Jack Tretton: PS3 Equals Short Term Sacrifice, Long Term Pay Off [Archive]

fitbabits

09-25-2007, 08:40 PM

Sony Computer Entertainment America president Jack Tretton said the number one reason to own a PS3 (PlayStation 3) is because the console is "future proof".

"The original PlayStation lasted 10 years - a tremendous innovation when other platforms died and were all but forgotten," Tretton told PC Advisor’s US-based sister title, GamePro. "The same thing is going on with the PS2, and I think that will be the case with the PS3."

He went on to say, "I don't think we expected nor we need to capture the lifecycle of the PS3 in the first nine months. We want to build evangelists, one consumer at a time, and it involves sacrificing in the short term before paying off in the long term."

Regarding the fact that some PS3 games often release weeks after their Xbox 360 counterparts, Tretton said, "We're taking all our development findings and investments and passing them on to the third-party development community.

"We are physically going to studios and working with them hand-in-hand. You will start to see that bear fruit in the near future."
Source - PC Advisor (http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/index.cfm?newsid=10807).

Who's doing the sacrificing, Jack? Sony or the consumer?

Sandman

09-25-2007, 08:46 PM

Didn't they say the same thing when the console was released?

Chaos Machine

09-25-2007, 08:59 PM

so basically they are saying is...hey all you early adopters! please shoulder our sinking ship till our console hits a "critical mass" price. Oh, and during that time dont expect any AAA games that arent ports cause our developers dont want to release their game to an install base of less than 10 million.

I probably speak for alot of people when i say i wont even consider a ps3 until something huge shows up...like a final fantasy game. In the meantime ill be having fun with my ps xbox wii60 2

i dont even consider price to be an issue honestly, if there was a couple "must have games" i would be extremely easily convinced to drop 5 or 600 on it.

scythe

09-25-2007, 09:06 PM

i dont even consider price to be an issue honestly, if there was a couple "must have games" i would be extremely easily convinced to drop 5 or 600 on it.

It's just a vicious circle unfortunately. Developers don't want to make games until people pay 5 or 600 dollars on buying one, and people don't want to spend 5 or 600 dollars buying one until developers release good games.

Godboo

09-25-2007, 09:07 PM

I don't disagree, but how does this help me now?

fitbabits

09-25-2007, 09:13 PM

I don't disagree, but how does this help me now?

You're missing the point. It's not about you, it's about Sony. The message Tretton seems to be sending is 'help a Sony brotha out'.

Chaos Machine

09-25-2007, 09:18 PM

You're missing the point. It's not about you, it's about Sony. The message Tretton seems to be sending is 'help a Sony brotha out'.

exactly

if they want to stop this they need to start throwing sickening amounts of money at developers to subsidize the lost profits from releasing on their console early in its life cycle. otherwise they are fucked cause everyone has realized now that the playstation brand isnt strong enough to keep it from imploding like what happened to sega.

fitbabits

09-25-2007, 09:21 PM

exactly

if they want to stop this they need to start throwing sickening amounts of money at developers to subsidize the lost profits from releasing on their console early in its life cycle. otherwise they are fucked cause everyone has realized now that the playstation brand isnt strong enough to keep it from imploding like what happened to sega.

Haven't you heard? Sony doesn't buy exclusives or offer financial incentives to developers.

Khash

09-25-2007, 09:23 PM

member that 1 time ken kuteragy said the ps2 was gonna be like toy story? lol wtf

KoenigMKII

09-25-2007, 09:24 PM

The PS3 doesn't need evangelists, judging by the detectable stench of death... it needs a resurrection.

abso

09-25-2007, 09:30 PM

So if the PS3 is all about longevity and being future proof, I can wait a few years when they are 150-200 bucks to buy one. Sweet. Thanks SCEA for the information!

jadkins555

09-25-2007, 09:31 PM

It reminds me of this interview (http://youtube.com/watch?v=JFIDsTsWJHw).

"10 year product life cycle"... "10 year product life cycle"...

Godboo

09-25-2007, 09:34 PM

exactly

if they want to stop this they need to start throwing sickening amounts of money at developers to subsidize the lost profits from releasing on their console early in its life cycle. otherwise they are fucked cause everyone has realized now that the playstation brand isnt strong enough to keep it from imploding like what happened to sega.

I think it's way too early to start throwing around that name.

gzsfrk

09-25-2007, 09:52 PM

Sony really needs to get some more A content and perhaps their first AAA title out the door. I really hope it's not until MGS4 for that to happen, because they're going to be in a world of hurt if they don't have some VERY compelling reasons to buy a PS3 heading into Christmas. Granted, there's still a bunch of Sony zombies who will buy one at the first opportunity they (or their parents) can provide. But the perception in the marketplace seems to be changing, in that Sony is no longer the universally held de-facto king of the gaming world. As that perception spreads and people start to investigate for themselves, if Sony doesn't have some VERY positive reasons to buy a PS3 at that point, then I greatly fear for them this generation, whereas I am currently seeing them to be in a still-tenable position--not great, but they can still turn it around. If it's still looking negative coming out of Christmas 07, then I think their outlook is grim indeed, barring some spectactularly damaging mistakes on MS' or Nintendo's part.

IrishWhiskey

09-25-2007, 10:09 PM

Its stretching it to suggest that the PSone had a ten year life cycle. Perhaps technically true in terms of manufacturing, but I don't recall them announcing big new PS1 games years after the PS2 had launched. And more importantly, for several reasons, I very much doubt that the PS3 will have a ten year lifecycle. Even if you accept the idea that the PS3 is far more powerful than the 360, it won't be more than the Xbox 720. When that happens, the worst thing in the world would be for them to fail to offer a competing product.

Either the console has the games to justify it, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, waiting only ensures lower price, better reliability, cheaper prices on the games currently out, and no getting the old switcheroo and having to rebuy SIXAXIS controllers. Given that Kaz recently said that the game selection for PS3 isn't enough for consumers to justify the price, its clear why Sony should be sweating right now.

Dracula-X

09-25-2007, 10:12 PM

member that 1 time ken kuteragy said the ps2 was gonna be like toy story? lol wtf

member that 1 time Gatez0r said the xbox was gonna be like toy story 2? (http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2001/01/40970) lol wtf

slothy

09-25-2007, 10:24 PM

Its stretching it to suggest that the PSone had a ten year life cycle. Perhaps technically true in terms of manufacturing, but I don't recall them announcing big new PS1 games years after the PS2 had launched.

You're looking at it from the gamer side. He's talking about from the corporate side. They manufactured PSone's for 10 years and that means they created a technology product that sold for 10 years, which is almost unheard of. Unless someone wants to buy a sweet at Celeron 166 PC for half the price it originally cost me ;)

Loganrapp

09-25-2007, 10:40 PM

I think Jack is still delirious from mourning John Travolta (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/06/15).

Fonz

09-25-2007, 10:43 PM

I don't disagree with the post, I mean I bought a GameCube and a original Xbox back in the day (in hope) to keep Sony honest when they were the PS2 empire. Theres the obvious reasons why you get a system, which is for the games of course but now I own 360/wii/PS3 and you gotta think the same thing, I don't want to be paying 130 bucks for collector edition games. If Sony stops making consoles I cant even imagine what the Steve Ballmer Philosphy would do to the Xbox 360, somewhere along the lines of what vista is going through with its multiple 10 skus, sound familiar core/premium/halo-edition/elite.

I mean Gary Whitta put it best, you want all 3 systems to be successful so you get the absolute best from all three, which only benefits you.

Vandenh

09-25-2007, 10:43 PM

Well the PS2 didn't need this.

I understand that this is the way Sony has decided to market the beast that is PS3. "Future Proof" is their key point. A bit risky I guess when you need people to buy consoles now and also a bit risky when you know Nintendo and MS will probably start announcing new versions in 4 years.

Also globally the PS1/PS2 might have a 10 year life span... but did it really for Western countries? Most console fans ditched it when a new version came out and most very casual fans probably only bought it in year 2-3.

BlackPete

09-25-2007, 11:42 PM

Not to be nitpicky but... shouldn't that be:

Jack Tretton: PS3 Equals Short Term Sacrifice, Long Term Pay Off

Other than that, good old Tretton makes me laugh. He's such a card!

JimmyDanger

09-26-2007, 12:52 AM

I believe Kutaragi said the PS2 would be like plugging into the Matrix (and something about it's own "ps2 internet").

Gates came with the "approaching Toy Story 2 level" quote.

I find all this talk of "sacrifice" and "evangelists" a little off-putting. God complex?

51|RandoM

09-26-2007, 01:25 AM

Gorvi

09-26-2007, 01:26 AM

10 year life cycle? Not gonna happen. But the PS3 being a short term sacrifice (for Sony, obviously) and a longterm pay off is a distinct possibility. Wait, sorry, I forgot the word Sony was here, I guess mindless trolling was a better response, huh? GO TEH HALO! :rolleyes:

fatefodder

09-26-2007, 01:45 AM

It's seems pretty telling that Sony has come to the point where the company is appealing to its hardcore fan base as "evangelists." Over a hundred million units of its prior systems have been sold to date (each). I'm quite certain that prior to the PS3 launch, evangelists were the last thing on Sony's road map to victory.

menage

09-26-2007, 01:50 AM

wait for the cost of production to go down, wait for the must-have games to show up, then position a SKU with a pricepoint that people sitting on PS2 for the last few years cannot resist.

It could work out, it could also bite them in the foot. Why did they release a 600 buck machine if we obviously could have waited 2 years. I don't get the mentality.

Hey buy one now, but wait a year for good stuff to happen which you can't play anywhere else. Don't get me wrong, I'm generalising. But the consumer isn't going to care this christmas.

Lunar Blue

09-26-2007, 01:54 AM

Do not underestimate sony brand loyalty, especially in Europe.

I think you overestimate customer loyalty (as is Sony). The reason PS2 was a clear #1 last gen in Europe is because it was first and had a massive hype behind it. From my nerd perspective, the world of videogames was a lot different then. People were going crazy from the overblown hype and really thought it was something completely awesome because media everywhere said so. Even while people who knew better, you know, the one's with PC's, were laughing at the Voodoo 2 graphics.

When they launched in 2000 in Europe, there was no one else. Nintendo was a "kids console" and the people who sold Sega's didn't even bother to market it besides spending millions to put the logo on Manchester United shirts. Outside of the nerd spectrum no one knew what an XBOX was or that it was coming. PS2 was RAAAAD. People thought Sony had found Jesus and were going to let him out of the trunk, and Jesus didn't have followers with him. And they wanted Jesus NOW! Well not this time. XBOX360 is out first and people know better now. I usually don't like to overestimate the intelligence of an average customer but I firmly believe they have grown a little not to buy into bedtime stories like "jacking off at the matrix". Or whatever it was :rolleyes:

Chameleo

09-26-2007, 01:55 AM

Didn't they say the same thing when the console was released?

ummm no, they were singing a very different tune when the console was first released:

We have built up a certain brand equity over time since the launch of PlayStation in 1995 and PS2 in 2000 that the first five million are going to buy it, whatever it is, even [if] it didn't have games

and a lot of people bought that. actually even I did. I thought the PS3 would just sell on momentum from the PS2 alone. Guess they *do* need games to sell the thing afterall.

DangerousDaze

09-26-2007, 02:00 AM

Sigh, another pretty reasonable statement from Sony (they do make one or two) jumped upon and savaged by the good old EvAv crew. I especially enjoy Fit's childish commentary. :/

Derella

09-26-2007, 02:08 AM

Who's doing the sacrificing, Jack? Sony or the consumer?
The developers.

Unless Sony is bringing suitcases full of cash when they are "physically going to studios," developing PS3 exclusives seems like an easy way to lose money.

oldjadedgamer

09-26-2007, 02:10 AM

The developers.

Unless Sony is bringing suitcases full of cash when they are "physically going to studios," developing PS3 exclusives seems like an easy way to lose money.

Sony doesn't buy exclusives... they "earn" them.

Swiper

09-26-2007, 02:15 AM

I am a card-carrying member of the SDF. This is known. I look back at the ps and ps2 and I am very thankful for the gaming moments that Sony has provided.

As am I. Sony did great things for video gaming. As gamers, we should all be thankful.

The ps3 is going to deliver too, I firmly believe this. They're playing a waiting game. Put the hardware out, wait for the cost of production to go down, wait for the must-have games to show up, then position a SKU with a pricepoint that people sitting on PS2 for the last few years cannot resist.

I'm sure the PS 3 will have great games. My problem is that the hardware that Sony put out doesn't enable better games than either the 360 or Wii.

Why should we wait for the cost of production to go down? How is that good for video gamers? Why should we have to wait for must-have titles? The 360 and the Wii have those right now. As a video gamer, can you really say that fellow video gamers should buy a PS3 and then wait for great games? Why?

That is their plan. They plan on turning the ps2/sony fans who are still waiting for nextgen. It is just a matter of time, games, and pricepoint.

I believe that is Microsoft's and Nintendo's plan as well. The 10's of millions of people who bought a PS2 last gen are up for grabs. Whoever grabs the most of them will "win" this generation.

Do not underestimate sony brand loyalty, especially in Europe.

Bye. :)

I say, do not OVERestimate brand loyalty in general, anywhere. It didn't help Atari. It didn't help Sega. It didn't even help Nintendo.

Which, I think, is an awesome thing about video gamers. Why be loyal to a brand? We should judge every console on its games.

On a related note, I have people ask me all the time, what kind of computer should they buy? PC or Mac? My answer has always been, don't pick a computer. Instead, decide what software you want to run, and then buy the computer that runs it best.

In that same vein, I think gamers should decide what games they want to play, and then buy the console (or PC) that runs it. If that's the next version of Metal Gear Solid or Final Fantasy, then great. Wait for those titles to come out and then buy a PS3.

But this whole notion that the PS3 represents some sort of long-term investment is ridiculous. My wife once said that the ring I bought her was an "investment" too. At the time, I (silently) said to myself, "an investment is something that makes money, and I'm never seeing that money again." The PS3 is not an investment. It is a console that doesn't have as good a game library as its competition.

menage

09-26-2007, 02:53 AM

As am I. Sony did great things for video gaming. As gamers, we should all be thankful.

Not denying great games like GoW and Ico, but thanking a company for giving them our money is a bit weird. Let's all thank Miyamoto for making Super Mario. I'm not thanking any company.

TrackZero

09-26-2007, 02:56 AM

"Buy our watch, sure, it's only half done. But you don't understand the POTENTIAL it has to be the greatest watch of all time. All we need is your money and support first."

Twigz'N'Berries

09-26-2007, 03:13 AM

It could work out, it could also bite them in the foot. Why did they release a 600 buck machine if we obviously could have waited 2 years. I don't get the mentality.

Hey buy one now, but wait a year for good stuff to happen which you can't play anywhere else. Don't get me wrong, I'm generalising. But the consumer isn't going to care this christmas.

Because they couldn't lie to the public about its release date any longer. To try and stave of MS, they kept telling people it would be out soon after the 360's launch. But it didn't happen. The launch came nearly a year after 360's. If it would have been more than 1 holiday season between launch, the 360 would have a hell of a lead over the PS3 and could drop price quite easily at that point.

But Sony will be fine and it amazes me how people on this site (as much as I love it) have a skewed view. I'm still waiting for the death of the PSP and the DS that so many people talked about.

Ancalagon

09-26-2007, 03:54 AM

Sony is like the kid who claims his dad beat up Rambo and Superman with both his hands tied to his back and his nether regions in an ever tightening vice.

MaiXu

09-26-2007, 03:55 AM

i dont even consider price to be an issue honestly, if there was a couple "must have games" i would be extremely easily convinced to drop 5 or 600 on it.

I do. Because if the PS3 were $300, maybe I could stomach it. Maybe I would drop that cash for some potential. Maybe I'd drop that now and give Lair and Fall of Man a shot, knowing MGS4 and maybe some Final Fantasy Whogivesafuck is on the way. But Sony not only wants me to buy into weak games and promises, but to sm!le as that $600 cock slides down my throat.

No. Thanks.

You're looking at it from the gamer side. He's talking about from the corporate side. They manufactured PSone's for 10 years and that means they created a technology product that sold for 10 years, which is almost unheard of. Unless someone wants to buy a sweet at Celeron 166 PC for half the price it originally cost me ;)

I think, in addition, the corporate point of view is (was), the PSX was a cheap gateway to a veritable landslide of great games when you could grab one for $100. So even when the PS2 was out and no new games were being made for it, the PSX was still selling hardware, and more importantly, software.

The ps3 is going to deliver too, I firmly believe this. They're playing a waiting game. Put the hardware out, wait for the cost of production to go down, wait for the must-have games to show up, then position a SKU with a pricepoint that people sitting on PS2 for the last few years cannot resist.

Two flaws with applying that to the PS3.

One involves cost: the PS3 is costing Sony a lot more to make than the PS2 or PSX ever did. So when Sony starts losing $0 on a PS3 selling at $600, they'll likely soon have to drop the price to compete, and begin losing money anew.

The second flaw with that is one of price. The PS3 *debuted* at, what, $400? $300? It wasn't long before it was a solid $300 anyway, and began the descent into cheaper and cheaper territory. Maybe three years after launch, the launch price had been halved ($150) and it came within the mass-market price range.

Now the PS3 is a year out of the gate, and it's $600. Let's assume in two years, it follows suit and its launch price is halved. That's still $300 fucking dollars mate! That's nowhere near the critical mass price that worked for the PS2, that worked to keep the PS2 a valid platform for a decade. And that's being generous, and assuming Sony can sell a PS3 for $300 in two years without hemorrhaging money.

I just can't see Sony gaining ground without losing shitloads of money. Lose it by eating the cost of a PS3 sold at $300, lose it by buying exclusives, or lose it by not selling enough consoles and thus scaring the developers away.

Ancalagon

09-26-2007, 04:00 AM

I agree, Sm!le.

I think, if, magically, the PS3 had lots and lots of games. Then, I would have to consider
A) are there only exclusive titles that may sway me (not likely, most games come out for both platforms now).
B)What else do I get (Blu ray could be a plus)
C) How much does it cost?

With the price of the 360 as low as it is, I could buy an extra 3 A List titles and a 360 premium for the price of a PS3 and no games.

If games were equal, I still think the 360 is a winner, because of its price. £425 is too much for me!

DjinniMan

09-26-2007, 04:23 AM

Anyone who buys a PS3 now as a game system is an idiot. I am roughly half an idiot, because I bought it as a PS2 and a Blu-ray player all rolled up into one. OK, maybe that was closer to 2/3 idiot.

D.D.D.

09-26-2007, 04:27 AM

I do. Because if the PS3 were $300, maybe I could stomach it. Maybe I would drop that cash for some potential. Maybe I'd drop that now and give Lair and Fall of Man a shot, knowing MGS4 and maybe some Final Fantasy Whogivesafuck is on the way. But Sony not only wants me to buy into weak games and promises, but to sm!le as that $600 cock slides down my throat.

No. Thanks.

I fully agree with you at the $300 and I know some good games are coming (and it would be a mighty cheap BluRay player) but that was pretty gay for an analogy. :eek: :D

Karmakin

09-26-2007, 04:30 AM

The "PlayStation Experience", at least for me was having a huge lineup of titles in all genres. By way of dominating the install base, it got the lion's share of the exclusives and pretty much everything was either ported or made for it.

As far as I'm concerned, Sony killed that by way of the price of their system. The complexity of development is just another mail in the coffin.

In any case, that "PlayStation Experience", to this point is what you see in the 360 over the last year or so, and in the Wii pretty much starting now. Because you have two systems with greatly different capabilities, you're going to see a divide when it comes to that library. I think that the 360/Wii divide is more about design philosophy than anything else, where the 360 will lean heavily towards Western gamers/development and the Wii will lean towards Eastern gamers/development.

In any case, brand means less than we think it means. We ASSUME that it's important, because it tends to work. However, not always. The 360 is an equally strong brand as PlayStation right now. Brand isn't going to save Sony.

drakkarim

09-26-2007, 04:38 AM

better yet, >>I'LL<< be future proof when i get around to adding a wii to my other two.

MaiXu

09-26-2007, 04:41 AM

I fully agree with you at the $300 and I know some good games are coming (and it would be a mighty cheap BluRay player) but that was pretty gay for an analogy. :eek: :D

Yeah. It's pretty childish, pretty gay. I wrote it angry and then answered to a few other posts a little more rational. So it goes ...

Reanimated

09-26-2007, 04:47 AM

I think the real story here is the fact that Jack Tretton is a complete moron.

grognard66

09-26-2007, 04:49 AM

It's comments like Tretton's that make me cringe whenever I buy a Sony product. I feel dirty supporting the company. Every company hypes their system, but Sony is the most disingenuous company I've ever had the misfortune to do business with. If I wasn't so obsessed with my hobby and stubborn about being able to play any game I want I would never support Sony with my purchases. I guess that's the decision most consumers have made which accounts for the pathetic state of the PS3.

How arrogant can he be to think that consumers should blindly support them when they haven't offered any compelling reasons to date? Companies should give you reasons to buy their product now and not offer some vague assurance that things will get better in time if you "just patiently wait for it" (apparently that's the new Sony slogan).

No console has ever had a viable 10-year life cycle and they never will - technology marches on whether Sony wants it to or not. Both the 360 and PS3 already look dated compared to the latest high-end computers and they will look downright ancient in 3 more years. Sure, you can buy a PS2 at Wal-mart along with a few movie tie-in or kiddie games but as a viable gaming machine it is several years past its sell by date.

Only a fool would believe the PS3 is "future proof". That ranks up there with Tretton's previous comments about only the PS3 having "True HD" while most of Sony's HDTV sales are for 720p TV's labeled as HDTV's. Does that mean purchasers of those TV sets can now sue Sony for misrepresentation since those clearly labeled boxes aren't really HDTV's according to Tretton?

Yes, I'm a hypocrite and a fool for buying a PS3 so early, but I'm glad most consumers have more sense than I do! :)

Roc Ingersol

09-26-2007, 04:49 AM

Sure, the original playstation lasted ten years and the playstation 2 will probably last ten years.
But neither of them had 'future proof' hardware.

It's the games, idiot.

Gorvi

09-26-2007, 04:49 AM

I think the real story here is the fact that Jack Tretton is a complete moron.
I'll quote another of your posts and let it speak for itself:
I thought this site had a troll banning policy?

vivafletcher

09-26-2007, 05:11 AM

So if the PS3 is all about longevity and being future proof, I can wait a few years when they are 150-200 bucks to buy one. Sweet. Thanks SCEA for the information!

I'm with you. We all have a role to play, and getting the same tech cheaper when the great stuff finally comes out is going to be my role.

DangerousDaze

09-26-2007, 05:13 AM

This thread is the most fucked up I've seen for a long time around here. If you take your fanboy blinkers off for just one moment you'll see that Tretton's stating that it's Sony who is making the short-term sacrifice, not its customers. Sony are saying that they're prepared to take a hit early on because they know they'll make money in the long run. Sony, unlike their competition, have made money on their previous generations and intend to so so again on this one.

Oh, and that there will be a long run rather than just coming out with something new and treating your old console like a red-headed stepchild. Denying that the PS2 or PS1 lasted longer than any of their competitors just is pissing in the wind, especially when Sony are still expanding their PS2 business (announced at TGS). Many people in the industry believe that there's life in the PS2 until 2010, let alone the PS3.

Hell, there are still people saying that the PS3 is $600 when you can go to BestBuy and pick one up for 50 bucks more than a 360 elite. FFS, people.

Switcher

09-26-2007, 05:40 AM

I like the way Jack says, "it's about the future" as if it was their plan all along. It only became their plan now because they didn't expect the PS3 to have the 10 month long abortion it's currently still enduring.

Skyelan

09-26-2007, 05:44 AM

I like his openess that their goal for right now is to make raving evangelists to spread the PLAYSTATION GOSPEL in this time of little faith. Its competitors want evangelists just as much, so no one can say Sony doesn't know how to be more honest... Just not on anything that it would benefit them to be honest about.

Oh well, I can't really blame them. They need gamers to have blind faith, afterall. :p

Sony, unlike their competition, have made money on their previous generations and intend to so so again on this one.

BEEP BEEP, Clue Bus coming through! Nintendo's always made money. Of course this will be responded to with 'BUT THE WII IS NOT COMPETING', but that's okay. I understand you need to keep up the blind faith, man. No matter how well the Wii sells in Japan, it will not get any exclusives that the other systems won't get.

I mean, imagine something crazy like, I dunno, Fatal Frame on the Wii! It would never happen, so no worries. ;)

rein

09-26-2007, 05:47 AM

I am a card-carrying member of the SDF. This is known. I look back at the ps and ps2 and I am very thankful for the gaming moments that Sony has provided.

The ps3 is going to deliver too, I firmly believe this. They're playing a waiting game. Put the hardware out, wait for the cost of production to go down, wait for the must-have games to show up, then position a SKU with a pricepoint that people sitting on PS2 for the last few years cannot resist.

That is their plan. They plan on turning the ps2/sony fans who are still waiting for nextgen. It is just a matter of time, games, and pricepoint.

Do not underestimate sony brand loyalty, especially in Europe.

Bye. :)

I agree with you 51|RandoM. Sony has yet to release their first AAA title and those are around the corner. It is a little early to count Sony out, give them next year and see if units start to move after a few big releases. Sony stumbled out of the starting blocks but they seem to have picked themselves up and are starting to put the focus where it should be. Helping developers.

As for the life cycle of the PS One and PS2, do people not read the sales charts that are posted around the net monthly? The PS2 is still selling very well. Also, Sony never said they will not release another console in the next ten years, they will support the PS3 for ten years. Big difference for the few confusing that. The PS2 is still a cash machine for Sony and the PS3 will most likely be one after the PS4 is launched. It's a two headed approach and that is the reason Sony is able to survive the slow start of the PS3.

I'm not saying Sony will dominate like they did the last gen but I do not think there is a chance they are going to go bankrupt like several seem to want around here.

sanatos

09-26-2007, 06:11 AM

Sony, you need to stop saying things that are insane. It's like if you had a friend who met a celebrity, and at first you're like okay cool, but then they just bring it up all the time to divert attention away from the fact that they spend all day in their room writing naughty Star Trek fan fiction.

roboninja

09-26-2007, 06:31 AM

Sony has yet to release their first AAA title and those are around the corner.
Just how many corners are there in that road? The last few times we rounded the corner, we stepped in dogshit (how's that for a trollish comment?)
People go on about the AAA titles, but that is not the problem. The problem is price. Hell, the 360 is still no where near the install base it should be because it is too expensive. The PS3 is just off the charts to many people, not even a buying consideration regardless of the games. The Wii and 360 could die tomorrow, and the PS3 be the only option, and a lot of the people that made the PS2 successful would still not buy one at $600, they would just stop gaming.

jpublic

09-26-2007, 06:43 AM

Just how many corners are there in that road? The last few times we rounded the corner, we stepped in dogshit (how's that for a trollish comment?)

5.7, 5.8, 5.6, 5.7, and a 5.5 from the Romanian Judge, but he's a prick.

People go on about the AAA titles, but that is not the problem. The problem is price. Hell, the 360 is still no where near the install base it should be because it is too expensive. The PS3 is just off the charts to many people, not even a buying consideration regardless of the games. The Wii and 360 could die tomorrow, and the PS3 be the only option, and a lot of the people that made the PS2 successful would still not buy one at $600, they would just stop gaming.

See, this is a *great* point, but you have to take it further. Even with the massive demand the Wii has, there are a lot of people who think that at the price point *it* has, it's too expensive. In the minds of the North American consumer, the $200 price tag is a big red flag.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The first console, MS or Sony, who gets to that $200 point Wins. End of game, better luck next time. And frankly, MS is going to make it there first.

Telefrog

09-26-2007, 06:50 AM

Just how many corners are there in that road? The last few times we rounded the corner, we stepped in dogshit (how's that for a trollish comment?)
People go on about the AAA titles, but that is not the problem. The problem is price. Hell, the 360 is still no where near the install base it should be because it is too expensive. The PS3 is just off the charts to many people, not even a buying consideration regardless of the games. The Wii and 360 could die tomorrow, and the PS3 be the only option, and a lot of the people that made the PS2 successful would still not buy one at $600, they would just stop gaming.

I disagree. It's not just the price, it's the lack of AAA titles and the price.

If the console cost $300 right now, it still wouldn't have the catalog of games that the 360 has. Yes, I realize that the 360 had a year head start and it's not a "fair" comparison. So what? This is what the consumers see when they compare the two systems. This is reality.

We can debate the merits of MS pushing the 360 out early when there were some obvious manufacturing/design issues, but the result is that the 360 had a pretty good head start.

Lunar Blue

09-26-2007, 07:03 AM

This thread is the most fucked up I've seen for a long time around here.

Agreed, I as well fucking hate people who disagree with me and dare to use logic or common sense when choosing which products to support based on their needs. One day they will see the Truth™, one day!

Switcher

09-26-2007, 07:06 AM

5.7, 5.8, 5.6, 5.7, and a 5.5 from the Romanian Judge, but he's a prick.

See, this is a *great* point, but you have to take it further. Even with the massive demand the Wii has, there are a lot of people who think that at the price point *it* has, it's too expensive. In the minds of the North American consumer, the $200 price tag is a big red flag.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The first console, MS or Sony, who gets to that $200 point Wins. End of game, better luck next time. And frankly, MS is going to make it there first.

If you think the PS3 will ever reach a price that low at a time where it will make any difference in the console war, you're dreaming.

And judging by the sales over the last ten months, clearly, the majority of North Americans think that the Wii's price tag is quite suitable.

Roc Ingersol

09-26-2007, 08:12 AM

I disagree. It's not just the price, it's the lack of AAA titles and the price.
No, it's the price. The initial price has to be low enough that you capture enough early adopters that publishers can see a future in the platform and push development.

If the initial price is too high, your early adopter install base is low and publishers get gun-shy: you lose exclusives, you get late ports, sloppy ports, etc.

The lack of titles is a direct result of the price. And it's going to continue to be a problem, because the price continues to be a problem. The only thing saving Sony right now, is that Microsoft is keeping the 360 overpriced as well - which is harming its growth and its ability to appeal to mass market/casual publishers.

TheFlyingOrc

09-26-2007, 08:18 AM

It could work out, it could also bite them in the foot. Why did they release a 600 buck machine if we obviously could have waited 2 years. I don't get the mentality.

Blu Ray. If Sony had invested in HD-DVD, instead of working to develop BluRay, the PS3 would have come out this Christmas at a much lower cost.

TheFlyingOrc

09-26-2007, 08:25 AM

I agree with you 51|RandoM. Sony has yet to release their first AAA title and those are around the corner. It is a little early to count Sony out, give them next year and see if units start to move after a few big releases.
Why? Why is it too early? No console has every truly recovered from a weak launch.

The reason the PS2 won so soundly was an explosion of both hardcore and casual titles at the end of the first year - the triple threat of Metal Gear Solid 2, Final Fantasy X, and Grand Theft Auto 3. Both of the first two have been decreasing in public mindshare, if sales are any indicator. Grand Theft Auto is multiplatform.

The only thing that could cause them to have a full recovery would be an X factor like GTA was in the last generation, and there's nothing to indicate that anything of the sort is going to happen. And, if such a thing does happen, it is equally likely to occur on the 360 or the Wii (probably moreso on the Wii, as the controller leads to new game types)

Trazzlo the Magnificant

09-26-2007, 08:51 AM

The problem is that it is more than price and games. Its price and games and marketing. Sure, PS3 has "long life" but many people simply take that to mean "I can buy it in 8 years for really cheap".

The biggest issue is they blew their marketing wad already. Everything they do now is the marketing of an old system, since it's no longer "new" on its one year anniversary. Sony is clearly having a hard time even coming up with marketing ideas to move the product, and pretty soon they need to market an old PS3 against new Wii2 (Hey! Its like 3 Gamecubes duct taped together!) and an Xbox 720. Anything they say will appear more like last generation in that timeframe, which it is.

Their games have fizzled, and they knew it was coming because of the lack of marketing punch they put into their launches, and it certainly isn't because they have too many games to market properly.

PS3 will be fine in the same way that Dreamcast was fine.

Ancalagon

09-26-2007, 09:34 AM

Azrikam

09-26-2007, 10:10 AM

I don't disagree, but how does this help me now?

It gives you a sense of future superiority over all those lame gamers who are playing wicked games right now. One, yes, one day, your machine will be hailed as the pinnacle of gaming achievement. And those gamers will be crying over their Halo 3 boxes at the prospect of not being able to play the greatest gaming experience in the history of mankind, due to the fact that Sony has tripled the PS3 price to punish all those who were not loyal to the grand and powerful Sony in the beginning.

PS3. It's like a pyramid scheme with no payoff for people who get in early.

twophayse

09-26-2007, 05:08 PM

Every console needs a $199 price and a trio of system sellers to reach the tipping point. SNES had SFII/Turtles/Mario, Genesis had Mortal Kombat/Madden/Sonic, PSX had FFVII/RE/TR, and PS2 had MGS2/FFVII/GTA3. Today, for $350 Xbox 360 has Halo/Gears/Bioshock, with Mass Effect and Ace Combat 6 coming soon. Nintendo has Mario/Metroid/Zelda and minigames for $250. And PS3 has Warhawk/R&C/Resistance for $500 bucks. Right now, that's not enough for me.

2008 will bring MGS4/Killzone 2/LittleBigPlanet and possibly Jak 4, White Knight Story, GT5, and FFXIII. Considering the boredom of GT4, FFXII and Jak 3 left a bad taste in my mouth, I'm cynical about their respective sequels. Cross out Killzone since I have no interest in playing it. That leaves MGS4, White Knight Story, and LittleBigPlanet. Unless they drop the price to $300, that's not enough for me.

Johan

09-26-2007, 07:21 PM

People will continue to buy it, because victims usually return to their abuser.

Look at me! I'm on my third 360! I can't blame Sony fans for being idiots...

TeeCakes

09-26-2007, 08:13 PM

Considering the fact that the XBox 360 is now nearly 2 years old (November 2005 wasnt it?), MS could release a new console in 3 years. Then the PS3's longevity is a bit useless.

Shorter product cycles = good.

Low cost of entry to market = very good.

Low cost of entry to market with tiered purchasing options = very good

High cost of entry to market with no games to buy = bad

I'm sure the people who bought a console precisely to avoid the excessive software/hardware updates required to truly enjoy PC gaming would love that winner's idea, Snacky.

You = very good MS exec.

Why? Why is it too early? No console has every truly recovered from a weak launch.

The reason the PS2 won so soundly was an explosion of both hardcore and casual titles at the end of the first year - the triple threat of Metal Gear Solid 2, Final Fantasy X, and Grand Theft Auto 3. Both of the first two have been decreasing in public mindshare, if sales are any indicator. Grand Theft Auto is multiplatform.

It's too early, chum, because none of the PS3 sequels to the blockbuster games you listed have been released on the system. When these games do release, and there's a clear lack of any reversal of fortunes for Sony, you might start to have the beginnings of a rational point.

But year 1 into a console's life cycle, is (read with me now) t-o-o e-a-r-l-y.

Well the PS2 didn't need this.

I understand that this is the way Sony has decided to market the beast that is PS3. "Future Proof" is their key point. A bit risky I guess when you need people to buy consoles now and also a bit risky when you know Nintendo and MS will probably start announcing new versions in 4 years.

Also globally the PS1/PS2 might have a 10 year life span... but did it really for Western countries? Most console fans ditched it when a new version came out and most very casual fans probably only bought it in year 2-3.

Bolded for the bro I posted above Vandenh... and also apparently for Vandenh himself, who doth not recognizeth the definition of a "10 year life span" even when he obliviously blurts it out himself.

Every console needs a $199 price and a trio of system sellers to reach the tipping point. SNES had SFII/Turtles/Mario, Genesis had Mortal Kombat/Madden/Sonic, PSX had FFVII/RE/TR, and PS2 had MGS2/FFVII/GTA3. Today, for $350 Xbox 360 has Halo/Gears/Bioshock, with Mass Effect and Ace Combat 6 coming soon. Nintendo has Mario/Metroid/Zelda and minigames for $250. And PS3 has Warhawk/R&C/Resistance for $500 bucks. Right now, that's not enough for me.

Why do you insist to doing things the way they've been done before? Get over your preconceptions of how a video game industry should be run. Newsflash-- it crashed once upon a time because the people didn't know what the fuck they were doing to maintain it.

2008 will bring MGS4/Killzone 2/LittleBigPlanet and possibly Jak 4, White Knight Story, GT5, and FFXIII. Considering the boredom of GT4, FFXII and Jak 3 left a bad taste in my mouth...

Considering your glaring lack of taste, you no longer deserve my attention.

Sigh, another pretty reasonable statement from Sony (they do make one or two) jumped upon and savaged by the good old EvAv crew. I especially enjoy Fit's childish commentary. :/

QFT