My problem with Sony (some clarification)

People have been quick to label me as a "hater" for criticizing the bad business decision that is the PS3. This is, of course, totally incorrect. I loved Sony. The Playstation was great, and the PS2 was like the electronic manifestation of Christ. How can you look at my love for those consoles and say my hate for the PS3 is irrational and based off jealousy? It makes no sense.

I can tell you exactly what is critically wrong with the PS3:

Blu-ray is crap. "Oh, but it won the format wars." Yeah, remember when DVDs won the format wars and had to package video tapes with them to boost sales? No! DVDs had several advantages over tapes, aside from more memory: a menu system that made it easier to find the scenes you wanted to see, an effective pause function, the addition of commentaries (unless the guys making the DVD were stupid), ect. All blu-ray has over DVDs is more memory. That clearly isn't enough to replace them for a good long time. This is why DVDs are put in with blu-rays. More people buy them that way. They know that blu-ray isn't all that better than DVDs, so they hold off on buying blu-ray players.

Now, using blu-rays for video games was a logical step that had to be taken. Unlike movies, video games are constantly increasing the amount of memory they use. However, this step could clearly have waited until the eighth generation. It didn't take all that long for game developers to push the limits of what CDs could do. I recall at least six games that were on multiple CDs, so it made perfect sense to switch to a format with more memory. Only now are developers reaching the limits to DVDs. Sony could have held off on using blu-rays for another generation to save money. Blu-ray drives aren't cheap, you know? They also aren't as easy to program as DVDs. The blu-ray drive of the PS3 is the source of most of its shortcomings.

1: To expensive and to little profit.
Mainly because of the pricey blu-ray drive, the PS3 was far to expensive upon release. It cost about as much as the Wii and Xbox 360 combined. I recall the NeoGeo and 3DO having similar problems. Isn't it a Japanese saying to "learn from other people's mistakes"? When you have an open market, the cheapest product has a default advantage. Selling the product at such a high price was a bad idea, but they had to do it to pay for the expense. Speaking of which...

They didn't turn out a profit. Yeah, it turns out Sony has been selling PS3s at a loss. I'm sure that hasn't always been true, but it was early on. What kind of business strategy is that? To turn out a profit, you have to charge more for your product than it costs to make it. I thought that was obvious.

2: Not enough games
Because of the high cost of the console, many third party developers jumped ship. With the PS2, they could afford to make exclusives for it because of how well it sold. The PS3 was to expensive to hope for that. The difficulty in programming blu-rays didn't help. Bottom line: the PS3 had a poor exclusive library. "Resistance: Fall of Man" was the only praised game in the release library, and it took months for another notable game to be added to the library ("The Elder Scrolls IV"). Good games just took to long to come out for the PS3.

There are other problems, but these are the main issues. This was what makes the PS3 a problem, and Sony just took to long to fix all of it. Yes, I hate the PS3 and Sony is pissing me off, but its because they do dumb shit like this, not because I'm a "hater".

Now no one posted here yet so i'll throw you a bone . Everything you said here is true . But one thing you are forgetting is hindsight is 20/20 . Sony didn't come in this generation thinking "we are going to lose money" . Everything that happened was a series of unfortunate events . Yes , they took a risk , yes it ( arguably) failed miserably , although they still managed to survive somehow , it wasn't how things had been planned . You said it yourself , it was the next logical step . Meaning , because they had better technology ( blu-ray) they assumed people would flock to their console , a fair assuption. Saying sony is stupid is unfair to them , thet had no idea it would turn out this way . But once the ps3 was released it was too late , the wheels had already begun to turn , there was no backing out . Should they had waited another generation ? Looking back at it now , eveyone would agree that that would have been best , but sony had no way of knowing .

Ok first of all, there is no reason to defend yourself.

Now, you points about Blu-ray are valid. More memory is not a huge step forward and most games don't push the boundaries yet (some do and I could easily find some games that were multi-disc on 360 and single-disc on PS3). Still, if you read your post again, you first say Bluray is bad, and then your very next paragraph say it's actually good (just not necessary). Doesn't ruin you argument or anything, but it certainly isn't a strong point.

For you numbered points:
1) "It's too expensive." Fair, if not much of an issue anymore.

"Selling at a loss is dumb." Common practice actually. If you note the Wikipedia article on the business method, Loss Leader you'll notice that your beloved PS2 as well as both Xboxes are given as examples. I also checked the 360 article to confirm.

2) It's 2012. The "PS3 has no games" meme is tired and played out and incorrect.

The PS3 had some problems (ex: expensive and the 360 came out first). It still has some problems (ex: architecture purposely difficult to work with). But these complaints are outdated and weak.

Dude.... making a post to prove you aren't a troll by trolling Sony, is just sad. We get it. You think the PS3 is bad. Here's the thing, and i mean this as sincerely as possible.
WE. DON'T. GIVE. 2. SHITS. ABOUT. YOUR. PROBLEM. WITH. SONY.
You say its because the PS3 pissed you off. Apparently, Sony did it just to make you mad. Yep. That was their whole business plan.
"Hey, how should we market the new console, the PS3?"
"We should find some self-important jag-off and make it do everything he doesn't want it to."
"Genius!"

And your post about 'Good games' Not coming out for it?
I'm sure Demon's souls, Uncharted 1, 2 & 3, Infamous 1 & 2, Killzone 2 & 3, Gran Turismo 5, Little Big Planet 1 & 2, and MotorStorm Dis-agree with you. Not to mention the fact that unlike another major console, playing games online is FREE. No monthly subscription required

I'm not a Sony Fan explicitly, the way they handled the Hacking incident was shoddy and completely incompetent. However, i don't decide to decimate a console and then pledge my love for that company. Yes, the PS2 was a mother fucking Titan, Its still a console that I Own and play quite a bit. It was released at a peak time, and was affordable and easy to use and maintain. But a lot of the First Gen PS2's broke down, overheated, disc drives failed, games didn't work, controllers didn't work, Proprietary Memory cards were a pain, and didn't hold a lot of save games. But the PS3 isn't that bad. It's had a rough road, and currently it is selling at a loss, however people still buy them, people still use them, And people will continue to use them. You're also neglecting to mention the fact that the economy has taken a tail-spin, which is why PS3 prices were dropped, and people are buying less of them. You can love the ps2, and the ps1 and everything else, but when you start spouting stupid hate speech about a Console, it just makes you look stupid. People labeled you a Troll and a hater because all of your previous posts degenerated into those categories eventually.
Call me a troll, call me a hater, but i know where i stand. I love All video games equally. I own an N64, A Gamecube, A wii, A 360, A psp, a Vita, A ps2, and a PS3, and i game on my PC tons as well. I am a gamer. I do it for the love of the games.

I agree that the PS3 was really too expensive, and that the blu-ray was partially to blame, but it was actually a really good business decision at the release of the product, as it was actually the best quality and cheapest blu-ray player on the market at the point of release, so a lot of people bought PS3's solely for using it to play their Blu-ray disks.
Of course, in the long term the excessive price and subsequent release of cheaper blu-ray players has made it an unnessecary, expensive add-on to the console, and that has hurt sales badly, but at the beginning it was a good boost to the sales numbers (not to mention the money Blu-ray manufacturers no doubt paid Playstation to include their fledgling mediaplayer in the system)

As other people have said, the real iceberg for the PS3 is the recession. People just don't want to shell out loads of money for an entertainment system, and that has hit all consoles hard.

The real advantage to blu-ray movies is they have enough space on it to fit a feature length movie in full HD, which is something I want.

I also feel that we're "just now hitting the limits of DVDs" is absolutely absurd. We've hit the limits years ago, it's that developers are limiting content to fit on a dvd. There are several, several PC games that are larger than a dvd. Hell, the diablo 3 beta is 15 gigabyes (for the damn beta).

Crysis 2, Dragon Age 2 and Skyrim (recent examples) had to release HD texture packs AFTER the shipment of the product for PC users to download because the discs were too small to include HD textures.

Hell, that John Woo Stranglehold game unpacked to 10GB and that was in 2007.

I fully welcome more storage.

IamShmgeggy:
WE. DON'T. GIVE. 2. SHITS. ABOUT. YOUR. PROBLEM. WITH. SONY.

Considering the amount of replies this guy gets its very hard to believe that.

I think Sony could've gotten away with all of the high cost crap associated with the ps3 if they had only supported it with decent firmware but as it stands now, it's just a really expensive machine that only does all the crap less expensive machines do better. It's like having a really nice sportscar that wont pop out of first gear.
And it has some decent exclusives now(however I don't even buy those because I find this online pass crap really insulting), I think the biggest problem with ps3 games is that the third parties can't be bothered to make a decent port. Look at Bethesda; every single ps3 port they make has the same chronic freezing problem that never ends up being fixed. They fix all the little minor glitches but the real roadblock to the enjoyment of their games remains annoyingly apparent. And what does sony do to protect their consumers from these defective products? Nothing.
The BR disc thing could've worked out well for them if they had actually been able to convince publishers to stuff those discs full of content but they can't even get the publishers to release a decent port.
Once again, if they had made some decent firmware and constantly expanded the array of things the ps3 can do for the user, they could've gotten away with a lot more but the last couple of big updates were really disappointing. They should be adding features instead of getting rid of them. Then update 4.0 was just to transfer games and things to the Vita, it didn't do anything for anyone who isn't getting a vita.
Once again, if the ps3 had been able to live up to the promises they had about the connectivity the original psp was supposed to have with ps3 games, that might've been a welcome update. But as it stands, it just seemed like a piss poor annoying publicity stunt.
I too am really disappointed with my ps3 and it's the last playstation product I'm buying, I just have slightly different reasons from OP. Then with the memory of the rrod fresh in my mind, there's no way I'm getting the nextbox either.
I'm stickin with the pc for a while...been trying out Onlive lately and I'm pretty impressed. Especially about how well it works on my phone. I think this is my last console generation for a while.

May I add something to the OP's exposition? Sony really couldn't tell what they wanted.

"Move"? So you're trying to appeal to the people who already bought a Wii?

IamShmgeggy:
And your post about 'Good games' Not coming out for it?
I'm sure Demon's souls, Uncharted 1, 2 & 3, Infamous 1 & 2, Killzone 2 & 3, Gran Turismo 5, Little Big Planet 1 & 2, and MotorStorm Dis-agree with you. Not to mention the fact that unlike another major console, playing games online is FREE. No monthly subscription required

Only one of those games on your list was a launch title. The rest came out more than two years after the console itself. Ever heard the phrase "too little to late"? That's a frickin' joke. Compare to a console with similar issues: the 3DS. The release library was terrible. No doubt about that. For a while, the only notable games were ports. Now, less than a year later, that has been remedied with: Mario 3D, Mario Kart 7, Resident Evil, and Cave Story. And what does it have coming this year? Luigi's Mansion 2 (don't hold your breath, though), Kid Icarus, Paper Mario, and Kingdom Hearts. We don't have to wait a year for the library to be worth jack. That's the problem. Sony had to be dragged kicking and screaming into actually releasing games for the PS3.

People don't seem to get it. The problem isn't that the PS3 has no games, the problem is that it took YEARS for it to have games. Some cutting edge technology you've got there. You just bought it upon release so it could collect dust, did you?

Most people will admit that the PS3 didn't have a strong start out the gate. But if that is really one of your main pillars of hatred you need to let it go. Fact is neither, PS3 or 360 has a an exclusive library that clearly outshines the other, and the rest of the libraries almost the same. The only clear advantage the 360 had was when the PS3 was finally released, there was already a years worth of games available.

If you compare the first year of the PS3 vs the first year of the 360, you get about the same amount of games. I think the PS3 had a few more, but that is likely due to whatever percentage were 360 ports.

In PS3's first year, there was the first Resistance (arguably one of PS3's big games) a few months out and a new Ratchet & Clank (also arguably a big name game) and the first Uncharted (pretty much agreed as a big name) right around the 1 year mark. The next really big game for PS3 exclusives was MGS4 at around 1.5 years. Some other less noteworthy (or not noteworthy at all) exclusives as well.

In 360's first year, the first Dead Rising (which I think was noteworthy at the time) came out in the first few months. The first especially big game was Gears of War, which came out at around the year mark. The first really big game (Halo 3) came out after 2 years. Plenty of not especially noteworthy exclusives as well.

So yes, the PS3 didn't have a strong enough launch to immediately be better than a console that was out for a year already. That's hardly a good reason to hate it and it's a pretty dumb reason to hate it today.

If you want to hate PS3 because they removed support for Linux, because it was designed to be difficult to work with to make developers not want to port from PS3 (which totally backfired), because they removed backwards compatibility (to cut cost), because they didn't release a DualShock controller for a while, because a new controller doesn't come with a cord, because it has mandatory installs, because of any other better reason than not having an amazing launch library, then I (or we or whoever cuz it's not like I/we matter) will consider your beef less silly. Hating a piece of machinery now because of issues it had several years ago, is just dumb though. ("Hating" it is actually pretty dumb regardless, but w/e).

Forlong:

IamShmgeggy:
And your post about 'Good games' Not coming out for it?
I'm sure Demon's souls, Uncharted 1, 2 & 3, Infamous 1 & 2, Killzone 2 & 3, Gran Turismo 5, Little Big Planet 1 & 2, and MotorStorm Dis-agree with you. Not to mention the fact that unlike another major console, playing games online is FREE. No monthly subscription required

Only one of those games on your list was a launch title. The rest came out more than two years after the console itself. Ever heard the phrase "too little to late"? That's a frickin' joke. Compare to a console with similar issues: the 3DS. The release library was terrible. No doubt about that. For a while, the only notable games were ports. Now, less than a year later, that has been remedied with: Mario 3D, Mario Kart 7, Resident Evil, and Cave Story. And what does it have coming this year? Luigi's Mansion 2 (don't hold your breath, though), Kid Icarus, Paper Mario, and Kingdom Hearts. We don't have to wait a year for the library to be worth jack. That's the problem. Sony had to be dragged kicking and screaming into actually releasing games for the PS3.

People don't seem to get it. The problem isn't that the PS3 has no games, the problem is that it took YEARS for it to have games. Some cutting edge technology you've got there. You just bought it upon release so it could collect dust, did you?

I didn't buy mine on release. If that is your whole argument, then sir, i bid you good day. Its way past the PS3's launch date, that ship has sailed. You seem to have deeper rooted problems with Sony than just this, however i refuse to get into with you, you are clearly going to harp on about this forever. Also, if you looked it up, if you bought a First Generation PS3, then it was backwards compatible, so shut yer gob.

EDIT: And yes, Sony did remove the backwards compatibility, but since you keep bitching about the lack of release titles, and how you LOVE the PS2, i figured that would be enough, but it most likely won't. You hate the PS3. Glad we had this talk

Forlong:

IamShmgeggy:
And your post about 'Good games' Not coming out for it?
I'm sure Demon's souls, Uncharted 1, 2 & 3, Infamous 1 & 2, Killzone 2 & 3, Gran Turismo 5, Little Big Planet 1 & 2, and MotorStorm Dis-agree with you. Not to mention the fact that unlike another major console, playing games online is FREE. No monthly subscription required

Only one of those games on your list was a launch title. The rest came out more than two years after the console itself. Ever heard the phrase "too little to late"? That's a frickin' joke. Compare to a console with similar issues: the 3DS. The release library was terrible. No doubt about that. For a while, the only notable games were ports. Now, less than a year later, that has been remedied with: Mario 3D, Mario Kart 7, Resident Evil, and Cave Story. And what does it have coming this year? Luigi's Mansion 2 (don't hold your breath, though), Kid Icarus, Paper Mario, and Kingdom Hearts. We don't have to wait a year for the library to be worth jack. That's the problem. Sony had to be dragged kicking and screaming into actually releasing games for the PS3.

People don't seem to get it. The problem isn't that the PS3 has no games, the problem is that it took YEARS for it to have games. Some cutting edge technology you've got there. You just bought it upon release so it could collect dust, did you?

Have you noticed that the whole game issue has taken a huge 180 between the 360 and PS3 now? The many of Microsofts most prized exclusives have gone way of the multiplat and outside of Gears of War and Halo you can pretty much play every game in the 360s library through PS3 and PC. As of a few weeks ago Alan Wake went on the PC as well which only drives this point further.

Also a big factor of people wanting the PS3 is that you get more than just shooters as there are still a lot of quirky Japanese games being released for the system (Yakuza and 3D dot heroes) for example

A lot of Sony's problems with titles at launch, well lack of more precisely, was the attitude they took with developers and the fees charged, demands for exclusive deals and then the high licensing costs to get access to the SDK early that was pretty essential for developing games ready for launch.

Also they really didn't do much with the PSN at the start, unlike Microsoft who did promote and use Xbox live out the gate.

The PS3 is a good machine, it was the handling of the launch that was so very bad. It allowed Microsoft and then Nintendo with the Wii a chance to steal it's position as market leader. The problems all stem from really bad management on the business side. They assumed that as it was a "Playstation" it was going to be a success and that they (Sony) could dictate terms to all their business partners, seems a lot of them gave them the middle finger.

In general, Sony dropped the ball in more ways than one with the PS3 and they knew it.

Design (and development) took too long and was (mis)guided by Ken Kutaragi's "wacky idealism", they messed up the supply chain part of the equation too when they failed to properly secure a supply of blueray laser diodes. The result of which is the stupid high price tag and weird CPU and memory architecture - which wasn't really that bad; especially when compared to the nightmare that was the PS2, which I'm sure Sony themselves is now regretting given how hard it is to get BC working.

Kutaragi was fired. Hirai took over and managed to turn things around - as much as it was possible.

They more or less learnt from their mistakes IMO. The PSV launch was pretty smooth and the hardware was more or less perfect.

Mayhemski:
They assumed that as it was a "Playstation" it was going to be a success and that they (Sony) could dictate terms to all their business partners, seems a lot of them gave them the middle finger.

You know this how? And don't quote me Ken Kutaragi, almost everything he said during the PS3 launch was marketing - not to mention he is a bit of a nut; but I digress.

I love how people just "make up" a narrative about Sony's internal decision process.

deadish:

You know this how? And don't quote me Ken Kutaragi, almost everything he said during the PS3 launch was marketing - not to mention he is a bit of a nut; but I digress.

I love how people just "make up" a narrative about Sony's internal decision process.

Ok Hands up my knowledge is anecdotal from contacts from my work at the time who where involved/worked with Sony during the build up to the launch. The impression I was given was the above - the problems experienced where all coming from the business side. But happy to be proved wrong.

Forlong:

1: To expensive and to little profit.
Mainly because of the pricey blu-ray drive, the PS3 was far to expensive upon release. It cost about as much as the Wii and Xbox 360 combined. I recall the NeoGeo and 3DO having similar problems. Isn't it a Japanese saying to "learn from other people's mistakes"? When you have an open market, the cheapest product has a default advantage. Selling the product at such a high price was a bad idea, but they had to do it to pay for the expense. Speaking of which...

They didn't turn out a profit. Yeah, it turns out Sony has been selling PS3s at a loss. I'm sure that hasn't always been true, but it was early on. What kind of business strategy is that? To turn out a profit, you have to charge more for your product than it costs to make it. I thought that was obvious.

Your first point defeats itself. You say it was too expensive, then say:

Forlong:
To turn out a profit, you have to charge more for your product than it costs to make it. I thought that was obvious.

So you say to make a profit, they need to charge more. But then say they already over-charge. Basically you're telling them that there's one thing they can do to not lose money, and that they can't do that one thing.

First of all its storage NOT memory, memory is stuff like RAM. Secondly have you ever actually watched a blu-ray? The video quality difference is HUGE. Plus there is usually a lot more extras and better sound quality if you have the right setup. The only disadvantage of blu-ray over DVD's is the read speeds. However I'd rather install part of a game than get it on 2-4 disks. Sure the PS3's price wasn't great on release (It was however the cheapest blu-ray player, and that 40 a year of XBL adds up) but when the slim came out, along with some really great exclusives (like Uncharted, Dark Souls etc.) the PS3 is not only a fair priced console but a blu-ray player too. It's still a bit more expensive than a 360 but you don't have to pay 40 a year to access multiplayer and game demos.

All I've bought since getting my launch PS3 was blu-ray movies (unless it wasn't an option). Blu-ray in the PS3 pushed blu-ray very far, It is a very nice format, DVD has long since been outdated. I find it hilarious to see someone in 2012 comment on a forum or facebook somewhere they finally jumped on the blu-ray bandwagon, as if it's something they shouldn't have done since 2007. Maybe if you just consider blu in the context of games it's not totally amazing, but neither is Sony just a games company. Sony is a media company, and with that said, blu-ray has been a tremendous success.

Forlong:

Now, using blu-rays for video games was a logical step that had to be taken. Unlike movies, video games are constantly increasing the amount of memory they use. However, this step could clearly have waited until the eighth generation.

Actually, the blu-ray capability was the 3rd reason I bought a ps3. (following free online play and awesome exclusives.) It actually helped increase revenues quite a bit. I know a lot of people that got a ps3 solely for the blu-ray capability.

Forlong:
The difficulty in programming blu-rays didn't help.

no. just no. no way you wrote that sober.

they released the console without giving developers enough time to create content at launch.
and they also sold you a console without really balance the pros and cons of blue ray disks and drives.(big storage capability, slow reading time)
and they choose gimicks that just were silly (six axis motion controller?)
admiting that your console was a failure will damadge potential income from it. it's logical that they won't admit it was not as well as planned.

maybe they learned something important from it.
big names (sony, blue ray drives) are not a big selling point nowadays.

IamShmgeggy:
I didn't buy mine on release. If that is your whole argument, then sir, i bid you good day. Its way past the PS3's launch date, that ship has sailed. You seem to have deeper rooted problems with Sony than just this, however i refuse to get into with you, you are clearly going to harp on about this forever. Also, if you looked it up, if you bought a First Generation PS3, then it was backwards compatible, so shut yer gob.

Yeah, you could have done that, or just bought a PS2 for a fraction of the price. Without any titles exclusive, it couldn't get a stronghold.

And yes, Sony did remove the backwards compatibility, but since you keep bitching about the lack of release titles, and how you LOVE the PS2, i figured that would be enough, but it most likely won't. You hate the PS3. Glad we had this talk

If I loved the PS2, why would I love a console that is everything it isn't? Enjoying a Sony product doesn't mean that I have to be stupid. I understood what Sony was doing with the PS3. They wanted to be all about technology and ignored actual games, so I ignored them in turn. And you know what, that makes me happy. Knowing that I don't have to make excuses for a company that thinks I'm just a big, stupid, walking wallet for them to pick makes me feel so good about myself. With the PSVita, I have hopes that the actions of the intelligent gamers has gotten through to Sony and made them realize what they should be doing. Only time will tell.

bit_crusherrr:
First of all its storage NOT memory, memory is stuff like RAM. Secondly have you ever actually watched a blu-ray? The video quality difference is HUGE. Plus there is usually a lot more extras and better sound quality if you have the right setup. The only disadvantage of blu-ray over DVD's is the read speeds. However I'd rather install part of a game than get it on 2-4 disks. Sure the PS3's price wasn't great on release (It was however the cheapest blu-ray player, and that 40 a year of XBL adds up) but when the slim came out, along with some really great exclusives (like Uncharted, Dark Souls etc.) the PS3 is not only a fair priced console but a blu-ray player too. It's still a bit more expensive than a 360 but you don't have to pay 40 a year to access multiplayer and game demos.

Yes I did. And I watched 3D TV too. Ever heard the proverb "a fool and his money are soon parted"? I saw an improvement but no reason to trash three perfectly functional DVD players and one HD-TV to buy things that did the exact same thing. This is why blu-ray is selling sluggishly. It is largely pointless, and will continue to be for a few years.

Not everyone wants a blu-ray player. Call me crazy, but I'd think gamers would buy a video game console to play video games. Granted, the online play is actually a good point. I haven't played online with PS3, but I have on a Wii. And...damn it sure is worth what they charge.

Mayhemski:

deadish:

You know this how? And don't quote me Ken Kutaragi, almost everything he said during the PS3 launch was marketing - not to mention he is a bit of a nut; but I digress.

I love how people just "make up" a narrative about Sony's internal decision process.

Ok Hands up my knowledge is anecdotal from contacts from my work at the time who where involved/worked with Sony during the build up to the launch. The impression I was given was the above - the problems experienced where all coming from the business side. But happy to be proved wrong.

I really doubt "business matters" was what hurt the PS3 - as I mentioned, I believe it's more to do with price and the fuck ups that lead to it.

You negotiate the best deal possible for your company when dealing with others. It's not as if game publishers aren't going for the best-for-themselves deal themselves. Also MS isn't any nicer, unless they need something from you and you have leverage over them. From their history in the PC world, I can tell you they are not nice people.

deadish:

deadish:
snip

Well did some digging around and found this article talking about the launch -

http://betanews.com/2007/11/19/sony-slashes-price-of-ps3-sdk-to-fix-game-problem/

Seems it was a combo of both.

And I agree MS are no saints, more devils, but when it comes to the PS3's issues it was a problem made by Sony not anyone else. They where the market leader from the previous generation and the position was there's to lose.

Forlong:
Yes I did. And I watched 3D TV too. Ever heard the proverb "a fool and his money are soon parted"? I saw an improvement but no reason to trash three perfectly functional DVD players and one HD-TV to buy things that did the exact same thing. This is why blu-ray is selling sluggishly. It is largely pointless, and will continue to be for a few years.

Not everyone wants a blu-ray player. Call me crazy, but I'd think gamers would buy a video game console to play video games. Granted, the online play is actually a good point. I haven't played online with PS3, but I have on a Wii. And...damn it sure is worth what they charge.

3D I agree is a gimmick but the quality difference from DVD to blu-ray is noticable. If it wasn't for the PS2 I wouldn't of had a DVD player for another 2 years. I also didn't want a blu-ray as I didn't see the point, but as my PS3 came with one I thought I might as well buy a cheap blu-ray and see what the fuss is about. I honestly don't get how you can have a HD tv and not think blu-ray is a huge improvement over DVD's. I think blu-ray is selling sluggishly because they are around 17-20 when they come out. They need to lower the prices slightly. I usually wait a few months before I buy a blu-ray, with the exception of Drive which only cost 1 more on Blu-ray than DVD at 11.99.

Forlong:
People have been quick to label me as a "hater" for criticizing the bad business decision that is the PS3. This is, of course, totally incorrect. I loved Sony. The Playstation was great, and the PS2 was like the electronic manifestation of Christ. How can you look at my love for those consoles and say my hate for the PS3 is irrational and based off jealousy? It makes no sense.

I think it was more to do with the fact that you said the PS3 was crap and it makes you sound like a fanboy. And before you say you didn't say that; yes you did

Forlong:
I can tell you exactly what is critically wrong with the PS3:

Enlighten us please!

Forlong:
Blu-ray is crap. "Oh, but it won the format wars." Yeah, remember when DVDs won the format wars and had to package video tapes with them to boost sales? No! DVDs had several advantages over tapes, aside from more memory: a menu system that made it easier to find the scenes you wanted to see, an effective pause function, the addition of commentaries (unless the guys making the DVD were stupid), ect. All blu-ray has over DVDs is more memory. That clearly isn't enough to replace them for a good long time.

I think having more memory is actually quite a big jump. Have you ever actually watched a blu ray? The video and audio quality is unquestionably better than a DVD. Even if the improvement was miniscule how can you say it's crap? It's still better than DVD.

Forlong:
This is why DVDs are put in with blu-rays. More people buy them that way. They know that blu-ray isn't all that better than DVDs, so they hold off on buying blu-ray players.

Why is it a bad thing that blu-ray players can play DVDs too? That's not even a criticism. And you do realise that a lot of people only bought the PS2 for the DVD player and that it could play PS1 games, right?

Forlong:
Now, using blu-rays for video games was a logical step that had to be taken. Unlike movies, video games are constantly increasing the amount of memory they use. However, this step could clearly have waited until the eighth generation. It didn't take all that long for game developers to push the limits of what CDs could do. I recall at least six games that were on multiple CDs, so it made perfect sense to switch to a format with more memory.

Well I can recall plenty of Xbox games that needed multiple DVDs. Final Fantasy XIII, Mass Effect 2 and Castlevania to name but a few. This didn't need to be the case on the PS3 because it uses blu rays. That's not to mention the PS3 exclusives that are far larger than DVD size. God of War 3 for example is 35GB

And you contradicted yourself. They're constanly needing more memory but switching to a format that has more memory is a bad idea? What?

Forlong:
Only now are developers reaching the limits to DVDs. Sony could have held off on using blu-rays for another generation to save money. Blu-ray drives aren't cheap, you know? They also aren't as easy to program as DVDs. The blu-ray drive of the PS3 is the source of most of its shortcomings.

Yeah you'd be right if this was 2007, but this is 2012. Blu ray drives just aren't that expensive anymore.

Forlong:
1: To expensive and to little profit.
Mainly because of the pricey blu-ray drive, the PS3 was far to expensive upon release. It cost about as much as the Wii and Xbox 360 combined. I recall the NeoGeo and 3DO having similar problems. Isn't it a Japanese saying to "learn from other people's mistakes"? When you have an open market, the cheapest product has a default advantage. Selling the product at such a high price was a bad idea, but they had to do it to pay for the expense. Speaking of which...

Not necessarily. People will pay more for a premium product. Look how well iPhones sell compared to it's competitors.

Forlong:
They didn't turn out a profit. Yeah, it turns out Sony has been selling PS3s at a loss. I'm sure that hasn't always been true, but it was early on. What kind of business strategy is that? To turn out a profit, you have to charge more for your product than it costs to make it. I thought that was obvious.

Companies do this all the time. Microsoft sold the 360 at a loss, Nintendo sells the 3DS at a loss. This isn't new. It's to ensure some market share and get some software sales. If Sony sold the PS3 at a profit at launch then it would have been well over $1000.

You need to understand why Sony sold at a loss; to push the blu-ray platform. It's their patent so they make money off every disc sold. And it's paid off; the PS3 is profitable now, blu-ray sales are increasing, and if the next Xbox uses blu-rays then oddly enough Sony will make money off every Xbox game sold.

Forlong:
2: Not enough games
Because of the high cost of the console, many third party developers jumped ship. With the PS2, they could afford to make exclusives for it because of how well it sold. The PS3 was to expensive to hope for that. The difficulty in programming blu-rays didn't help. Bottom line: the PS3 had a poor exclusive library. "Resistance: Fall of Man" was the only praised game in the release library, and it took months for another notable game to be added to the library ("The Elder Scrolls IV"). Good games just took to long to come out for the PS3.

Again this was an issue... in 2007. This just isn't the case in 2012. It has pretty much every game the Xbox has, save for a few exclusives, and the PS3's exclusive list is arguably better. God of War, Uncharted, Resistance, inFamous, LittleBigPlanet, Modnation, Killzone, Ratchet & Clank... I could go on. That's not to mention that because it has blu-ray it gives developers more free reign than the Xbox and it will probably outlive it.

Forlong:
There are other problems, but these are the main issues. This was what makes the PS3 a problem, and Sony just took to long to fix all of it. Yes, I hate the PS3 and Sony is pissing me off, but its because they do dumb shit like this, not because I'm a "hater".

So you say you hate the PS3 but then complain people are calling you a hater? Again, what?

Hazy992:
I think having more memory is actually quite a big jump. Have you ever actually watched a blu ray? The video and audio quality is unquestionably better than a DVD. Even if the improvement was miniscule how can you say it's crap? It's still better than DVD.

The PS2 made a big jump in memory too, yet it was a lot cheaper than the competition. And what was the best selling console ever? The PS2, of course. Gamers buy consoles to play games, not to nob around on the internet or whatever. Microsoft considered blu-ray as well, but realized that the risks outweighed the gains. That's why they held off on blu-ray. And who outsold PS3s hand over fist? The Xbox 360, of course. I'm seeing a pattern here. This isn't the first time a company did something stupid like this. When you make your console overpriced, people will buy the competition. Just look at the Neo Geo and 3DO. Why didn't Sony learn from their mistakes? Their gaming branch still isn't turning out a profit because they pulled the same crap those idiots did. Why shouldn't I be upset that a company does stupid things?

Hazy992:
Why is it a bad thing that blu-ray players can play DVDs too? That's not even a criticism. And you do realise that a lot of people only bought the PS2 for the DVD player and that it could play PS1 games, right?

I did several searches and couldn't find evidence supporting or disproving this, so I think you just made it up.

Hazy992:
Well I can recall plenty of Xbox games that needed multiple DVDs. Final Fantasy XIII, Mass Effect 2 and Castlevania to name but a few. This didn't need to be the case on the PS3 because it uses blu rays. That's not to mention the PS3 exclusives that are far larger than DVD size. God of War 3 for example is 35GB

And you contradicted yourself. They're constanly needing more memory but switching to a format that has more memory is a bad idea? What?

You don't use carpet cleaner to remove a stain before the stain is there. The games you mentioned are Xbox 360 games that came out in 2009-2010, about five years after the console itself. I'd say Sony could have afforded to wait before going blu-ray. A company should consider the costs of an upgrade. That's why Microsoft and Nintendo didn't bother. They saw the heavy cost to the upgrade as detrimental. I'm sure its just pure coincidence that they outsold the PS3.

Hazy992:
Yeah you'd be right if this was 2007, but this is 2012. Blu ray drives just aren't that expensive anymore.

Yeah, so why didn't they wait until now to go blu-ray?

Hazy992:
Not necessarily. People will pay more for a premium product. Look how well iPhones sell compared to it's competitors.

Not gamers it seems. Why do you think people are still buying PS2s new? It sure isn't because they play DVDs. Gamers care about games. If you have a premium product, they are actually less likely to buy it. This was a precedent that was set with the Master System, Neo Geo, 3DO, and Jaguar. The hardware is not the leading incentive to buy a console, otherwise these would have sold like hotcakes.

Hazy992:
You need to understand why Sony sold at a loss; to push the blu-ray platform. It's their patent so they make money off every disc sold. And it's paid off; the PS3 is profitable now, blu-ray sales are increasing, and if the next Xbox uses blu-rays then oddly enough Sony will make money off every Xbox game sold.

Wait, they own the patent on that? I wasn't aware of that. Well, that does make a bit more sense with that in mind. Okay, I don't like the decision, but I can see how it was a business strategy. Sony wanted to make money for the whole company off of blu-ray, so it took a risk with the video game branch. They'd make a lot more money if they popularized it themselves. Overall, this will pay off for the company.

Hazy992:
Again this was an issue... in 2007. This just isn't the case in 2012. It has pretty much every game the Xbox has, save for a few exclusives, and the PS3's exclusive list is arguably better. God of War, Uncharted, Resistance, inFamous, LittleBigPlanet, Modnation, Killzone, Ratchet & Clank... I could go on. That's not to mention that because it has blu-ray it gives developers more free reign than the Xbox and it will probably outlive it.

However, that was a factor in how the console sells. Without games, sales were sluggish those first two years. But even after great games came out, the sales curve didn't shift up. You got to remember that gamers are different from general consumers. They are more picky because they are buying recreational products. When a company doesn't release what they want to see, it takes a lot longer for them to be convinced to buy the product. This is why the sales curve for the PS3 has remained sluggish.

Forlong:

The PS2 made a big jump in memory too, yet it was a lot cheaper than the competition. And what was the best selling console ever? The PS2, of course.

*Cough*GameCube*Cough* Cheapest by far and sold the least.

Forlong:
Gamers buy consoles to play games, not to nob around on the internet or whatever.

I didn't mention 'knobbing around on the internet' so I don't know what you're talking about. Funninly enough you can play games on the PS3. Who knew?

Forlong:
Microsoft considered blu-ray as well, but realized that the risks outweighed the gains. That's why they held off on blu-ray.

Have you got a source for this? It's just that you accuse me of making stuff up (which I have provided evidence to the contrary as you'll soon see) and I didn't want you to be a hypocrite or anything ^_^

Forlong:
And who outsold PS3s hand over fist? The Xbox 360, of course.

Hand over fist you say? Is that why despite having a year head start the 360 has only sold about 2 million units more? Not to mention the 360 only outsold the PS3 in North America. In Japan and Europe the PS3's done better.

Forlong:
This isn't the first time a company did something stupid like this. When you make your console overpriced, people will buy the competition.

Hmm, maybe you're right. Good thing that it hasn't been overpriced in nearly five years now, and funnily enough people have been buying them.

Forlong:
Just look at the Neo Geo and 3DO.

Not comparable. The Neo Geo wasn't really meant for the home console market, it was only meant for hotels and things like that. They only released them for the home market as they found some people would pay $700 for it. As for the 3DO? That failed because it had no 3rd party support and was trying to compete with the SNES and the Genesis, with the Playstation, Saturn and N64 on the way. It didn't stand a chance.

Forlong:
Why shouldn't I be upset that a company does stupid things?

Why do you care? Why are you getting upset a company (that you clearly don't like) does things that you think are stupid?

'Oh noes! RIM are losing money cause they keep making dumb decisions about Blackberry! BAWWWWW!!'

Forlong:
I did several searches and couldn't find evidence supporting or disproving this, so I think you just made it up.

Took this off wikipedia; 'The PS2 initially sold well partly on the basis of the strength of the PlayStation brand and the console's backward compatibility'. They cite this article. Go to the bottom and read the bit under 'March 5th'

As for the bit about DVD playback? Read the bit under 'March 30th'.

I just don't think you looked hard enough.

Forlong:
You don't use carpet cleaner to remove a stain before the stain is there. The games you mentioned are Xbox 360 games that came out in 2009-2010, about five years after the console itself.

So? The games I assume you're talking about (Final Fantasy, Heart of Darkness etc) didn't come out until 4-5 years after the PS1. What's your point?

Forlong:
I'd say Sony could have afforded to wait before going blu-ray. A company should consider the costs of an upgrade. That's why Microsoft and Nintendo didn't bother. They saw the heavy cost to the upgrade as detrimental. I'm sure its just pure coincidence that they outsold the PS3.

I think they did consider the costs. That's why they took a risk with it and oh look! It paid off! The 360 outsold the PS3 because it came out first and the Wii is in a different market altogether now.

Forlong:
Yeah, so why didn't they wait until now to go blu-ray?

Because they have to start somewhere! If they didn't invest back then and waited until now then blu rays wouldn't be cheap now, would they? It'd be 30-40 for a movie and 500 for a player. All you're advocating is slowing down progress. There's no alternative, no matter what you say. Streaming services like Netflix and things like iTunes are just not good enough to give everyone reliable 1080p video. They just aren't.

Forlong:
Not gamers it seems. Why do you think people are still buying PS2s new?

Who on earth is still buying PS2's new, other than for collectors items? That's just bullshit.

Forlong:
It sure isn't because they play DVDs.

No because DVDs have been around for about 15 years and pretty much everything plays them, so why on earth would you buy a PS2 for a DVD player, just like I wouldn't buy a Sega CD for it's CD player. People did buy PS2s back in the day for the DVD player because they were expensive and they might as well have got a console as well.

Forlong:
Gamers care about games. If you have a premium product, they are actually less likely to buy it. This was a precedent that was set with the Master System, Neo Geo, 3DO, and Jaguar. The hardware is not the leading incentive to buy a console, otherwise these would have sold like hotcakes.

I've already refuted this, I'm not doing it again.

Forlong:
Wait, they own the patent on that? I wasn't aware of that. Well, that does make a bit more sense with that in mind. Okay, I don't like the decision, but I can see how it was a business strategy. Sony wanted to make money for the whole company off of blu-ray, so it took a risk with the video game branch. They'd make a lot more money if they popularized it themselves. Overall, this will pay off for the company.

Yeah they designed blu-ray, like Betamax. Only difference is it paid off this time.

Forlong:
However, that was a factor in how the console sells. Without games, sales were sluggish those first two years. But even after great games came out, the sales curve didn't shift up. You got to remember that gamers are different from general consumers. They are more picky because they are buying recreational products. When a company doesn't release what they want to see, it takes a lot longer for them to be convinced to buy the product. This is why the sales curve for the PS3 has remained sluggish.

You know that would be a decent point if the sales figures backed it up, but they just don't. It hasn't remained sluggish at all and it's gone from strength to strength.

I don't see why you're basing a 7 year old console off of it's first few years. That's about as stupid as me still being mad that the 360 only exists because of Halo and making jokes about RROD.

Sony did exactly what they did with the PS2: load it with features and somehow make it cheaper than the current DVD/BluRay players at launch to get more people to buy it. That only works for about a year or two, and now those sales don't really matter. BluRay is also superior in every way to DVD, not because it can do 3D, but because the menus are coded in Java and therefor work much smoother than DVD menus. And it allows them to have an insane amount of quality compared to DVD considering the h264/AAC codec standard and of course the expanded disc space.

The only big problem with the PS3 is the disc read speeds. That's why game developers have to copy data all over the disc and make you install the game onto the hard drive. If the disc read speed was just a little bit faster then none of this would have to be done.

I'm just going to paste this in here from the other thread.

Why does Sony get ripped?

Sony gets ripped for continuously introducing proprietary formats that no on wants because there's already a standard out. (More here)
Sony gets ripped for having notoriously bad security on their console networks (which everyone loves to proclaim is free and better).
Sony gets ripped for bringing the world a Cell processor that no one knew how to properly utilize when it came out. It was excessive, expensive, and made multiplatform ports a pain, giving Sony users the shittiest version.
Sony gets ripped for putting a BluRay player into their PS3 before anyone knew if it would win out over HD-DVD. This caused it to be insanely expensive compared to the 360 at launch.
Sony gets ripped for the utterly useless nature of the PSP (except for piracy)
Sony gets ripped for not including DualShock 3 into the controllers at first, deciding that people actually wanted Sixaxis, forcing you to replace your already expensive and perfectly good controller with another to have the full feature.
Sony gets ripped for trying to command Apple-like prices for non-Apple-quality products and services.

Ever wonder why you don't hear about Sixaxis and Move in the news? The list goes on, and on, and on. While Microsoft has made some batshit retarded mistakes, Sony is one of the single-most incompetent tech companies of the century, and I look forward to the day I don't need to hear about another one of their "innovations".

Thank you for this stunning commentary that would have been relevant 4 and a half years ago. If you'd like to join us in the present day anytime now, we can discuss the Ps3 as it exists today.

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked