Arglor]

http://press.nintendo.com/articles.jsp?id=11995

nintendo released a press release as well. They are number one. Just in case Sony's arrogance is too much for you. (p.s. I like the wii btw. I own both wii, ps3 and pc.)

edit: I cannot believe i'm becoming of the mind-set that joystiq (http://www.joystiq.com/2007/04/20/nintendo-and-sony-hop-on-the-npd-merry-go-round/) is less biased the E.A. Say it isn't soz.

[bean19]

"...we continued to find ourselves supply constrained in March"

Speaks for itself, as others have pointed out. :rolleyes:

I don't understand why they think people will still believe them. . . I know that they got away with lying for years because the media would then echo their press release lies out of ignorance, but I think everyone is catching on now - even mainstream media tends to read gaming news before parroting it, and now all you ever read are stories that make fun of Sony because they are such liars.

They should just shut up and focus on getting the Blu-Ray player to cost less to make so that they can get their system down to a price that isn't ridiculous.

[Skyelan]

Again, better to say nothing and let people think you a fool than to speak and prove them right. Or whatever the word for word accurate line is.

But, I'll let Johan do my fighting today.

Smithers, release the Johan...

[KNOTE]

I spun off my chair after reading it.

[Trazzlo the Magnificant]

"...we continued to find ourselves supply constrained in March"

Speaks for itself, as others have pointed out. :rolleyes:

Oh please, Johan123, you know perfectly well that a word was left out and you are misrepresenting them! The actual quote is:
...we continued to find ourselves oxygen supply constrained in March
:D Now, doesn't it all make a lot more sense?

[silv]

Incidentally, I just got figures for Japan and they are as follows (one week sales):

DS: 133,000
Wii: 75,000
PSP: 24,000
PS2: 12,000
PS3: 11,000

Averaging the above figures out for a one month period would get you:

DS: 532,000
Wii: 300,000
PSP: 96,000
PS2: 48,000
PS3: 44,000

This raises two questions:

1. Doesn't everyone already have a DS?
2. With Japan's "Golden Week" (think Green/Black Friday for US) coming up, how much of a bump will these figures take?

I guess no 360's were sold eh? =)

[Johan]

joystiq (http://www.joystiq.com/2007/04/20/nintendo-and-sony-hop-on-the-npd-merry-go-round/)

That's a good article. This is especially amusing:

Not wanting to exclude their newest system from the celebrations, however, Sony is keen to point out that the PlayStation 3 was the only "next-generation" console to see a sales gain this month -- its modern competitors both fell. Indeed, the PS3 did see a 2% sales gain, but then, where else was it going to go but up? Is it truly noteworthy that you've gone up a rung on the bottom of the ladder while a Game Boy Advance steps on your fingers and a Gamecube is telling you to stop holding everybody up?

Oh please, Johan123, you know perfectly well that a word was left out and you are misrepresenting them! The actual quote is:

...we continued to find ourselves oxygen supply constrained in March

:D Now, doesn't it all make a lot more sense?

Yes...I did mess that up and you fixed it perfectly! :)

[TyphoidMarty]

It would indeed be silly, if I had made some type of spinning p.r. comment to the effect that the meat of the message for MS is that their revenue is up, without pointing out that they're still losing money in their entertainment division. Or the fact that they have a $38 billion cash hoard! Ha! They're in deep trouble now, MS!

Which, silly me, I DIDN'T DO! :D But Random did!



It is when you spin it while ignoring the massive losses that continue in their gaming division. Losing less is nice, but doesn't make you money! :D

You certainly add a predictably contrarian spin to things. And the reactionary OMGONOZ is certainly a nice added touch. Make it seem as if others are overreacting and you are the voice of reason, despite the fact that you obviously reasoned your way out of giving an accurate picture of a continuing loss of money in Sony's gaming division!

Losing less is nice, but doesn't make you money! OMGONOZ!



You certainly have found yours! The little Dutch boy, bravely holding back the tide! The voice of reason. The sage of EvAv. :rolleyes: Struggling against the ignorant hordes of barbarians, eh??
I LOLed. Random is constantly setting himself as the voice of reason after playing up the pitch of opposing posts.

OMGONOEZ!!!

[Doctorossi]

You guys don't understand- when they said "supply-constrained", they meant supply of consumers.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Also, as Joystiq pointed out, Wii sales are down a whopping 41% since January. Has their production slowed down that much? A drop in supply after launch is understandable, but 41% since January doesn't make sense if they are truly only limited by their supply why the hell is production down 41%? Something is up there.
I think it means they weren't even close to demand in January, and now they're getting closer.

[Zanzibar]

You guys don't understand- when they said "supply-constrained", they meant supply of consumers.
You. Yes, you. Post more.

[shnastybiznastic]

I love that nintendo release "Yep, we kicked ass! Now lets get back on track to repeat all of our past mistakes!"

[TheFlyingOrc]

You guys don't understand- when they said "supply-constrained", they meant supply of consumers.
Welcome to Evil Avatar!

[the soUL TRAder]

Yes, that is true, up 24% Sony.

But, I still bet that MS is not losing more money than you guys are not losing. And that ain't a good thing, since MSgaming has never made money, and the "playstation brand" has been carrying Sony for years.

Yup, that's right: "I got a pocket full of cryptonite."

[Goronmon]

You guys don't understand- when they said "supply-constrained", they meant supply of consumers.I <3 you.

<spin> <spin> <spin>Less QQ more pewpew, IMO.

In other words, release some fucking games already so that people can actually justify the price of your console, instead of just trying to feed us your PR BS. Nintendo can get away with a shitty library because their offering is less half the cost of yours. The 360 is selling because it has a solid library that's only getting stronger.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Yes, that is true, up 24% Sony.

But, I still bet that MS is not losing more money than you guys are not losing. And that ain't a good thing, since MSgaming has never made money, and the "playstation brand" has been carrying Sony for years.

Yup, that's right: "I got a pocket full of cryptonite."

Actually, the 360 makes money. The Xbox, which was just to get their foot in the door, did NOT make money. The Xbox existed solely so the 360 could exist.

[Sl1pstream]

I still have 11 out of the 20 PS3s I got in my first delivery. Maybe they'll take them back now that they're still supply constrained.

[antoniogaud]

Sony makes around $380 in revenues for every PS3 sold, but still loses more than $200. Revenues don't matter, ONLY net gains and the bottom line matter.

Also, of course they have more revenues, they introduced a new product that didn't exist last year - unless the product didn't sell a single unit, they would see some sort of revenue for people buying it.

Who doesn't get this?

[EvoG]

Also, of course they have more revenues, they introduced a new product that didn't exist last year - unless the product didn't sell a single unit, they would see some sort of revenue for people buying it.

Who doesn't get this?


There you go folks.

[Doctorossi]

Also, of course they have more revenues, they introduced a new product that didn't exist last year - unless the product didn't sell a single unit, they would see some sort of revenue for people buying it.

Who doesn't get this?

Umm... you? Supposing PS2 and/or PSP sales had fallen off from last year to a quantity outpacing the gains from PS3 sales, the net effect would be lowered revenue, despite PS3's shiny newness.

Remember, we're talking about the PlayStation brandTM here. I bought myself a can of it just last week. Who needs games when you have the PlayStation brandTM lifestyle?

[EvoG]

No, its that the PSP and the PS2 have been relatively consistent, and that was perhaps expected. An increase of 24% IS due to the PS3 being added to the lineup as the other "brands" aren't overperforming, but its heralded as being a big deal when in fact losses are still in effect.

In other words, yea no shit you have revenue Sony..."you better have revenue!"...but its not indicative of anything other than thankfully they're selling 'something'. Its meaningless otherwise since it only indicates that yea, last year they didn't have the PS3, this year they do, and it is selling to someone...Revenue 2006+24%.

Now if the other brands were underperforming and PS3 picked up that slack, sure that could be considered something, but then we're back to simply looking at the fact that they are indeed NOT supply constrained and are trailing behind their competitors in monthly sales. That ultimately doesn't matter as long as Sony is able to reduce losses, and eventually profit. Being a market leader is nice, but not necessary as Nintendo has proven for the past two generations.

[antoniogaud]

Umm... you? Supposing PS2 and/or PSP sales had fallen off from last year to a quantity outpacing the gains from PS3 sales, the net effect would be lowered revenue, despite PS3's shiny newness.

Umm... that didn't happen did it? So your point is?

[Doctorossi]

Umm... that didn't happen did it? So your point is?

That increased revenue does not simply equate to the fact of having another product on the market. If you want to look at it that way, Sony really has many new products on the market, year-on-year. Software, accessories, etc. Are they selling as many copies of God of War 1 right now as at this time last year? No. You see? I'm sick of their spin, too, but its silly to try to discount their increased-revenue claim in this way.

[antoniogaud]

Yeah, but the product they introduced is the $600 PS3. If you don't think that in and of itself will increase revenues and yet be negative, then there simply is no way to explain it.

[dmmx11]

I have all three systems: PS3, Wii and Xbox 360. All I have to say is Sony is doomed. Resistance: Fall of Man is boring and horrible, yet it is the best game?- Xbox 360 has awesome games. Gears of War is so brilliant and although I don't play those types of games, I am hooked!- I already have F.E.A.R. and Elderscrolls for Xbox 360 so that did not excite me for the PS3- and there is nothing more on the horizon for months and months- Wii is so much fun. Everyone that sees it at my place loves it and is either buying one or planning to buy one when they become available readily. I love my DS too! I have like over 30 games for it, and had to get RID of my PSP because it was just a big joke- even if they redesign it, I have no reason to buy it when I already enjoy my DS DAILY. It makes me sad- but Sony made a mistake with Blue-ray and with UMD. I don't care for either and ultimately, I regret my purchase of the PS3. Even if I sell it, I won't get half the price I paid for it. What a dud.

[EvoG]

...or how about

"yea, revenue is up 24%! Rock it!"

"but operating losses due to increased revenue are up 82%...um, rock it?"

or

"Last year this time I made 100 bucks! This year I made 124 bucks!! Sure I spent 1000 bucks, but I do have more money coming in compared to last year!"



All we're saying Doc is that they are really grasping if their claim to success is their 'revenue' over last year. Yes it most definitely exists as it should, and no one is disputing that, its that thats what they're excited about?

Yes they've had other products, but nothing is as damaging to their bottom line right now than the PS3. That and ultimately they avoid talking specifcally about the PS3, and only talk about the PlaystationBrand.tm. They're in their right to do so, but that does say something as well about the less that stellar performance of the PS3.

[Doctorossi]

Yes, EvoG, I'm entirely in agreement with you there.

[grognard66]

Supply constrained in the US??? Another classic lie by Sony. I guess they'll never learn. I saw PS3's stacked up at literally every retail outlet I visited in the Mid-Atlantic region this past month (my job requires heavy travel and I stop by Best Buy, EB/Gamestop often).

[Doctorossi]

I'll bet Sony's PR department throws a little party every month on the first day their monthy PS3 factory defect rate exceeds zero. That's the day they can officially write the month off as "supply-constrained", as their factories didn't produce the absolute maximum theoretical output.

[Jack B]

A 24% increase in revenues with one console in decline and one console hardly moving is a cheap cut of beef?

Whatever Johan. ;)

If it makes you feel better, than feel free to:

http://img489.imageshack.us/img489/4741/onozev8.gif

You have to admit having your revenues propped up from an end of life product (PS2) with it's replacement beggining of life product (PS3) getting smoked is an issue.

Companies want 24% increase, but they want the young product driving the growth, not the old cash cow, that's about to be put out to pasture. When the old cash cow is put out to pasture you need to rely on it's replacement.

The spin is to not mention the new cow (calf) looks like the runt of the console litter at this point. Sure maybe with some steroids and it will grow up straight and strong, but right now this cow is pretty sickly looking.

[Jack B]

I still have 11 out of the 20 PS3s I got in my first delivery. Maybe they'll take them back now that they're still supply constrained.

Sl1p, I'm curious. Did Sony allow retailers to back out of pre-orders or was there a disincentive? It makes me wonder why so many retailers got caught with excess supply. As we neared the launch, it seemed many noticed pre-orders weren't what they thought they would be, so I'd think some retailers were getting concerned.

[bean19]

The spin is to not mention the new cow (calf) looks like the runt of the console litter at this point. Sure maybe with some steroids and it will grow up straight and strong, but right now this cow is pretty sickly looking.

Interesting point.

It's made me think about something with the PS3. What if it didn't launch until Xmas 2008, but at that time it launched with the 60 GB SKU for $400 and with the game library that it is sure to have by then (FF XIII, MGS, all the cross platform stuff). I think sales of the system would be excellent then. . .

Of course, it probably would have lost the race by doing this too. A lot of people wouldn't have waited that long. . .

I guess my point is that I think the PS3 is definitely going to be the loser this console generation, but it will probalby have a resurgence in 2008 when it is at a purchasable price and has a game library.

[Jack B]

Interesting point.

It's made me think about something with the PS3. What if it didn't launch until Xmas 2008, but at that time it launched with the 60 GB SKU for $400 and with the game library that it is sure to have by then (FF XIII, MGS, all the cross platform stuff). I think sales of the system would be excellent then. . .

Of course, it probably would have lost the race by doing this too. A lot of people wouldn't have waited that long. . .

I guess my point is that I think the PS3 is definitely going to be the loser this console generation, but it will probalby have a resurgence in 2008 when it is at a purchasable price and has a game library.

Maybe. Microsoft made Sony's life miserable by forcing a premature end to the last generation. Sony had it made in the shade last gen, but Microsoft said, "hey, we're getting the crap beaten out of us. Let's end this fight and start a new one".

It's like you're playing a baseball game with a friend and you have the Yankees and he has the Royals. Right about the 6th inning he say's, "hey, let's play Madden, I'll take the Patriots...". Oh, and I'll play by myself for the 1st quarter. I need a head start. You can start at the beginning of the 2nd quarter...

Sony had the Yankees. They didn't want the game to end. Microsoft was hopelessly outmatched. They were very smart to quit in the 6th inning. They weren't going to win with the Royals. They just might with the Patriots. Sony needs an interception return for a TD just to tie it up by half-time.

[DaXIthR]

It's like you're playing a baseball game with a friend and you have the Yankees and he has the Royals. Right about the 6th inning he say's, "hey, let's play Madden, I'll take the Patriots...". Oh, and I'll play by myself for the 1st quarter. I need a head start. You can start at the beginning of the 2nd quarter...

Sony had the Yankees. They didn't want the game to end. Microsoft was hopelessly outmatched. They were very smart to quit in the 6th inning. They weren't going to win with the Royals. They just might with the Patriots. Sony needs an interception return for a TD just to tie it up by half-time.

That's what I was telling the wife. It's like cricket and rugby all over again.

[bean19]

Maybe. Microsoft made Sony's life miserable by forcing a premature end to the last generation. Sony had it made in the shade last gen, but Microsoft said, "hey, we're getting the crap beaten out of us. Let's end this fight and start a new one".

Except that it was 9-innings. . . maybe even 10. Traditionally, each console generation is about 5 years long and the last one was more than 6 if you measure it as starting from the Dreamcast, and slightly more than 5 if you measure from the PS2.

Also, I have a competing analogy. It's like there are two kids selling Kool-Aid at their Kool-Aid stands and one of the kids has been dominant the last 5 years because he has the most flavors of Kool-Aid at his stand and his price was a bit cheaper. Then the kid that was doing poorly decides to start selling smoothies instead. The kid that was doing well waits a year and then starts trying to sell smoothies too - except that his smoothies cost a shit-ton because he requires everyone who buys one to get a fucking Blu-Ray player in their smoothie.

The point here is that Microsoft didn't do anything to Sony. Their poor performance has everything to do with what Sony did to Sony.

[Gorvi]

Except that it was 9-innings. . . maybe even 10. Traditionally, each console generation is about 5 years long and the last one was more than 6 if you measure it as starting from the Dreamcast, and slightly more than 5 if you measure from the PS2.
That doesn't change the fact the the XBOX had a 4 year cycle, and it was dropped like a rock when the 360 came out. If you got an XBOX 2 years in, you got another 2 years worth of use out of it, then support went away completely. On the other hand, if you got a PS2 2 years in, you arguably have 5 years worth of life in the system. Why this doesn't piss off more people is beyond me. MS did a cut and run with the original XBOX because it was better for them for business, not better for the consumer.

[bean19]

That doesn't change the fact the the XBOX had a 4 year cycle, and it was dropped like a rock when the 360 came out. If you got an XBOX 2 years in, you got another 2 years worth of use out of it, then support went away completely. On the other hand, if you got a PS2 2 years in, you arguably have 5 years worth of life in the system. Why this doesn't piss off more people is beyond me. MS did a cut and run with the original XBOX because it was better for them for business, not better for the consumer.

So Microsoft is evil for not supporting the original Xbox longer? They should stay at a year-long disadvantage to the other consoles even though they were consistently taking a loss on the Xbox? Besides, 4 years is only one less than 5 years and they didn't rush the generation change. It was actually overdue. Plus, they weren't hasty in dropping support for the original Xbox. It got Black and a smattering of other games for the first year the 360 was out - more than anyone would expect for a system that was not profitable.

You assume that people all place value on the life-time of their console instead of what it provides. I disagree with this assumption of yours, but let's apply it equally to your sacred cow.

One could argue that the PS3's lifespan actually doesn't start until late 2008 when the system will start to have a decent number of exclusive titles. If the PS4 comes out in 2011 (5 years from the 2006 release), then that's just 3 years worth of value.

[Gorvi]

So Microsoft is evil for not supporting the original Xbox longer? They should stay at a year-long disadvantage to the other consoles even though they were consistently taking a loss on the Xbox? Besides, 4 years is only one less than 5 years and they didn't rush the generation change. It was actually overdue. Plus, they weren't hasty in dropping support for the original Xbox. It got Black and a smattering of other games for the first year the 360 was out - more than anyone would expect for a system that was not profitable.

You assume that people all place value on the life-time of their console instead of what it provides. I disagree with this assumption of yours, but let's apply it equally to your sacred cow.

One could argue that the PS3's lifespan actually doesn't start until late 2008 when the system will start to have a decent number of exclusive titles. If the PS4 comes out in 2011 (5 years from the 2006 release), then that's just 3 years worth of value.
4 is one less than 5? No kidding. That doesn't change the fact that it was killed off early for business reasons, and that was not a positive for XBOX owners. And yeah, it did get some games that first year of the 360. All ports (or multiplatform games) available elsewhere. Please name me the games that Microsoft actually published for the XBOX after the 360 launched. Was there even one?

One could argue that the PS3's lifespan doesn't start until 2008, but you'd be wrong too. You're kidding yourself if you think the PS3 won't have any games until 2008. This fall looks to be pretty damn good for the PS3 in terms of games.

You can continue to wear blinders and say that the early death of the original XBOX was a good thing, but that doesn't change the fact that you're wrong unless you're talking about it being good for Microsoft. And I'll say the same thing about Sony if they decide to kill the PS3 in 2010, it'll be bad for the PS3 owner then just like it was bad for the XBOX owner in 2005 (unless you felt like forking over $500+ again so soon that is).

[bean19]

I guess I don't see it because I buy every console every generation - when they become worth it. Cost vs. game library.

MOST people - not Sony fanboys - won't see the PS3 be worth the purchase price until late 2008. Cost vs. game library.

Still, I disagree with your idea that the life span of a console is what gives it value. I want to play the latest and greatest titles, and the X360 coming out first in this console generation got those latest and greatest titles to me. I also own a PS2, so I'm not missing out on any last-gen games. The only last-gen games to go exclusive to the Xbox were those that wanted to be on the best hardware (or had to be because they couldn't run on a PS2), and first and second-party titles that are instead now on the 360.

[Skyelan]

I just can't understand why people keep swinging around 'MICROSOFT DROPPED THE XBOX EARLY!' like it's some kind of point. Does that change what Sony is doing now, or that the 360 is going quite good for Microsoft?

I mean, I suppose there's a point to be made that they're willing to drop a floundering system, but the 360 is hardly floundering. And it's not like Nintendo bathed the Gamecube in support, even their own, for that last year.

Was it good for the consumer? Not really. But that's the end of it. Why bring it up? What relevance does it have in the here and now?

[bean19]

Was it good for the consumer? Not really. But that's the end of it. Why bring it up? What relevance does it have in the here and now?

I think it's just a way to change the subject.

[WastedCells]

360 forced the ps3 to come out...If the 360 wasn't here the ps2 would be battling the Wii and ps3 would be coming out this xmas with many games.

[Sl1pstream]

Sl1p, I'm curious. Did Sony allow retailers to back out of pre-orders or was there a disincentive? It makes me wonder why so many retailers got caught with excess supply. As we neared the launch, it seemed many noticed pre-orders weren't what they thought they would be, so I'd think some retailers were getting concerned.

We had to let company headquarters know exactly how many preorders and who preordered them each day. I assume they sent that info (or at least the numbers) to Sony to get the amount of systems they needed. We did get more systems than we got preorders though. I know most stores in our chain got around 20 preorders and 25 systems delivered. I had 7 preorders and 20 systems delivered. I've had one guy that didn't pick up his system and a few people who picked up more than one system. Not one of our stores sold all systems. Don't really know about disincentives, but then again, that was all handled by company headquarters.

[Micasa]

"I own a PSP, PS3, gaming PC, 360 and a Wii so back off fan boy I love em all, just speaking the truth."

I've noticed that most people who flaunt owning "all the systems" tend to be the most obnoxious. They feel they can be as big an [INSERT CONSOLE HERE] fanboy as they want, since they own all the systems and therefore can't possibly be biased.

Sure, they don't seem to actually buy, much less play, any games for the other systems and seemingly own them only to get ammo to run them down but still it's unbiased, right?

[bean19]

360 forced the ps3 to come out...If the 360 wasn't here the ps2 would be battling the Wii and ps3 would be coming out this xmas with many games.

Except the PS3 was supposed to be out spring of last year. . . and if the PS3 didn't come out until this Xmas we would have to wait until Xmas of 2009 before the system was cheap enough for more than Sony fanboys to pick them up and 2011 before it was cheap enough that mainstream consumers can purchase it.

Is this someone's throw away Sony shill joke?

[Gorvi]

Except the PS3 was supposed to be out spring of last year. . . and if the PS3 didn't come out until this Xmas we would have to wait until Xmas of 2009 before the system was cheap enough for more than Sony fanboys to pick them up and 2011 before it was cheap enough that mainstream consumers can purchase it.

Is this someone's throw away Sony shill joke?
My god, man, are you the next Kamalot in training? If you can afford a $400 game console and $60 games, you can afford a $600 game console. And only Sony fanboys picking it up? So only Microsoft fanboys picked up a 360? Shit, man, try not to come off as such an asshat, it might actually help.

[Sl1pstream]

If you can afford a $400 game console and $60 games, you can afford a $600 game console.

What? $200 Isn't exactly nothing.

[Gorvi]

What? $200 Isn't exactly nothing.
I wasn't trying to imply that, but when you get up into that price range, it makes less of a difference. It's like saying you can afford that $15,000 car, but the $16000 car is stupid and only a 'fanboy' of the brand would buy it.

[bean19]

Sure, they don't seem to actually buy, much less play, any games for the other systems and seemingly own them only to get ammo to run them down but still it's unbiased, right?

Not most people Micasa. There are some fairly game-biased people on Evil Avatar. WastedCells is just an obvious shill or someone making up a new username to troll. Too much of what he says is so clearly biased or just plain silly trolling for him to be for real.

Of course everyone has some bias based on what they are enjoying playing right then. Kefkataran is a good example. He absolutely loves Nintendo, and it can seem he is biased towards it, but he also plays and loves games on the 360 (that he vocally praises) and he talks about upcoming games on the PS3 with excitement.

I think the general consensus from those of us who are game biased is that the PS3 is too fucking expensive but eventually it will be worth it when some of the shit-hot games like Heavenly Sword, MGS 4, and White Knight Story come out. . . and because some of them are so far away, it is likely the system will also get a price drop at some point. Eventually the PS3's game library is going to come even to the system's cost - it just isn't there yet.

These same people bitch about the 360 having a high failure rate while also talking about a ton of good games on the system. Consensus can't be found among game fanboys about the Wii though. Some people love it, and others, like myself, worry that it may get too few games (like the Gamecube) and that because of the last-gen graphics, the console has to rely on innovative controls or why buy it on the Wii instead of a next-gen console.

People definitely have opinions outside of these, but I'd say that this is the very general middle-ground GAME-fanboy opinion.

[Micasa]

$400 console + $60 game = $460 (plus tax, if applicable)
$600 console + $60 game = $660 (plus tax, if applicable)

Saying that if you can buy a $400 console you can afford a $600 one is kind of inane, to start, but it's also missing the piont. It's still $200 more, leaving the 360 $200 cheaper. That's three games, which is kind of considerable for many people. Then there's the question of 'value' to consider - with the much larger game library that the 360 currently has, with many of those sitting at 'bargain' prices by comparison to all the new PS3 games. It doesn't help matters that some of those games are new on the PS3 and months old on the 360 - even if it's a good port.

[Schnoogs]

My god, man, are you the next Kamalot in training? If you can afford a $400 game console and $60 games, you can afford a $600 game console. And only Sony fanboys picking it up? So only Microsoft fanboys picked up a 360? Shit, man, try not to come off as such an asshat, it might actually help.

Wow...what a completely ignorant post. I didn't realize you were in charge of the finances for every member of this forum and every gamer in this world.

[Micasa]

I wasn't trying to imply that, but when you get up into that price range, it makes less of a difference. It's like saying you can afford that $15,000 car, but the $16000 car is stupid and only a 'fanboy' of the brand would buy it.

Not very good at percentages? That's more like being able to afford the $15,000 car, but the $22,500 is only a bit more... Sure, it's $7,500 more - but what's that at that level? Chump change.

[bean19]

My god, man, are you the next Kamalot in training? If you can afford a $400 game console and $60 games, you can afford a $600 game console. And only Sony fanboys picking it up? So only Microsoft fanboys picked up a 360? Shit, man, try not to come off as such an asshat, it might actually help.

Come on. You can't seriously say that the PS3 is worth $600 yet. The games aren't there. . . Resistance and Motorstorm.

It will get there, AND YOU KNOW THAT I'VE SAID THIS, so I don't know why you are picking this fight. . . but it will get there late this year at the earliest and probably late 2008 for most gamers.

$200 is a lot of money to a college student. . . but that really isn't the point. The PS3 isn't worth $400 either - YET.

[fitbabits]

Holy crap! Siraris and Gorvi losing their macaroni in one week. It's like the best birthday/Christmas/whatever present I could ever have wished for. And I had little to do with any of it. :) :rolleyes: :)

[bean19]

I wasn't trying to imply that, but when you get up into that price range, it makes less of a difference. It's like saying you can afford that $15,000 car, but the $16000 car is stupid and only a 'fanboy' of the brand would buy it.

No.

It's like saying that you can afford that $15K car, but that $22.5K car that has very few places that it is allowed to travel to right now is only a purchase made by fanboys.

I can tell why I pissed you off though now. You don't like being called a fanboy or me implying that you are a dumb consumer because you bought a PS3 early. You're right. It's rude of me to imply that and I apologize.

There are probably lots of people who bought the PS3 because they honestly feel it will eventually be worth their money and/or they really wanted to play Resistance and Motorstorm and/or they have lots of money and/or they work for Sony. There are probably other good reasons why some people could have bought a PS3 that do not make them bad consumers or fanboys and I'm just not thinking of them, so if any other reasons apply to you then I get it. I made a statement that was too blanket to be correct and it was insulting and I apologize.

[Micasa]

Don't forget that the $22,500 car has a 1080p windshield. 720p wipers, but the windshield is 1080p.

[Gorvi]

That was a bad analogy, yes. But I'll stand by the fact that if you can afford to drop $400 on a game console plus $50 yearly for LIVE, you can afford a $600 console. Both? Probably not, I know it's not in my budget.

To answer the question do I think the PS3 as a game console is worth $600 rignt now? No, not really. But I also don't think the 360 is worth nearly $400, or the Wii is worth nearly $250. But that's just my opinion

[Sl1pstream]

But unlike the PS3, the 360 has a bunch of games that are worth playing at this point. The PS3 will have them too but most of them will be multiplatform. The PS3 needs a shitload of exclusives to make those extra 200 worth it and it seems like they're losing them by the day.

[Micasa]

But unlike the PS3, the 360 has a bunch of games that are worth playing at this point. The PS3 will have them too but most of them will be multiplatform. The PS3 needs a shitload of exclusives to make those extra 200 worth it and it seems like they're losing them by the day.

That's what is kind of depressing about looking at my 'game shelf' right now. I spent $600 on the PS3, but have only 2 games for it that I would consider playing on any given day: Resistance and Motorstorm*. The rest of the selection is ports of games that I played on the 360 or had no interest in, and the upcoming lineup really isn't inspiring much hope either. If I'd known that it would be this barren, I'd have waited at least another six months before laying out the money.

It's a good Blu-Ray player but I didn't buy it for that, nor would I have bought one just for that purpose.

* - Motorstorm is also losing considerable luster. It still looks great on the 1080p TV, but lacking same-screen multiplayer is really a huge knock against it. There's also not much variety in tracks or modes, so it's just getting old at a distressing pace for one of the only solid exclusive titles the system has :mad:

[Gorvi]

No.

It's like saying that you can afford that $15K car, but that $22.5K car that has very few places that it is allowed to travel to right now is only a purchase made by fanboys.

I can tell why I pissed you off though now. You don't like being called a fanboy or me implying that you are a dumb consumer because you bought a PS3 early. You're right. It's rude of me to imply that and I apologize.

There are probably lots of people who bought the PS3 because they honestly feel it will eventually be worth their money and/or they really wanted to play Resistance and Motorstorm and/or they have lots of money and/or they work for Sony. There are probably other good reasons why some people could have bought a PS3 that do not make them bad consumers or fanboys and I'm just not thinking of them, so if any other reasons apply to you then I get it. I made a statement that was too blanket to be correct and it was insulting and I apologize.
Honestly, I appreciate that. I really don't like the fanboy tag. I can tell you, the only reasons I bought a PS3 in January were these :
1) I wanted a next gen console. I'm a hardcore gamer dammit, I'm going to need one of these machines, I may as well do it now.
2) I actually wanted an HD player. I have a 65" TV, the HD really does make a difference.
3) I'm a big Final Fantasy fan, I knew without a doubt I'd be able to play the next game in the series on the PS3.
4) I prefer Sony's first and second party offerings to Microsoft's. Not that I don't think MS's have merit, they just don't mean much to me. I see MS going for the sub-10 hour single player games (largely, I know there are games that don't conform to this), where online multiplayer is the big draw, and I'm just not much of an online multiplayer kind of gamer.
That's it. No bias towards one company or another, the PS3 just makes more sense for me. If MS had a first party lineup that I was more interested in, that would have made things more difficult, but Sony's first party, and the FF presence (and to a lesser extent MGS and GoW) were enough for me.

[Jack B]

Honestly, I appreciate that. I really don't like the fanboy tag. I can tell you, the only reasons I bought a PS3 in January were these :
1) I wanted a next gen console. I'm a hardcore gamer dammit, I'm going to need one of these machines, I may as well do it now.
2) I actually wanted an HD player. I have a 65" TV, the HD really does make a difference.
3) I'm a big Final Fantasy fan, I knew without a doubt I'd be able to play the next game in the series on the PS3.
4) I prefer Sony's first and second party offerings to Microsoft's. Not that I don't think MS's have merit, they just don't mean much to me. I see MS going for the sub-10 hour single player games (largely, I know there are games that don't conform to this), where online multiplayer is the big draw, and I'm just not much of an online multiplayer kind of gamer.
That's it. No bias towards one company or another, the PS3 just makes more sense for me. If MS had a first party lineup that I was more interested in, that would have made things more difficult, but Sony's first party, and the FF presence (and to a lesser extent MGS and GoW) were enough for me.

Gorvi, great post. Those are all good reasons for getting a PS3. You fit their target demographic very well and there is nothing wrong with that at all.

[bean19]

Gorvi, great post. Those are all good reasons for getting a PS3. You fit their target demographic very well and there is nothing wrong with that at all.

Ditto.

And stuff.

. . . stupid Jack beating me to the post.

[NeoSuplex]

Don't forget that the $22,500 car has a 1080p windshield. 720p wipers, but the windshield is 1080p.
Actually, the standard wipers are only 480i. You have to by HD Wipers separately.

[BlackPete]

2) I actually wanted an HD player. I have a 65" TV, the HD really does make a difference.

That right there is an excellent point.

For me, I have a 46" Aquos, and DVDs look more than good enough on it. I had a friend over the other day and he was trying to decide whether he wanted a 1080p TV or not... so I showed him Ice Age 2 on my TV to see what it looked like. In DVD format.

He was absolutely blown away by how good the DVD looked on the 46"... you could see the individual animated hair, etc, etc, etc...

BUT!

If you looked closely, you could still see how a 46" TV was kinda pushing it for 480p DVD quality. I'd actually say that 46" should be the absolute maximum for DVD... although I haven't seen DVD playback on a 52".

I'd imagine that it'd look pretty nasty on a 65" so it's an excellent reason for a HD player. I think this is an important point you should bring up whenever someone accuses you of being a graphics whore in the future.

[Gorvi]

That right there is an excellent point.

For me, I have a 46" Aquos, and DVDs look more than good enough on it. I had a friend over the other day and he was trying to decide whether he wanted a 1080p TV or not... so I showed him Ice Age 2 on my TV to see what it looked like. In DVD format.

He was absolutely blown away by how good the DVD looked on the 46"... you could see the individual animated hair, etc, etc, etc...

BUT!

If you looked closely, you could still see how a 46" TV was kinda pushing it for 480p DVD quality. I'd actually say that 46" should be the absolute maximum for DVD... although I haven't seen DVD playback on a 52".

I'd imagine that it'd look pretty nasty on a 65" so it's an excellent reason for a HD player. I think this is an important point you should bring up whenever someone accuses you of being a graphics whore in the future.
It's not so much that DVDs look crappy on it, it's just you can tell they weren't meant for a screen of that size. Now analog TV, that looks like crap. Of course, that being said, I hope I'm not accused of being a graphics whore, I love my DS, and still play PSOne games from time to time. Hell, I'd bust out my SNES if I still had one that worked (I've really been wanting to play through the Lost Levels on that Super Mario Collection).

[BlackPete]

It's not so much that DVDs look crappy on it, it's just you can tell they weren't meant for a screen of that size. Now analog TV, that looks like crap. Of course, that being said, I hope I'm not accused of being a graphics whore, I love my DS, and still play PSOne games from time to time. Hell, I'd bust out my SNES if I still had one that worked (I've really been wanting to play through the Lost Levels on that Super Mario Collection).

It'd be interesting to see how they look on the 65" screen. The other day I busted out Pokemon Puzzle League on the N64 on the 46"... my god... it's still a fun game (insanely so), but it's really looking dated now. SNES? Forget it.

It'd be nice if we could fast-forward to 2 years from now and more HD games ship so that we can put all console dick wagging silliness behind.

[Micasa]

Actually, the standard wipers are only 480i. You have to by HD Wipers separately.

DAMN THIS 4D GARAGE!