There it is, $500

jondiehl · Post by **jondiehl** » Fri May 12, 2006 2:32 pm

Dave wrote:
pk500 wrote:Bingo. I don't think the clock is ticking on MS as a gaming entity, but anyone who thinks that PlayStation isn't to video gaming what Kleenex is to disposable facial tissue is fooling themselves. I don't care how many Xbox controllers are showing up in the hands of people playing video games on TV, PlayStation is still synonymous with gaming to the vast majority of the population.
But so was Nintendo...

And Atari before it...

ubrakto · Post by **ubrakto** » Fri May 12, 2006 2:40 pm

(EDIT: Dave and Jon beat me to the punch with their posts. That's what I get for being so damn wordy.)

True, but things can change quickly. When the PlayStation 1 came out the words Sony and gaming were not exactly synonymous. Hell, I'm sure most of us remember a time when the dominant console entity was Atari. No, it's not an apples to apples comparison, but it's evidence enough that the gaming public is more than willing to switch to another console brand if the grass looks greener someplace else.

One of Bill Harris' (dubiousquality.blogspot.com) recent posts at E3 talked about all the long lines for the Nintendo stuff and how interested people are in what Nintendo was doing. Meanwhile a lot of Sony PS3 demo units on the floor had lines just two people deep. Certainly, it sounds like at E3 the buzz is not around the PS3 right now, which has to be alarming to Sony.

I do agree, though, that exclusives are key to the PS3's chances of maintaining Sony's dominance on the market (because I really don't think Blu-Ray will do the trick for them). But I also think that if developers start fretting about PS3 sales then you're less likely to see major exclusive titles go their way. No developer wants to risk tying themselves to one console if they think it'll repress their sales (just look at PC gaming). If that happens with the PS3, it will be in dire straights.

I agree with Harris. If Sony doesn't play the next year exactly right from this point forward, there's a lot of reasons to think they may end up in the #3 slot amongst the new consoles. (I'm not saying it will happen, but I do think it's startlingly possible.)
---Todd

Kazuya · Post by **Kazuya** » Fri May 12, 2006 2:43 pm

Dave wrote:
But so was Nintendo...

Completely different market. Video games were not mainstream and the market was far, far smaller and dominated by children, who's buying power was directly related to their parents'. And for better or worse and whether us gamers wanted to admit it back then, NES-era gaming was basically kiddie toys.

The graphics and games of the original Playstation brought gaming to the masses, and with it mass sensibilities such as brand loyalty and recognition. Not to mention, Nintendo's stranglehold was artificial in that they were able to keep a stranglehold on the market because of their business dealings (lockout chip). The PS2 has earned it's market share with software, hardware, and marketing.

Boom · Post by **Boom** » Fri May 12, 2006 2:49 pm

Well here's another little take on it.

In the past 3 or 4 months I've hooked up with some simulation football gamers called the RFC. They play Madden on the PS2 extensively and are a very dedicated group of gamers. There's always 4 or 5 leagues running and they actually thrive. Games are played on time, there's no "i'm quitting due to yada yada yada", etc. I mean this place is a simulation football gamer's paradise. And if you're looking for a game of Madden outside of league play all you gotta do is hop on and somebody from you're EA Friends list (or check on aim prior to logging on) is online looking for a friendly game.

Now comes the other side. Since hooking up with these guys I've really had my eyes opened to how people can enjoy such a hobby while wearing the bilnders.

They know nothing about VC's ESPN NFL 2K franchise. They never played it, never tried it, not even at a kiosk in a video game store. These guys are Sony / EA loyalists / fanboys....DIEHARD

It's crazy. I mean I thought that anyone who played games...even if it's just sports games...or hell even if it's just Madden knew at least a little bit about the industry and it's happenings.

These guys don't, and don't care to know. They are getting the PS3 without researching other options and that's final. There are no other options... like pk stated. They don't know what the 360 has to offer and don't care to know because it's not an option for them.

They will be playing Madden on the PS3 come 2008 for all of their league play. It's already been settled. 2007 for them will remain on the PS2 and they figure by the time Madden 08 comes out it will give everyone time to get on board with their Next Gen purchase of the PS3.

Now granted these guys aren't a large majority of video-gamers by any means, but it's just another demographic that's out there. This particular group is probably about 70 or 80 Madden gamers actively playing anywhere from nightly to 2 or 3 nights a week.

I know this group of people in the RFC has really opened my eyes as to how some people think and feel when it comes to video games.

Sure, we all here have our differences of opinions...no two ways about it. However, at the same time we're all pretty much in the know as to what goes on in the industry. What options are out there. What each system, company etc has to offer.

Apparantly there's a lot of people out there that ain't.

DivotMaker · Post by **DivotMaker** » Fri May 12, 2006 2:51 pm

Kazuya wrote:
You started out well, but you failed to put yourself in the shoes of mass consumers. You just can't understand that for the people who want to buy a PS3, the Xbox 360 is not an option. They don't care about Xbox 360. They want to play the games they've been playing for the last 10 years with Sony, whether it's Metal Gear, Final Fantasy, Tekken, Jak, or new games like God of War. They WANT a PS3. You can't separate nerds like us -- who own all the systems, understand the Xbox 360 and PS3 are basically equal, know what things like HDMI and Blu-Ray are -- from people who just want to play games. They don't want a video game machine, they want a Playstation.

Well, yes I did put myself in the shoes of the mass consumer. How many of these people do you think are going to go from paying $129 for a PS2 and $29.99-$39.99 for games to $600 and $60 for games? If you think that Joe Mass Consumer is going to jump on that, you need to go and re-think that very carefully. I do not see it happening at the current price point. I never once said the PS was not synonymous with video gaming. At one time, Nintendo was THE big video game player. Now they are a distant 3rd. NOTHING is guaranteed in this industry or any industry these days.

Kazuya wrote:There are MP3 players out there that are way better featured and are significantly cheaper than iPods... do you see this curbing Apple's ability to sell overpriced stuff at $400 a pop? No, because people WANT iPods. They don't care about iRiver. If they wanted an MP3 player, it would be a different story. But they want iPods.

I now own 3 iPods, mine, my wife and my daughter. Why? We all owned MP3 players before and NONE OF THEM were as easy to use as the iPOD. When someone can make things easy for a user and they get the same result as with another product WITHOUT the headaches, then there is VALUE in that product.

Kazuya wrote:Even with superior hardware, Xbox Live and blowing billions, M$ did good to capture 15% of the market last go-round... but they were obliterated in sales by Sony and Sony was never threatened. They aren't serious competition for Sony at this time. It could still change, but I fear they really blew it with the bungled launch. They've only shipped just over 3 million after six months... I guarantee you Sony will blow that six-month number away. The clock is ticking on M$...

"They aren't serious competition for Sony this time"? Are you now borrowing statements from Ken Kutaragi? At this point in time, MS is 3million units ahead of PS3. They have 6 more months head start and games will be in their second generation. PS2 had a year head start over XBox AND the benefit of a prior product with tremendous brand loyalty (well-deserved). If you are going to make such comparisons, at least make them apples to apples.

I don't see MS having the kind of success that Sony did with PS2 because Sony has a new product coming out whereas when XBox came out, it was an unknown quantity with NO brand loyalty. MS has hit a home run with the 360 in some ways, but they had a less-than-stellar launch with product shortages at the worst possible time. Sony will be VERY fortunate to not incur supply shortages like MS did since many of the parts for the machine are 3rd party like the 360 and therefore less control over those parts.

While you can certainly gloat about Sony's dominance with the PS2 (also well deserved), to dismiss MS as a competitor is the ultimate in arrogance and naivete.

Dave · Post by **Dave** » Fri May 12, 2006 3:07 pm

Kazuya wrote:Completely different market. Video games were not mainstream and the market was far, far smaller and dominated by children, who's buying power was directly related to their parents'. And for better or worse and whether us gamers wanted to admit it back then, NES-era gaming was basically kiddie toys.

The graphics and games of the original Playstation brought gaming to the masses, and with it mass sensibilities such as brand loyalty and recognition. Not to mention, Nintendo's stranglehold was artificial in that they were able to keep a stranglehold on the market because of their business dealings (lockout chip). The PS2 has earned it's market share with software, hardware, and marketing.

Good points. Although we obviously disagree on the extent of the PlayStation brand strength, it is probably somewhere between Nintendo back then and the iPod.

Anyone have the final sales information for the N64/PSX?

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Fri May 12, 2006 3:08 pm

Dave wrote:
pk500 wrote:Bingo. I don't think the clock is ticking on MS as a gaming entity, but anyone who thinks that PlayStation isn't to video gaming what Kleenex is to disposable facial tissue is fooling themselves. I don't care how many Xbox controllers are showing up in the hands of people playing video games on TV, PlayStation is still synonymous with gaming to the vast majority of the population.
But so was Nintendo...

Gaming never was as big of a mainstream, adult pastime during Nintendo's heyday as it is now. Not even close.

Take care,
PK

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Fri May 12, 2006 3:09 pm

jondiehl wrote:
Dave wrote:
pk500 wrote:Bingo. I don't think the clock is ticking on MS as a gaming entity, but anyone who thinks that PlayStation isn't to video gaming what Kleenex is to disposable facial tissue is fooling themselves. I don't care how many Xbox controllers are showing up in the hands of people playing video games on TV, PlayStation is still synonymous with gaming to the vast majority of the population.
But so was Nintendo...
And Atari before it...

Same thing. Gaming was seen as a fad enjoyed by kids and geeks during the Atari zenith. It wasn't an accepted adult pastime then with widespread, mainstream media attention.

You simply can't compare those eras of gaming with today.

Take care,
PK

Kazuya · Post by **Kazuya** » Fri May 12, 2006 3:35 pm

DivotMaker wrote:
Well, yes I did put myself in the shoes of the mass consumer. How many of these people do you think are going to go from paying $129 for a PS2 and $29.99-$39.99 for games to $600 and $60 for games? If you think that Joe Mass Consumer is going to jump on that, you need to go and re-think that very carefully. I do not see it happening at the current price point. I never once said the PS was not synonymous with video gaming. At one time, Nintendo was THE big video game player. Now they are a distant 3rd. NOTHING is guaranteed in this industry or any industry these days.

I agree with you that the *price* could make people balk (although I do not think that will happen). My point is that people will either buy PS3 or not buy it. They won't get to the store and say, "Hmm, this 360 is $100 cheaper I'll get this instead." They WANT the PS3. If I could put them all in a presentation room with you where you break down who has the better graphics card, maybe M$ would get that share. But like Boom said, they don't do that research.

DivotMaker wrote: I now own 3 iPods, mine, my wife and my daughter. Why? We all owned MP3 players before and NONE OF THEM were as easy to use as the iPOD. When someone can make things easy for a user and they get the same result as with another product WITHOUT the headaches, then there is VALUE in that product.

Absolutely... and the PS3 will be perceived as having the VALUE of being a newer, superior product with a superior library, whether it's true or not. That value, along with the loyalty of 10 years of PlayStation, makes it a no-brainer to stick with Sony.

DivotMaker wrote: "They aren't serious competition for Sony this time"? Are you now borrowing statements from Ken Kutaragi? At this point in time, MS is 3million units ahead of PS3. They have 6 more months head start and games will be in their second generation. PS2 had a year head start over XBox AND the benefit of a prior product with tremendous brand loyalty (well-deserved). If you are going to make such comparisons, at least make them apples to apples.

I don't see MS having the kind of success that Sony did with PS2 because Sony has a new product coming out whereas when XBox came out, it was an unknown quantity with NO brand loyalty. MS has hit a home run with the 360 in some ways, but they had a less-than-stellar launch with product shortages at the worst possible time. Sony will be VERY fortunate to not incur supply shortages like MS did since many of the parts for the machine are 3rd party like the 360 and therefore less control over those parts.

While you can certainly gloat about Sony's dominance with the PS2 (also well deserved), to dismiss MS as a competitor is the ultimate in arrogance and naivete.

As Kutaragi is fond of saying, Sony has never been first to market. Xbox lead time is largely irrelevant for a system that nobody wants except for a small segment of the population. That 3 million is going to seem like a drop in the bucket in a few years.

Xbox is not serious competition because they've never done anything. They've tossed around a lot of money to keep Xbox afloat, and they've sold a few 360s. Not much history. And though I've been a fan of and owned both of their consoles, they've done a lot of things wrong which certainly have contributed to their distant second place. Sucked in Japan, original Xbox was mostly a FPS/sports box that was weak in library variety compared to PS2, few kids games, bungled 360 launch and more. Until they prove they can do it, they're not serious competition. Like the Mavs knocking off the Spurs... until they do it, it's all just pie in the sky.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Fri May 12, 2006 3:59 pm

I dont know the reason why...but...It seems to me the reason most people here lean towards the box is that most of them are older...

MY guess is that its because we KNOW we dont owe anything to a videogame company...nor do we have any misguided loyalties..

Sony, MS and Nintendo are not sports teams...They are a BUY that we have to think through...not a blind rooting interest...

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Fri May 12, 2006 4:31 pm

I think most of us here lean toward the Xbox for two reasons:

1. Sports and first-person shooters are our favorite genres.
2. We like online gaming.

The Xbox does both of the above very well.

But Kaz is right: If you're a fan of RPGs, platform games or kids' games, the PS2 is better than the Xbox.

Take care,
PK

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Fri May 12, 2006 4:38 pm

pk500 wrote:
jondiehl wrote:
Dave wrote: But so was Nintendo...
And Atari before it...
Same thing. Gaming was seen as a fad enjoyed by kids and geeks during the Atari zenith. It wasn't an accepted adult pastime then with widespread, mainstream media attention.

You simply can't compare those eras of gaming with today.

Take care,
PK

You can't compare eras but you can compare consoles. Each console lost the war because it couldn't evolve to the next generation.

Why was Nintendo so successful after taking over the reigns from Atari. I don't know the economics back then but Nintendo's fall took place with the N64. It didn't adapt... I remember the outrage when the N64 didn't move over to CD format.

I think game companies when they get to the top focus on specs and how to frame processing in a great PR statement. Where as the competitors focus on games and functionality. Futher is Sony isn't making the PS3 for games, they are making to standardize Blu-Ray. That is why the PS3 might lose round 2 of the console wars.

Plus I think MS just played their hand almost perfectly. All they needed was more consoles at launch and they would have pulled this off exceptionally well. Not only that but aside from a few quibbles, the 360 is about entertainment. The PS3 is about Blu-Ray and standardizing HD. That's a big difference there. And MS has the background in this arena and Sony doesn't. MS has been planning this for atleast a 5 years if not longer. When MS started to enter into the sports gaming business, I said to myself they are planning something big. Their online gaming network was a trial for their online console network. Then they provide the OS for the dreamcast.

Back to the point, it seems that console start to lose traction when the companies forget what consoles are supposed to do, play games with features that enhance that experience for a good value. It seems that MS and Nintendo understand it this round and Sony doesn't.

skinsfan · Post by **skinsfan** » Fri May 12, 2006 4:58 pm

There is no way Sony is in trouble with the PS3.The pent-up demand is enormous.An extra hundred dollars is not going to keep the vast majority of Playstation fans from migrating to the next console.
As others have posted,there are great numbers of people who will buy the PS3 automatically and give no thought to Xbox 360. There is no compelling reason for Playstation fans to switch to a new console and new controllers.Tens of millions of gamers will keep playing PS2(which has seen no drop off of support from developers like Xbox has) until PS3 comes out.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Fri May 12, 2006 5:14 pm

- Speaking of iPods, Walt Mossberg compared the iPod/iTunes combo (hardware complemented by good software and services) to Xbox/XBL. Only thing is, you're not required to buy songs from iTunes in order to enjoy the iPod.

- Nintendo's downfall was trying to hold the industry back from going to optical media (from cartridges) because they were interested in the cozy cartridge infrastructure they controlled. Sony's downfall may be trying to force the industry forward to blue-laser media because they're interested in the Blu-Ray patents (and movie studios) they own.

- Sony's trying to capitalize on this growing transition to HDTV, which may draw in some non-gamers because of the Blu-Ray capability. Nintendo is trying to draw in casual or non-gamers with what is hoped to be a fun, intuitive control scheme. (but one of the analysts quoted in a Gamespot article says Japan's gaming market is struggling so both may have problems using Japanese market share to boost global market share).

- The Playstation brand equity is based on exclusives and broad gaming library, much of which comes from outside companies like Square and Take Two. Yet a high-price is always the bane of publishers (EA and others constantly lobbied, even publicly, for console price cuts and saw game sales spike following such price cuts).

DivotMaker · Post by **DivotMaker** » Fri May 12, 2006 5:34 pm

Kazuya wrote:
I agree with you that the *price* could make people balk (although I do not think that will happen). My point is that people will either buy PS3 or not buy it. They won't get to the store and say, "Hmm, this 360 is $100 cheaper I'll get this instead." They WANT the PS3. If I could put them all in a presentation room with you where you break down who has the better graphics card, maybe M$ would get that share. But like Boom said, they don't do that research.

What you don't seem to be getting is that to get the next Playstation, users are going to have to fork out $200-300 more than they did if they bought one at the PS2 launch. In contrast to your Sony-can-do-no-wrong way of thinking, I think Joe Q. Public is going to have to think long and hard about the next Playstation...especially when the previous one is $129. This is really not about the 360...this is about how far out of whack the PS3 is in comparison to it's competition and the market in general. And don't think MS is going to sit on their hands over the next six months...I would bet they are licking their chops as this scenario is likely better than what they could have dreamed of. MS's biggest fear was that Sony would come in at the same price points as the 360. You can talk all day long about features, but when users are at a kiosk and can see the same game on two machines of equal power, you think they are going to choose the one that is $100-200 more expensive? If so, people deserve to be screwed.

Kazuya wrote:Absolutely... and the PS3 will be perceived as having the VALUE of being a newer, superior product with a superior library, whether it's true or not. That value, along with the loyalty of 10 years of PlayStation, makes it a no-brainer to stick with Sony.

You are making some pretty broad assumptions. If users see the same games running on both machines, what they are very likely NOT to see is $100-200 difference. If PS3 pricing was equal or comparable to the 360, then I can fully understand brand loyalty in that scenario. You also assume the PS3 is a superior product with a superior library. That is a long way from being determined.

Kazuya wrote:As Kutaragi is fond of saying, Sony has never been first to market. Xbox lead time is largely irrelevant for a system that nobody wants except for a small segment of the population. That 3 million is going to seem like a drop in the bucket in a few years.

Where are you getting this nonsense that the 360 is irrelevant and nobody wants one? Your Sony-tinted glasses are really screwing with your objectivity. MS wants to be successful in this market. They have succeeded in virtually every market they targetted. For you to dismiss them as irrelevant is mind-numbing.

Kazuya wrote:Xbox is not serious competition because they've never done anything. They've tossed around a lot of money to keep Xbox afloat, and they've sold a few 360s. Not much history. And though I've been a fan of and owned both of their consoles, they've done a lot of things wrong which certainly have contributed to their distant second place. Sucked in Japan, original Xbox was mostly a FPS/sports box that was weak in library variety compared to PS2, few kids games, bungled 360 launch and more. Until they prove they can do it, they're not serious competition. Like the Mavs knocking off the Spurs... until they do it, it's all just pie in the sky.

MS sucks in Japan because they have not targetted that market with the right software. Plus, Sony is a Japanese company which does make a difference over there. For you to say that MS is no competition because they have done nothing is also pretty ridiculous. Unlike XBox, they are a year ahead of Sony (reversed from the last time with PS2 being first out by a year) and they are getting a number of games for the system that were Sony exclusives in the past such as GTA. If I did not know better, I would say you are a closet Sony Marketing employee......

TRI · Post by **TRI** » Fri May 12, 2006 8:23 pm

skinsfan wrote:There is no way Sony is in trouble with the PS3.The pent-up demand is enormous.An extra hundred dollars is not going to keep the vast majority of Playstation fans from migrating to the next console.
As others have posted,there are great numbers of people who will buy the PS3 automatically and give no thought to Xbox 360. There is no compelling reason for Playstation fans to switch to a new console and new controllers.Tens of millions of gamers will keep playing PS2(which has seen no drop off of support from developers like Xbox has) until PS3 comes out.

Yes but the PS3 games will probably be more expensive than XBOX 360 games because of Blu Ray. It is not just the cost of the hardware that will discourage the casuals from buying the PS3. Many people who want a PS3 will look at the price and decide to get a XBOX 360 instead because they are not going to spend $200.00 more if it is not worth it. I would not be surprised if no more than 50 million PS3 are sold by 2011 assuming Sony is still in business by 2011. You cannot assume that all the PS2 user base is loyal to Sony because the data does not show that. It is lot more complicated than you think. The success of the PS3 will be determined by several things like hardware price, the game library, reliability, cost of developing games for the PS3, success of Blu Ray, price of the games etc. Microsoft will have a big advantage in cost and price. The XBOX 360 game library will also be much stronger compared to XBOX. Last generation Sony had all the advantages but not this time. They do have mind share which is important but price is extremely important especially since the game library for the XBOX 360 will be much stronger than XBOX.

SoMisss2000 · Post by **SoMisss2000** » Fri May 12, 2006 8:35 pm

Dave wrote:
pk500 wrote:Bingo. I don't think the clock is ticking on MS as a gaming entity, but anyone who thinks that PlayStation isn't to video gaming what Kleenex is to disposable facial tissue is fooling themselves. I don't care how many Xbox controllers are showing up in the hands of people playing video games on TV, PlayStation is still synonymous with gaming to the vast majority of the population.
But so was Nintendo...

yep

seanmac31 · Post by **seanmac31** » Sat May 13, 2006 2:42 am

There is unquestionably a significant portion of the gaming public that is wedded to a brand name, and it stands to reason that a majority of those people will be wedded to the Sony brandname, the undisputed market share leader at the moment. There are people who are just going to play Madden and NBA Live, and there are people who are just going to play on a Playstation console, and of course there are people who are only going to play Madden and only on a Playstation console. But I'm not convinced that brand loyalty is really going to have the same kind of sticking power as political affiliation or even loyalty to a sports team.

Look at it this way- if EA was to announce an exclusive deal with Microsoft where Madden would only come out for the 360, a lot of football fans who have only owned PS1s or PS2s would run out and buy a 360 come football season. You can afford to have brand loyalty so long as you are getting an essentially comparable experience.

Inuyasha · Post by **Inuyasha** » Sat May 13, 2006 3:29 am

Kazuya wrote:As Kutaragi is fond of saying, Sony has never been first to market. Xbox lead time is largely irrelevant for a system that nobody wants except for a small segment of the population. That 3 million is going to seem like a drop in the bucket in a few years.

Last time I checked the calender, 2002 was 4 years ago. I remember the sony fanboys back then were so quick to dismiss the Xbox and gurantee that there wouldn't be a Xbox2 and it would be another dreamcast. I think the 'small segment' line was probably the most ignorant thing I've read on this website for quite a while.

Kazuya · Post by **Kazuya** » Sat May 13, 2006 4:38 am

Inuyasha wrote:
Kazuya wrote:As Kutaragi is fond of saying, Sony has never been first to market. Xbox lead time is largely irrelevant for a system that nobody wants except for a small segment of the population. That 3 million is going to seem like a drop in the bucket in a few years.
Last time I checked the calender, 2002 was 4 years ago. I remember the sony fanboys back then were so quick to dismiss the Xbox and gurantee that there wouldn't be a Xbox2 and it would be another dreamcast. I think the 'small segment' line was probably the most ignorant thing I've read on this website for quite a while.

The only reason the Xbox did survive was because maybe the only company in the world that could sustain the massive losses it incurred happened to be backing it... not because of the success of the system. From 2001 to 2005 M$ lost 4 billion dollars on Xbox. I think, well, your entire post was pretty much the most ignorant thing I've read on this website for quite a while.

K_Mosley · Post by **K_Mosley** » Sat May 13, 2006 9:26 am

Kazuya wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kazuya wrote:As Kutaragi is fond of saying, Sony has never been first to market. Xbox lead time is largely irrelevant for a system that nobody wants except for a small segment of the population. That 3 million is going to seem like a drop in the bucket in a few years.
Last time I checked the calender, 2002 was 4 years ago. I remember the sony fanboys back then were so quick to dismiss the Xbox and gurantee that there wouldn't be a Xbox2 and it would be another dreamcast. I think the 'small segment' line was probably the most ignorant thing I've read on this website for quite a while.
The only reason the Xbox did survive was because maybe the only company in the world that could sustain the massive losses it incurred happened to be backing it... not because of the success of the system. From 2001 to 2005 M$ lost 4 billion dollars on Xbox. I think, well, your entire post was pretty much the most ignorant thing I've read on this website for quite a while.

Even at $599, how much is Sony going to lose on each console? How much can they absorb? I haven't researched it or anything, but I'm guessing that MS is stronger financially than Sony. Isn't this a bigger gamble for Sony than it was for MS?

Kevin

DivotMaker · Post by **DivotMaker** » Sat May 13, 2006 10:38 am

Kazuya wrote:
The only reason the Xbox did survive was because maybe the only company in the world that could sustain the massive losses it incurred happened to be backing it... not because of the success of the system. From 2001 to 2005 M$ lost 4 billion dollars on Xbox. I think, well, your entire post was pretty much the most ignorant thing I've read on this website for quite a while.

Well, you do pick your facts in such a way as to make MS look pathetic and Sony look like a world-beater. Sony is NOT doing very well right now. They are banking a great deal their future on PS3. No one knows for sure how much Sony nor MS is losing on each console. However, we all know that with every new console loss, each company expects to not make money on the hardware or even lose money. Software is where the money is made.

You hand-picked the $4 Bn figure for MS. MS started XBox from scratch with a machine that was superior to the PS2 in many ways and quite a bit more costly. Starting from scratch also meant that MS would hemorrhage money until they could get enough machines out to start seeing revenues from the software being sold for it. On top of that, competing with a company that at the time was on a ROLL, made this timeframe even MORE skewed than it is today.

TODAY, you have Sony which is NOT on a roll at this point in time. They are banking on PS3 to pull themselves out of their recent rut which also included a lackluster launch of the PSP which suffered due to a high price structure and not very many good games at launch. PSP also suffered because of a well-positioned competitor, Nintendo and their handheld business. Here it is over a year later and finally the PSP is getting going. PS3 canNOT suffer a similar fate. Yet Sony finds themselves in a similar situation against the 360. While the 360 is not to be confused with Nintendo's handheld marketshare, the 360 is out and is pretty much everything the PS3 is claiming to be at a much lower price. I look for MS to begin working on mindshare between now and beyond the PS3 launch. This is a GOLDEN opportunity for them to position themselves to go toe to toe with Sony. If MS can get on and maintain equal footing with Sony, I like their chances. However, they need to get the word out and market the hell out of the 360 and convince people to at least compare the 360 and PS3 side by side. If consumers will arm themselves with facts, then they make an informed choice. MS has GOT TO help them at least look at the FACTS, not marketing hype.

At the end of the day, NONE OF US can predict with certainty how this generation will unfold. I think it is incredibly myopic for anyone to think that Sony will repeat the performance of the PS2. This is a very different situation than PS2/XBox. In my mind, Sony has a great deal of 'splaining to do for their strategy with PS3. They keep telling us that the PS3 is like a fine dining experience that should command a fine price.....they have not shown me anything to this point that indicates the experience is any "finer" than what I already have. In the end, I think their arrogance and attitude will bite them in the @ss. At least it has with this consumer. This will be the first Playstation that I will NOT be buying at launch.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Sat May 13, 2006 1:45 pm

Sony is doing fine. They don't have tens of billions in cash like Microsoft but no other company does, except the oil companies these days.

Their Bravia line has been a big hit since being intro'd only last fall and the PS2 is still selling well. Spiderman 3 will come out next year and boost their studios. PSP may not have sold as many units as the DS but they got some 17 million units in a little bit over a year. Nintendo is doing fine in that market but they never had an entrenched competitor before.

However, they are pouring money into R&D for the PS3 so they've made a big bet on it. They got no choice though, as the Playstation business has provided as much as 40% of their profits in some years.

You're still talking about a company which banks hundreds of millions in profits each year at a minimum. But in good years, they reap billions, which is why relatively speaking, they're "in trouble."

MS is doing fine too. They'll make billions each year from Office and Windows for the foreseeable future. It's just that none of their new businesses, like cell phones or consoles or now, they want to compete with Google, are making money. Certainly nowhere near their Office and Windows business.

Barring a global depression for a couple of decades, both companies will be producing games for a long time (don't buy that TR1 bullshit about Sony being gone in 5 years, he's been saying that for years).

kevinpars · Post by **kevinpars** » Sat May 13, 2006 5:00 pm

Sony has been on a pretty cold streak. Fake movie reviewers, copy protection viruses, the collapse of the music industry model.....

As for Microsoft, they simply cannot afford to give up on their gaming business. Sure, they are losing money on it, but name another Microsoft division that has shown any innovation in the last 5 years. One could argue that they never showed a lot of innovation - they got a deal/steal on DOS, they 'borrowed' the best features of Windows 95 from Apple and Windows XP is simply a more stable version of that product. But Xbox Live and some of the other features of the Xbox/360 have taken a positive step forward in the gaming industry. 360 Arcade at least offers a chance for the small publisher to get a foot in the door and allows for some innovative games for a small cost.

Yes, I am happy with my 360 decision because in 2 months I will be playing NCAA and a month after that I will be playing my second version of Madden. And after getting a Datel memory manager and a memory card, I was able to reformat my hard drive and am now playing College Hoops with real rosters and MLB 2K6 with the latest rosters not to mention working through Oblivion.

MizzouRah · Post by **MizzouRah** » Sat May 13, 2006 6:56 pm

kevinpars wrote:Sony has been on a pretty cold streak. Fake movie reviewers, copy protection viruses, the collapse of the music industry model.....

As for Microsoft, they simply cannot afford to give up on their gaming business. Sure, they are losing money on it, but name another Microsoft division that has shown any innovation in the last 5 years. One could argue that they never showed a lot of innovation - they got a deal/steal on DOS, they 'borrowed' the best features of Windows 95 from Apple and Windows XP is simply a more stable version of that product. But Xbox Live and some of the other features of the Xbox/360 have taken a positive step forward in the gaming industry. 360 Arcade at least offers a chance for the small publisher to get a foot in the door and allows for some innovative games for a small cost.

Yes, I am happy with my 360 decision because in 2 months I will be playing NCAA and a month after that I will be playing my second version of Madden. And after getting a Datel memory manager and a memory card, I was able to reformat my hard drive and am now playing College Hoops with real rosters and MLB 2K6 with the latest rosters not to mention working through Oblivion.

Great post. I'm going to wait to see what the ps3 brings to the table before making my next console purchase. With EA's NFL Head Coach coming to the PC, I'm fine for now.

I will say though, I'm disappointed by the news for the ps3 and I'm leaning on the 360 as my console choice when the time comes to pick up the next generation gaming system.