The smell of desperation is in the air...PS3

[kexodusc]

And surely you are not going to suggest that 10 year olds run major corporations either.

Not suggesting that at all.

I agree with your point about consumers, but you can't disagree that there is plenty of concern in the financial world about Sony and its finances.

100% in agreement with you on this point, and have been from the start if you follow the thread. Sony's got a lot of problems right now, fighting too many wars at once if you ask me. But analyzing Sony, and analyzing PS3's potential in the console market are a bit different. PS3 has time to recover market share, be a big, meaningful player, and if nothing else, keep Sony in position for profiting on future generations of consoles. All it takes is one "Halo" to come along and suddenly PS3's are in demand.

I think a lot of Xbox 360 buyers are planning on getting a PS3, too.

Plenty of concern with Sony, but they're not going anywhere. Companies can loose billions for years and keep going - look at Ford.

Oh, and no hard feelings either, Beef...I was just razzing you about being on the payroll (couldn't ya tell with the :P smiley?) - I like the updates on the console wars you bring here, even if the perspective seems slightly tilted. Keep waiting for the one that says "...to cut price by 50%"

[Woochifer]

A major reason that the PS3 is in the supply chain so quickly is that they were forced to use air freight to get many units in for the holidays. That is why the supply chain had as many units as it did. As it was it was still 40% less than expected. The problem as you stated is that there is a lul in the market. In my opinion this will reinforce the negative perception that SOME consumers have of the system. As in "Hey this was supposed to be a really hot system. Why is my local BB have 17 of them on the floor for the last week? Must not be that hot." On the flip side, the Wii cant be kept in stock. It simply reinforces the idea that maybe the PS3 isn't such a great system. This doesn't translate into the 360 because it is an established system and the supply chain has been established.

And what does this perception ultimately amount to in the end? Probably not much in the long run, since Sony was not purposely trying to constrict the supply or create a perception of scarcity in the market to boost demand. IMO, this is probably not history repeating itself as with the DeLorean fiasco, but that kind of perception could work to suppress sales in the short-term. Nintendo can't keep the Wii in stock because they did not have as much production capacity available (don't know the situation now, but my understanding is that they used a lot of lead time to get their unit numbers up prior to launch). There's more PS3 in the market simply because Sony has been in full volume production since early-December, and they always had plenty of manufacturing capacity on tap. It was only that blue diode component shortage that kept them from running at full capacity early on.

You need to read some more fanboy sites. Your a bit behind on your data. Sony has lost MANY exclusives to MS in the last few months. Guitar Hero will be coming out first Q 2007, Rockstar Games is shipping GTA 4 the same day for PS3, 360, a HUGE departure from the past when MS got the game several months after the PS2 got it. Take Two is getting away from Sony Exlusives. Tekken 5 a very popluar series is coming to the 360, and UbiSoft (assisins creed) another prior Sony Exclusive developer is now developing games for the 360. Virtua Fighter 5, another prior Sony Exclusive...gone, now to be developed for the 360/PS3.

While in no way will these losses kill Sony, they can't help either. GTA was a system seller, and now it comes out the same time for example.

Behind on the data? I'm simply reviewing what happened in 2006 where the big surprise turned out to be the staying power of the PS2. PS2 losing exclusivity shouldn't be a surprise since it's a six-year old platform. But, if anyone expects the Xbox 360 or any other system to emerge as the heir apparent to the PS2, the wannabe successor had better start by outselling the PS2 and steering developers away from supporting the platform altogether. Hasn't happened yet.

Actually I disagree. For MS to move forward I think that it was a good move to support the new system 100%. The installed base isn't as large as the PS2, and studios are still free to develop games for the original Xbox.

Not as big as the PS2, but still over 20 million users. That's a lot of consumers who have basically been abandoned by Microsoft. And with the limited backwards compatibility of the Xbox 360, it's a lot of users who might not follow the upgrade path that Microsoft has mapped out for them.

Lowering the console price to match the PS2's $129, Microsoft could have kept a presence in the entry level market, and put some more pressure on Sony. Instead, they basically gave a second wind to the PS2, and potentially accelerated the loss of developer support for the original Xbox. So far, the Xbox 360 has been a very mixed bag, and far from a runaway success story. The software sales have gone better than expected, but the hardware sales have yet to even equal what the original Xbox sold at this juncture. I just question why Microsoft would abandon a platform that had still had plenty of life left in it. I don't think that the Xbox would have cannibalized sales for the Xbox 360, but it certainly could have competed with the PS2 and kept it from outselling the Xbox 360.

[Groundbeef]

Behind on the data? I'm simply reviewing what happened in 2006 where the big surprise turned out to be the staying power of the PS2. PS2 losing exclusivity shouldn't be a surprise since it's a six-year old platform. But, if anyone expects the Xbox 360 or any other system to emerge as the heir apparent to the PS2, the wannabe successor had better start by outselling the PS2 and steering developers away from supporting the platform altogether. Hasn't happened yet. .

No, but by gaining far more acceptance from developers the 360 is making several inroads that it didn't have w/ original Xbox. Word is that MS is doing backflips to get developers to make games for it. Wheras Sony is resting a bit on its laurels. This is going to hurt them in the future. Without exclusives, where is the need for the extra $200. If you can get the same game w/same graphics why pay the extra dough?

As HD penetrates the market further I see the demand for next gen increasing exponentially. That is where MS is looking. If Sony is content to lose developers so be it.

Not as big as the PS2, but still over 20 million users. That's a lot of consumers who have basically been abandoned by Microsoft. And with the limited backwards compatibility of the Xbox 360, it's a lot of users who might not follow the upgrade path that Microsoft has mapped out for them.

Lowering the console price to match the PS2's $129, Microsoft could have kept a presence in the entry level market, and put some more pressure on Sony. Instead, they basically gave a second wind to the PS2, and potentially accelerated the loss of developer support for the original Xbox. So far, the Xbox 360 has been a very mixed bag, and far from a runaway success story. The software sales have gone better than expected, but the hardware sales have yet to even equal what the original Xbox sold at this juncture. I just question why Microsoft would abandon a platform that had still had plenty of life left in it. I don't think that the Xbox would have cannibalized sales for the Xbox 360, but it certainly could have competed with the PS2 and kept it from outselling the Xbox 360.

Although MS has not made any more XBOX consoles I would hesitate to say they have been left out in the cold. Games are still being developed for it. AT&T wasn't run out on a rail after they stopped making the rotary dial phone right? I mean comon, MS is wanting consumers to buy the 360 so be it.

Anyway gotta get to bed. 2:30am comes mighty early, and I gotta be to work on time. Cheers!

[Woochifer]

No, but by gaining far more acceptance from developers the 360 is making several inroads that it didn't have w/ original Xbox. Word is that MS is doing backflips to get developers to make games for it. Wheras Sony is resting a bit on its laurels. This is going to hurt them in the future. Without exclusives, where is the need for the extra $200. If you can get the same game w/same graphics why pay the extra dough?

As HD penetrates the market further I see the demand for next gen increasing exponentially. That is where MS is looking. If Sony is content to lose developers so be it.

Sony was going to lose exclusives regardless of what Microsoft is doing simply because the Xbox 360 made it to market first, and now has an installed user base in place. That's why just about every market analyst I've read has been projecting that the market share for the different console platforms will be much more evenly split this time around.

Major games for the PS3 that will supposedly better exploit the system's more powerful processors are still in development. I actually think that in the end the better graphical capability on the PS3 will start showing up with latter games. But, whether consumers are willing to pay the extra $100 for more powerful hardware and whether that translates into market share is a totally different question. After all, the original Xbox had a clear technical advantage over the PS2, but that did not translate into better sales. At this point, I'm not even sure if the HD resolution is all that big a selling point just yet. If anything, the PS3's backwards compatibility with the PS2 might be a stronger selling point at the moment.

Although MS has not made any more XBOX consoles I would hesitate to say they have been left out in the cold. Games are still being developed for it. AT&T wasn't run out on a rail after they stopped making the rotary dial phone right? I mean comon, MS is wanting consumers to buy the 360 so be it.

Games are still being developed, but I don't think that developers are too keen on continuing to support a platform with zero growth prospects on the hardware side. Microsoft has purportedly stopped all game development for the original Xbox, and stopping hardware production means no further growth in the installed user base. They're basically trying to force consumers to upgrade by taking their choices away (pretty much the same thing that they do on the PC side), and they've obviously taken the presumption that their Xbox users will follow through and upgrade to the 360. But, they also leave the door wide open for those users to migrate over to a different platform, since the Xbox 360 doesn't have strong backwards compatibility as one of its selling points.

Say what you will about Sony, but as Kex pointed out they will doggedly support their formats to the bitter end, so long as there are still consumers out there that will buy them. They only stopped making the original Playstation console last March, and obviously they plan to continue making and supporting the PS2 for at least the foreseeable future. The PS2 installed user base is still growing, and the backwards compatibility built into the PS3 means that developers can continue to support the platform until the market naturally transitions into the next gen consoles. If Sony had stopped production on the original Playstation and only offered limited backwards compatibility with the PS2, I think game development on the original Playstation would have ended much sooner and the PS2 would not have caught on with casual gamers as quickly as it did.

BTW, AT&T kept offering rotary phones all the way until the old Bell system was broken up, and to this day, you can still make an outgoing call using a rotary phone.

[Geoffcin]

Major games for the PS3 that will supposedly better exploit the system's more powerful processors are still in development. I actually think that in the end the better graphical capability on the PS3 will start showing up with latter games. But, whether consumers are willing to pay the extra $100 for more powerful hardware and whether that translates into market share is a totally different question. After all, the original Xbox had a clear technical advantage over the PS2, but that did not translate into better sales. At this point, I'm not even sure if the HD resolution is all that big a selling point just yet. If anything, the PS3's backwards compatibility with the PS2 might be a stronger selling point at the moment.

. But, they also leave the door wide open for those users to migrate over to a different platform, since the Xbox 360 doesn't have strong backwards compatibility as one of its selling points.

.

Just from the short time I've had with the XBOX 360 it's a no-brainer to say that gaming in HD is worth the upgrade. My daughter has several dozen original Xbox games, and so far ALL of them have been backwardly compatable. You have to download an emulator to make them play, but that it free.

http://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/back...ygameslist.htm

Honestly though, we really haven't played many.

[Groundbeef]

Sony was going to lose exclusives regardless of what Microsoft is doing simply because the Xbox 360 made it to market first, and now has an installed user base in place. That's why just about every market analyst I've read has been projecting that the market share for the different console platforms will be much more evenly split this time around.

This is different this round. Last round Sony locked up exclusives, and left MS peeking in the window. This time MS actively courted companies that previously prompty shut the door on them. By offering deveolpment assistance (money) and asking for features that they would require MS gained much respect from developers that felt MS had been aloof to their needs. For example Gears of War deveolper Epic Games worked with MS and requested more memory. It cost MS $1 billion in extra cash for the 360, but now the advantage is clear. This is something MS would not have done in the first round. Your readings are corrrect, but your analysis is a bit off. Its not simply that they were first. MS has been very proactive in stealing exclusive titles and developers. Sony has not.

Major games for the PS3 that will supposedly better exploit the system's more powerful processors are still in development. I actually think that in the end the better graphical capability on the PS3 will start showing up with latter games. But, whether consumers are willing to pay the extra $100 for more powerful hardware and whether that translates into market share is a totally different question. After all, the original Xbox had a clear technical advantage over the PS2, but that did not translate into better sales. At this point, I'm not even sure if the HD resolution is all that big a selling point just yet. If anything, the PS3's backwards compatibility with the PS2 might be a stronger selling point at the moment.

Please, that is a lame arguement. The PS3 has been in extra development for over 8 MONTHS after the 360 release. With that rational you might as well say that SONY will never catch up because MS will ALWAYS be 1 generation of games ahead. The games that Sony had time to polish simply werent. Fight Night 3 for example looks no better, and in some play WORSE than the 360. Thats after 8 months of additional programming.

Games are still being developed, but I don't think that developers are too keen on continuing to support a platform with zero growth prospects on the hardware side. Microsoft has purportedly stopped all game development for the original Xbox, and stopping hardware production means no further growth in the installed user base. They're basically trying to force consumers to upgrade by taking their choices away (pretty much the same thing that they do on the PC side), and they've obviously taken the presumption that their Xbox users will follow through and upgrade to the 360. But, they also leave the door wide open for those users to migrate over to a different platform, since the Xbox 360 doesn't have strong backwards compatibility as one of its selling points.

Or, on the flip side, Sony is not offering gamers a compelling reason to switch to the new machine. After all, what is the loss for gamers if they can play the PS2 games on the new system? Why give them a choice. I see it differently than you I guess on this point. Any Xbox owner (original) woudn't switch to a PS2 because MS has stopped making the machine. Perhaps somone who never owned a console, but not a current owner. And now the Wii will help negate that influence..

Say what you will about Sony, but as Kex pointed out they will doggedly support their formats to the bitter end, so long as there are still consumers out there that will buy them. They only stopped making the original Playstation console last March, and obviously they plan to continue making and supporting the PS2 for at least the foreseeable future. The PS2 installed user base is still growing, and the backwards compatibility built into the PS3 means that developers can continue to support the platform until the market naturally transitions into the next gen consoles. If Sony had stopped production on the original Playstation and only offered limited backwards compatibility with the PS2, I think game development on the original Playstation would have ended much sooner and the PS2 would not have caught on with casual gamers as quickly as it did.

Again, blindy following a course of action may not lead to positive results.

BTW, AT&T kept offering rotary phones all the way until the old Bell system was broken up, and to this day, you can still make an outgoing call using a rotary phone.

And anyone who has an original Xbox will be able to play their games well into the future. You missed the point that AT&T didn't collapse because they stopped selling rotary phone. BTW there are situations were rotary phones are useless IE any menu requiring input. Sometimes there are operators to assist, but not always.

[Woochifer]

Please, that is a lame arguement. The PS3 has been in extra development for over 8 MONTHS after the 360 release. With that rational you might as well say that SONY will never catch up because MS will ALWAYS be 1 generation of games ahead. The games that Sony had time to polish simply werent. Fight Night 3 for example looks no better, and in some play WORSE than the 360. Thats after 8 months of additional programming.

Why would it be a lame argument? The PS3 games that are out there right now are a relatively limited group. Are you saying that PS3 developers have hit the technical ceiling already? A lot of the early Xbox games looked no better than their PS2 counterparts, but that certainly was no indicator of what the platform would produce later on. You have no idea what the PS3 games will look like a year from now. My point was simply that the PS3 hardware has a technical advantage, but even if developers exploit that advantage, that does not guarantee market share for the platform (e.g., the original Xbox).

Or, on the flip side, Sony is not offering gamers a compelling reason to switch to the new machine. After all, what is the loss for gamers if they can play the PS2 games on the new system? Why give them a choice. I see it differently than you I guess on this point. Any Xbox owner (original) woudn't switch to a PS2 because MS has stopped making the machine. Perhaps somone who never owned a console, but not a current owner. And now the Wii will help negate that influence..

Eventually it's the casual gamers who will make or break these formats, and for anyone who has already made an investment in games and accessories the backwards compatibility is definitely one deciding factor among many. A hardcore gamer might not care at all whether a PS3 can play PS2 games, but for a parent deciding on a game system for the family, the ability to play PS2 games is very important. Why give consumers a choice? Because they generally want them, and markets are ultimately about choices. Consumers generally like them, monopolists like Microsoft hate them. With console gaming, they're competing in a market space where they don't have as much leverage over consumer choices, so it remains to be seen whether their move to abandon the Xbox was smart. I can see where they would want to focus all of their resources on their most current project, but they also have over 20 million legacy customers that they have placed into forced obsolescence.

An Xbox owner might not switch to the PS2, but they very well might switch to the PS3 or the Wii, since there is less of a continuity between the Xbox and the Xbox 360 as there is between the Playstation models.

Again, blindy following a course of action may not lead to positive results.

How's it blind to continue answering to consumers if market demand remains in place? Sony might have an absurdly low threshold to cross before they pull the plug on formats that they've developed, but I don't think it would be to their benefit if they followed Microsoft's model by killing the PS2 on the assumption that it would prop up the PS3. Consumers are still buying PS2s by the millions, so why deny them the choices that they want?

BTW, I popped by the local Best Buy during my lunch break. No PS3s in stock, no Wiis in stock, and even no PS2s in stock. But, they had about 60 Xbox 360s on the floor.

[Groundbeef]

Why would it be a lame argument? The PS3 games that are out there right now are a relatively limited group. Are you saying that PS3 developers have hit the technical ceiling already? A lot of the early Xbox games looked no better than their PS2 counterparts, but that certainly was no indicator of what the platform would produce later on. You have no idea what the PS3 games will look like a year from now. My point was simply that the PS3 hardware has a technical advantage, but even if developers exploit that advantage, that does not guarantee market share for the platform (e.g., the original Xbox).

Ok, heres why that is a lame arguement. During the buildup Sony portrayed the PS3 as the end-all console of consoles. I think only the Second Coming of Jesus himself could have edged out the excitement that Sony was dishing out. Now, add to the hype an EXTRA 8 months development time. Now remember, we were promised that this machine would BLOW the 360 out of the water.

So guess what? The hype didn't match up. Even though developers had an EXTRA 8 months developent time, they still cant match the 360 in graphics OR gameplay. That is downright stupid.

I never said that the PS3 has hit its tech limits. But they sure shot themselves in the foot with this. Who wants to buy the "Next Gen Console" and then be told by the salesman...."Just wait TILL NEXT YEAR FOR THE REALLY GOOD GAMES!!!".... In essence you are suggesting that the PS3 will forever be behind the 360.

And as for "Technical Advantage", depends on what tech nerd you are quoteing. The cell my be a hardier processer, but the badwidth, and the level of RAM is 1/2 that of the 360. In essence it has a bigger engine, and is hobbled with a 2 gear transmission. If you want to argue this line, we had better start another thread.

MS delivered on the promise of HD games, enhanced online content, and solid gameplay. They didn't engage in trash talk like the Sony Managment team. Yes they had some supply issues, and some hardware issues, but that was resolved.

Eventually it's the casual gamers who will make or break these formats, and for anyone who has already made an investment in games and accessories the backwards compatibility is definitely one deciding factor among many. A hardcore gamer might not care at all whether a PS3 can play PS2 games, but for a parent deciding on a game system for the family, the ability to play PS2 games is very important. Why give consumers a choice? Because they generally want them, and markets are ultimately about choices. Consumers generally like them, monopolists like Microsoft hate them. With console gaming, they're competing in a market space where they don't have as much leverage over consumer choices, so it remains to be seen whether their move to abandon the Xbox was smart. I can see where they would want to focus all of their resources on their most current project, but they also have over 20 million legacy customers that they have placed into forced obsolescence.

You ought to read the Wall Street Journal today. Has a really interesting article on Motorolla getting killed and having to revise its profit #'s. Seems the Razar (PS2) is a HUGE seller. So big in fact that Motorolla (Sony) cant get it customers to buy its new phone Krazar (PS3). Margins are down, and they are stuck with a bunch of customers that see no need to buy the fancy new phone (console). Sucks to be them.

An Xbox owner might not switch to the PS2, but they very well might switch to the PS3 or the Wii, since there is less of a continuity between the Xbox and the Xbox 360 as there is between the Playstation models.

Ummmm, no I don't think so. PS3 doesn't play legacy MS games.

How's it blind to continue answering to consumers if market demand remains in place? Sony might have an absurdly low threshold to cross before they pull the plug on formats that they've developed, but I don't think it would be to their benefit if they followed Microsoft's model by killing the PS2 on the assumption that it would prop up the PS3. Consumers are still buying PS2s by the millions, so why deny them the choices that they want?

Again, read the Wall Street Journal today. Some interesting parallels between Motorolla and Sony.

BTW, I popped by the local Best Buy during my lunch break. No PS3s in stock, no Wiis in stock, and even no PS2s in stock. But, they had about 60 Xbox 360s on the floor.

Cool did you buy one? They are even coming with a free game!

[Groundbeef]

Heres a bit of news flash from a game site discussing this very issue.

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/01/06/ps...buy-com-still/

[Woochifer]

Ok, heres why that is a lame arguement. During the buildup Sony portrayed the PS3 as the end-all console of consoles. I think only the Second Coming of Jesus himself could have edged out the excitement that Sony was dishing out. Now, add to the hype an EXTRA 8 months development time. Now remember, we were promised that this machine would BLOW the 360 out of the water.

So guess what? The hype didn't match up. Even though developers had an EXTRA 8 months developent time, they still cant match the 360 in graphics OR gameplay. That is downright stupid.

I never said that the PS3 has hit its tech limits. But they sure shot themselves in the foot with this. Who wants to buy the "Next Gen Console" and then be told by the salesman...."Just wait TILL NEXT YEAR FOR THE REALLY GOOD GAMES!!!".... In essence you are suggesting that the PS3 will forever be behind the 360.

And as for "Technical Advantage", depends on what tech nerd you are quoteing. The cell my be a hardier processer, but the badwidth, and the level of RAM is 1/2 that of the 360. In essence it has a bigger engine, and is hobbled with a 2 gear transmission. If you want to argue this line, we had better start another thread.

MS delivered on the promise of HD games, enhanced online content, and solid gameplay. They didn't engage in trash talk like the Sony Managment team. Yes they had some supply issues, and some hardware issues, but that was resolved.

And again you're making the comparison of the Xbox 360, as it is right now with a one-year head start versus the PS3, which has had a rocky launch. How did the Xbox 360 look at launch? Pretty shaky as well from my recollection. As I said before, a lot of the original Xbox games also didn't look any better than the PS2 games at launch. The capabilities of that platform did not get highlighted until later. How will things shake out a year from now? We'll know better at that point, especially since past precedence suggests that these game consoles take about two years before sales start to hit their stride.

You ought to read the Wall Street Journal today. Has a really interesting article on Motorolla getting killed and having to revise its profit #'s. Seems the Razar (PS2) is a HUGE seller. So big in fact that Motorolla (Sony) cant get it customers to buy its new phone Krazar (PS3). Margins are down, and they are stuck with a bunch of customers that see no need to buy the fancy new phone (console). Sucks to be them.

Completely different market because in the cell phone market Motorola only makes money by continuing to sell hardware. Game consoles, as you've pointed out repeatedly, are loss leaders on the hardware side with the profits coming from software and licensing. With 100 million+ PS2 owners, Sony's still making money off of that platform because games are still being produced and sold. Once Motorola sells someone a cell phone, they don't get much more revenue from that customer until they buy another phone.

Cool did you buy one? They are even coming with a free game!

If you buy me a HDTV first, I'll consider it.

[Groundbeef]

And again you're making the comparison of the Xbox 360, as it is right now with a one-year head start versus the PS3, which has had a rocky launch. How did the Xbox 360 look at launch? Pretty shaky as well from my recollection. As I said before, a lot of the original Xbox games also didn't look any better than the PS2 games at launch. The capabilities of that platform did not get highlighted until later. How will things shake out a year from now? We'll know better at that point, especially since past precedence suggests that these game consoles take about two years before sales start to hit their stride.

Thats the problem in a nutshell. Before release Sony was beating the band explaining how they were going to kill the 360. And now all we are hearing is how much better the PS3 will be NEXT year. As far as the 360 is concerned I would agree that the initial launch titles were not super duper. But unlike Sony, MS didnt engage in trash talk.

I think the constant drumbeat of "Wait Till Next Year" gives the PS3 a sort of Cubs Fever. It'll ALWAYS be better next year. BTW what did Sony do with that extra 8 mos? Imagine if it had been released on time. What would the games look like then?

Completely different market because in the cell phone market Motorola only makes money by continuing to sell hardware. Game consoles, as you've pointed out repeatedly, are loss leaders on the hardware side with the profits coming from software and licensing. With 100 million+ PS2 owners, Sony's still making money off of that platform because games are still being produced and sold. Once Motorola sells someone a cell phone, they don't get much more revenue from that customer until they buy another phone.

Except Sony has bet the farm on the PS3. Royalties from the PS2 isn't going to keep the shareholders happy. The model may be a bit different, but the concept is very similar. Seriously read the article. You seem like the educated sort that reads the WSJ anyway.

If you buy me a HDTV first, I'll consider it.

Umm yea, its on its way. Go ahead and get the 360, and wait for it!

[kexodusc]

Thats the problem in a nutshell. Before release Sony was beating the band explaining how they were going to kill the 360. And now all we are hearing is how much better the PS3 will be NEXT year. As far as the 360 is concerned I would agree that the initial launch titles were not super duper. But unlike Sony, MS didnt engage in trash talk.

I think the constant drumbeat of "Wait Till Next Year" gives the PS3 a sort of Cubs Fever. It'll ALWAYS be better next year. BTW what did Sony do with that extra 8 mos? Imagine if it had been released on time. What would the games look like then?

Back up for a second - did anyone else here really hear all this so called over-hype from the PS3? I vaguely remember hearing rumours about it a few times, but it was hardly a pre-launch marketing campaign of epic proportions.
The only people who were exposed to Sony's ravings (whatever they were) were the super-hardcore gaming enthusiasts who went out of their way to buy magazines or search websites for PS3 development news. A lot of these gaming fanatics are going to but PS3, Xbox 360 and Wii regardless.
This is not a big share of the market however, most consumers only know that PS2 was the big thing, and now there's 3. That's it. They probably don't know why it's supposedly better than PS2, but hey, it's got a 3 and higher number is always better. They probably don't know anything about it's early problems, it's market share, profitability, etc. They don't even care.

Except Sony has bet the farm on the PS3. Royalties from the PS2 isn't going to keep the shareholders happy. The model may be a bit different, but the concept is very similar. Seriously read the article. You seem like the educated sort that reads the WSJ anyway.

Sony hasn't be the farm. The future of Sony is not contingent on the success of PS3. Not at all. That company is big enough to absorb those kinds of huge losses, and has a history of doing so. Don't kid yourself. A few bad quarters on Wall Street isn't going to scare Sony.

The phone analogy was interesting, but really doesn't apply here - gaming consoles undertake dramatic improvements and changes. These 2 cell phones, not as much. The Krazar's primary function is to be a cell phone, and it really doesn't do that better than the Razar - the difference is the # of toys you get and how much consumers are willing to pay for it. That's more a case of product cannibalism. There's always a bit of that in gaming, but that's remedied by the planned obsolescence approach. PS2 will slowly be phased out, at whatever rate benefits Sony the most.
The gaming industry has decades of evidence of consumers migrating to the next generation of consoles, (and doing so gradually - a few years after launch) because they do the job better than the previous generation. All you have to do is look at Xbox 360's early success to see most recent example of this. Most people tend to buy cell phones only when they re-enter service contracts.

[thekid]

In my limited knowledge of this industry, which is based on what my son tells me the consoles are pretty much secondary to the software which is somewhat dependent on the graphics ability of the console. If a game becomes hot and is exclusive to a particular console then it can go a long way towards selling the console. A lot of my son's friends who are hardcore gamers actually have multiple consoles so that they can play whatever software is hot. I am sure Sony can be patient and as the software comes along they will build a following. From a price standpoint and ease of use for those of us in the "older" crowd I have to say I like the Wii and can see it expanding new markets in the gaming area.

[Groundbeef]

Back up for a second - did anyone else here really hear all this so called over-hype from the PS3? I vaguely remember hearing rumours about it a few times, but it was hardly a pre-launch marketing campaign of epic proportions.
The only people who were exposed to Sony's ravings (whatever they were) were the super-hardcore gaming enthusiasts who went out of their way to buy magazines or search websites for PS3 development news. A lot of these gaming fanatics are going to but PS3, Xbox 360 and Wii regardless.
This is not a big share of the market however, most consumers only know that PS2 was the big thing, and now there's 3. That's it. They probably don't know why it's supposedly better than PS2, but hey, it's got a 3 and higher number is always better. They probably don't know anything about it's early problems, it's market share, profitability, etc. They don't even care.

Heres Some Tidbits for ya:

http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/sony/so...any-206399.php

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums...ic_id=25247543 (This one kinda sums up various statements and mis-steps)

http://www.gamepro.com/news.cfm?article_id=83692 (this one is kinda ironic)

Theres others, but I gotta run down and finish the rest of my basement.

Sony hasn't be the farm. The future of Sony is not contingent on the success of PS3. Not at all. That company is big enough to absorb those kinds of huge losses, and has a history of doing so. Don't kid yourself. A few bad quarters on Wall Street isn't going to scare Sony.

Did you bother to read the articles that I pasted earlier. Sony has invested much of its future on the PS3. Whether to drive business to the Blu-Ray, or Flat panel displays, or other Sony products. The PS3 is the linch-pin for its future sucess. As far as a few bad quarters? This has been going on for some time.

I am not suggesting that Sony is going belly up tommorow. But for you to simply dismiss the current finiacial crisis that Sony is experiencing is also disengenious. A few years ago, Sony may have had the finiancial padding to absorb these losses, but that cushion is mighty thin now.

The phone analogy was interesting, but really doesn't apply here - gaming consoles undertake dramatic improvements and changes. These 2 cell phones, not as much. The Krazar's primary function is to be a cell phone, and it really doesn't do that better than the Razar - the difference is the # of toys you get and how much consumers are willing to pay for it. That's more a case of product cannibalism. There's always a bit of that in gaming, but that's remedied by the planned obsolescence approach. PS2 will slowly be phased out, at whatever rate benefits Sony the most.
The gaming industry has decades of evidence of consumers migrating to the next generation of consoles, (and doing so gradually - a few years after launch) because they do the job better than the previous generation. All you have to do is look at Xbox 360's early success to see most recent example of this. Most people tend to buy cell phones only when they re-enter service contracts.

The differences are there, but so are the similarities. The discussion was about how MS cut off support for the orginial Xbox when the 360 came out. They removed the ability for its customers to continue to purchase the "old" and hold off buying the new. Because Sony has allowed the PS2 to stay out they have limited ability to compell consumers to upgrade. Coupled with the fact that the PS3 really doesn't have any great launch titles it sort of reinforces the rational NOT to upgrade.

And who is going to drop $150 on a PS2 and then turn around and buy a PS3 in a week or two? Probably not too many people. I just think the thought process is flawed for Sony. And I see similarties between Motorolla and Sony.

[Groundbeef]

In my limited knowledge of this industry, which is based on what my son tells me the consoles are pretty much secondary to the software which is somewhat dependent on the graphics ability of the console. If a game becomes hot and is exclusive to a particular console then it can go a long way towards selling the console. A lot of my son's friends who are hardcore gamers actually have multiple consoles so that they can play whatever software is hot. I am sure Sony can be patient and as the software comes along they will build a following. From a price standpoint and ease of use for those of us in the "older" crowd I have to say I like the Wii and can see it expanding new markets in the gaming area.

I see your point, but it is MUCH easier to have multiple consoles when they cost $150-$200.

Unless your name is Gates, most people are not going to shell out $1000 plus extras so you can play 1 or 2 games you like on each console. The price of the new consoles are going to limit players to either a 360 or PS3 and then perhaps pick up a "Wii".

[emorphien]

I don't know how keen developers are to develop for the PS3 when it has little or no performance benefits over the older Xbox 360 and is much harder to program for. If they want to show off graphical gee-whizzery the Xbox 360 is an easier platform to do that on.

[kexodusc]

Did you bother to read the articles that I pasted earlier. Sony has invested much of its future on the PS3. Whether to drive business to the Blu-Ray, or Flat panel displays, or other Sony products. The PS3 is the linch-pin for its future sucess. As far as a few bad quarters? This has been going on for some time.

I am not suggesting that Sony is going belly up tommorow. But for you to simply dismiss the current finiacial crisis that Sony is experiencing is also disengenious. A few years ago, Sony may have had the finiancial padding to absorb these losses, but that cushion is mighty thin now.

Not downplaying Sony's difficult times at all or being disingenuous. But I'm not getting as excited and using phrases like "bet the farm" implying all-or-nothing with PS3. Sony's going to sell a crap load of PS3 even in the worst case scenario, they'll probably make some off BluRay (I'm guessing by caving into a hybrid format if the going gets tough). Wasn't that long ago Microsoft and AMD where pretty poorly situated financially and they turned themselves around. I highly doubt PS3 being a bust would even be the biggest crisis in Sony's history.
They might make some money, they might lose some. Wall Street's not banking on them making a killing but that can change really fast. 10 years from now Sony will still be selling cheap electronics. That is certain.

And who is going to drop $150 on a PS2 and then turn around and buy a PS3 in a week or two? Probably not too many people. I just think the thought process is flawed for Sony. And I see similarties between Motorolla and Sony.

How's the thought process flawed? By trying to maximize profitability for the entire basket of goods collectively instead of looking after each product in isolation? That's the difference between Sony and Motorolla - Sony is the former, Motorolla the latter.

I don't think PS2 sales are are anticipated to carry on so strongly for too much longer - but they'll enjoy them while they can. No, nobody's likely to buy a PS3 just 1 year after a PS2, but many of the millions of late PS2 buyers are quite likely to show up late to the PS3 party too.

[Carl Reid]

Just my two cents on the Next Gen Wars.... (I've read most of the comments in this thread so far... a lot of interesting points and that article on Sony's financial position was good though long)...

Anyway, IMHO both Sony and Microsoft have done below average to downright crappy jobs of entering the Next Gen Wars.... Only Nintendo has done a 'decent' job this time around....

Sony and Microsoft have been more concerned with outgunning each other (by having the best graphics and the next DVD format) than with actually analyzing the market and seeing what consumers want....

I don't believe that this cycle will be the death of any of the three major players (unless Sony manages to bankrupt themself... but even that is far fetched)... People are way too quick to dismiss game manufacturers as dead... Many were predicting well in advance of any news about the Wii that it would be Nintendo's last gaming console... all based on the third place finish of the Gamecube in the last cycle (note that the 3rd place finish is in terms of volume not profitability)... Interstingly those same persons are no longer prediciting doom and gloom for Nintendo, now that they see that the Wii is in fact a viable product....

Of the three, I doubt that any will be the obvious heir apparent to the PS2.... Both the 360 and the PS3 are out of the running because they have gone for a poor market strategy... they are both attempting to sell a high volume of units but have chosen to go for expensive luxury items.... which makes no sense...

The PS2 was essentially a Toyota Camry (in terms of price and features) while the PS3 and 360 are more like Benz and Lexus.... Now how can Sony and Microsoft expect two luxury cars to outsell a solid mid-tier car? Luxury items are profitable based on low volume and high markup, while cheaper items are high volume and low markup.... that's a simple recipe for profit... Both the PS3 and 360 have low (or even negative) markup despites a high price but are trying to sell high volume... Which is a really poor strategy...

The only console that is even trying a remotely sane strategy is the Wii... which is low price and high volume sales...

Let us not forget the most important factor in truly pushing sales volume over the top... CASUAL GAMERS.... I can't see either the 360 or the PS3 capitilizing on casual gamer market share.... simply because Casual Gamers will not be willing to spend that kind of money on a console they may only play once or twice a month... (unless they are seriously wealthy).... so the only console that I can see stealing the wallets of Casual gamers this cycle is the Wii....

I think the market will be far more evenly split this cycle... with tremendous dissapointment for both Sony and Microsoft... since they both somehow expected to simply outgun each other, by dumping the most of amount of tech they could into overpriced consoles and expecting consumers to eat it up like a hungry stray dog...

I think the real excitement will be in the next console cycle when Sony and Microsoft have had a chance to learn from their numerous mistakes and hopefully focus more on what the consumer wants (and ripping off the strong points of the Wii), than trying to push whatever new dvd format they have in development or creating a living room SuperComputer...

[Groundbeef]

I highly doubt PS3 being a bust would even be the biggest crisis in Sony's history. They might make some money, they might lose some. Wall Street's not banking on them making a killing but that can change really fast. 10 years from now Sony will still be selling cheap electronics. That is certain.

So tell me does Sony pay you by the word or per post? MS just cuts me a fat check each month. Perhaps PS3 failure wouldn't be the biggest failure, but I cant think of a larger capital expenditure on a single line that Sony has invested in recently. Coupled with the fact that Apple basically stole the portable music party that Sony once had (Walkman) and that Sony was very late to the Flat Screen Party, and that the Movie division seems intent on only releasing stinkers, yeah Sony has problems all over.

How's the thought process flawed? By trying to maximize profitability for the entire basket of goods collectively instead of looking after each product in isolation? That's the difference between Sony and Motorolla - Sony is the former, Motorolla the latter.

Were going to have to agree to disagree on this point. Perhaps it was easier for MS to cut the Xbox Console because it had a smaller installed base. But MS hasn't abandoned those gamers. Deveolpers are still releasing games for the console. 14 in Nov-Dec alone. With the PS2 base being larger, I can see that it is tempting to want to cater to them. But, without compelling them to upgrade, it only gives MS more of a lead in the next gen console arena.

I don't think PS2 sales are are anticipated to carry on so strongly for too much longer - but they'll enjoy them while they can. No, nobody's likely to buy a PS3 just 1 year after a PS2, but many of the millions of late PS2 buyers are quite likely to show up late to the PS3 party too.

Probably, unless future PS3 releases don't show marked improvement over the 360. Realizing that my anecdotal stories carry small weight, I work with several PS2 owners. In the past 3 months 6 have gotten 360's. Only 1 was considering the PS3, but couldn't pull the trigger for $600+. So we shall see who shows up late for the party!

[Groundbeef]

Just my two cents on the Next Gen Wars.... (I've read most of the comments in this thread so far... a lot of interesting points and that article on Sony's financial position was good though long)...

Nice to see you here. Always nice to have fresh viewpoint. I'll take credit for the interesting points, and credit Wooch and kexodusc with ones that weren't

Anyway, IMHO both Sony and Microsoft have done below average to downright crappy jobs of entering the Next Gen Wars.... Only Nintendo has done a 'decent' job this time around....

Well techinically Nintendo isn't "Next Gen" More like last gen with a snazzy control feature. The Wii is fun for sure, but doesn't even play DVD's. Or music CD's. So its truly a dedicated gaming machine with limited internet capabilities.

Sony and Microsoft have been more concerned with outgunning each other (by having the best graphics and the next DVD format) than with actually analyzing the market and seeing what consumers want....

Technically the 360 doesn't utilize the next DVD format. It uses traditional DVD tech for the gaming portion. If you want the Optional HD-DVD drive that is sold seperatly. The PS3 is based on Blu-Ray, and requires Blu-Ray for playback of games unless using PS2 games. So in effect the 360 is offering what consumers wanted in Next Gen gaming using proven DVD formats.

I don't believe that this cycle will be the death of any of the three major players (unless Sony manages to bankrupt themself... but even that is far fetched)... People are way too quick to dismiss game manufacturers as dead... Many were predicting well in advance of any news about the Wii that it would be Nintendo's last gaming console... all based on the third place finish of the Gamecube in the last cycle (note that the 3rd place finish is in terms of volume not profitability)... Interstingly those same persons are no longer prediciting doom and gloom for Nintendo, now that they see that the Wii is in fact a viable product....

No disagreement on that one. The Wii is a great product. Now lets see what happens as HD is more widly accepted in 2007. As Flat panel prices dive and more consumers pony up for HD experience will they be satisifed with old school graphics and non-HD gameplay? This may be an issue for Nintendo.

Of the three, I doubt that any will be the obvious heir apparent to the PS2.... Both the 360 and the PS3 are out of the running because they have gone for a poor market strategy... they are both attempting to sell a high volume of units but have chosen to go for expensive luxury items.... which makes no sense...

Ummm...I don't think you can dismiss either the PS3 or 360. Currently MS is making about $75-125 (depending upon source of info) per 360. As mfg cost are driven down a price cut should be in 2007. Not so with the PS3, unless Sony wants the blood to really flow. With the 360 the expensive options are just that OPTIONS. If you don't want HD-DVD playback, dont buy it. Sony is saddling consumers with unecessary tech, and thus the expensive price tag.

The PS2 was essentially a Toyota Camry (in terms of price and features) while the PS3 and 360 are more like Benz and Lexus.... Now how can Sony and Microsoft expect two luxury cars to outsell a solid mid-tier car? Luxury items are profitable based on low volume and high markup, while cheaper items are high volume and low markup.... that's a simple recipe for profit... Both the PS3 and 360 have low (or even negative) markup despites a high price but are trying to sell high volume... Which is a really poor strategy...

Again, this has been covered before. Most console makers (with the exception of Nintendo) ALWAYS lose money on the console in the beginning until the experience curve, and economies of scale for parts drive the costs down. Licencing agreements help negate the red flow of ink.

The only console that is even trying a remotely sane strategy is the Wii... which is low price and high volume sales...

Again, we'll see if the blush is off the rose later in 2007 as HD gains more traction.

Let us not forget the most important factor in truly pushing sales volume over the top... CASUAL GAMERS.... I can't see either the 360 or the PS3 capitilizing on casual gamer market share.... simply because Casual Gamers will not be willing to spend that kind of money on a console they may only play once or twice a month... (unless they are seriously wealthy).... so the only console that I can see stealing the wallets of Casual gamers this cycle is the Wii....

Or the PS2 as it is still for sale. Considering the 360 only costs $299 w/o hard drive thats not out of range either. I wouldn't buy one (core unit) but it can be had.

I think the market will be far more evenly split this cycle... with tremendous dissapointment for both Sony and Microsoft... since they both somehow expected to simply outgun each other, by dumping the most of amount of tech they could into overpriced consoles and expecting consumers to eat it up like a hungry stray dog...

Any market share that MS picks up directly relates to market share that Sony has LOST. Its all gain for MS, all loss for Sony.

I think the real excitement will be in the next console cycle when Sony and Microsoft have had a chance to learn from their numerous mistakes and hopefully focus more on what the consumer wants (and ripping off the strong points of the Wii), than trying to push whatever new dvd format they have in development or creating a living room SuperComputer...

We will have that discussion some time in 2012 when they come out. Until then, lets deal with the current formats.

[Carl Reid]

Nice to see you here. Always nice to have fresh viewpoint. I'll take credit for the interesting points, and credit Wooch and kexodusc with ones that weren't

Clearly humility is your strong point... LOL

Well techinically Nintendo isn't "Next Gen" More like last gen with a snazzy control feature. The Wii is fun for sure, but doesn't even play DVD's. Or music CD's. So its truly a dedicated gaming machine with limited internet capabilities.

Not sure I can agree with you on that one... What makes a console Next Gen? Just Prettier Graphics? Or does taking gameplay in a fresh direction with only a modest graphical upgrade count? And as for the Wii's inability to play DVDs or even CDs... I don't think either is particularly relevant to today's gamer.... great dvd players can be had for $30 now.... the days when the PS2 was the cheapest consumer DVD player are long gone... So now is probably a good time to return to dedicated gaming machines... and keep the price down....

No disagreement on that one. The Wii is a great product. Now lets see what happens as HD is more widly accepted in 2007. As Flat panel prices dive and more consumers pony up for HD experience will they be satisifed with old school graphics and non-HD gameplay? This may be an issue for Nintendo.

That may indeed be an issue for Nintendo.... but a cheap enough price will likely allow consumers to look past the lack of HD compatibility.... Besides... Nintendo's strategy has been to give gamers a dedicated game machine... that is truly fun to play... rather than just competing on which machines has the best graphics... so since people aren't buying the Wii for graphics, then HD may not be a big issue for Nintendo... but only time will tell.

Ummm...I don't think you can dismiss either the PS3 or 360. Currently MS is making about $75-125 (depending upon source of info) per 360. As mfg cost are driven down a price cut should be in 2007. Not so with the PS3, unless Sony wants the blood to really flow. With the 360 the expensive options are just that OPTIONS. If you don't want HD-DVD playback, dont buy it. Sony is saddling consumers with unecessary tech, and thus the expensive price tag.

Yes, Sony is undoubtedly the worst offender in the current war.... but I really find it hard to imaging either console outselling the PS2.... unless they have a ridiculously long life cycle... which I can't see happening... since there are currently 3 major players in the Market and at least one of them... will probably launch a new console within 5 years...

Again, this has been covered before. Most console makers (with the exception of Nintendo) ALWAYS lose money on the console in the beginning until the experience curve, and economies of scale for parts drive the costs down. Licencing agreements help negate the red flow of ink.

This is one of the advantages Nintendo has (even though logic might imply that it should be a disadvantage)... because its core/sole business is gaming... it has to remain profitable (even at launch)... and will not try to subsidize an unprofitable console... Therefore Sony and Microsoft take years to make any real profit on there consoles which is obviously a far riskier stragegy and one that could backfire if they don't get the kind of market penetration they expect....

Again, we'll see if the blush is off the rose later in 2007 as HD gains more traction.

I'm really interested to see if HD has the huge impact that many are expecting... I'm currently on my 2nd High Def TV in 2 years.... yet I don't think I've watched even an hour of HDTV in the last 2 years (despite having HD channels on my cable).... Yes my HD channels mostly suck... and my TV is excellent with Standard Def.... but it's hard to analyze the significance of HD, since it is really a format that has been pushed on the consumer as the new standard as opposed to being pulled into the market by demand...

Or the PS2 as it is still for sale. Considering the 360 only costs $299 w/o hard drive thats not out of range either. I wouldn't buy one (core unit) but it can be had.

The Core Unit is a poorly implemented joke.... so serious gamers ignore it and even casual gamers find the thought of spending extra money on the crap version of the 360 to be laughable...

Any market share that MS picks up directly relates to market share that Sony has LOST. Its all gain for MS, all loss for Sony.

Agreed.

We will have that discussion some time in 2012 when they come out. Until then, lets deal with the current formats.

Also Agreed

[Groundbeef]

Clearly humility is your strong point... LOL

Funny, your not the first to say that.

Not sure I can agree with you on that one... What makes a console Next Gen? Just Prettier Graphics? Or does taking gameplay in a fresh direction with only a modest graphical upgrade count? And as for the Wii's inability to play DVDs or even CDs... I don't think either is particularly relevant to today's gamer.... great dvd players can be had for $30 now.... the days when the PS2 was the cheapest consumer DVD player are long gone... So now is probably a good time to return to dedicated gaming machines... and keep the price down....

Certainly graphics play a strong hand in any "Next Gen" console. However, there are certain programming advantages that the extra horsepower allow. More immersive enviroments (less pop-ups), more realisitic AI behavior, and larger areas to explore. Granted the Wii is ingenious in its control feature, but again as HD gains more acceptance, are people willing to put up with 2D sprites? Just today in the WSJ they are forcasting that HD capable sets are going to surpass sales of older CRT sets for the first time in 2007. That is monumental in acceptance. People may not be willing to drop 2K on a TV and have it look worse than the old set did.

As far as using the console to play DVD's, its a matter of convinence not necessity. I pulled my Sony DVD player out, and now use the 360 to play DVD's. And as soon as I get around to it, I'll hook up the HD-DVD player. Why? Because it upconverts, and I only paid $159 for it at CC.

Dedicated gaming is great, but frankly some other aspects of the 360 are popping out that I didn't think that I would use much. (BTW the PS3 offers many of these same benefits, but I don't have PS3). For example, I have my 360 on the home network. When family come over, I broadcast all my photos on the Plasma, and have music streaming from my PC playing over the Stereo system.

Over the holidays I used the D/L function on the 360 and pulled down the "National Lampoons Christmas Vacation"> It took about 35 min to get enough to start the movie and only about 1.5 hours for full d/l. Movie never stuttered or paused. All that for only $2.00. Cheaper than driving to the store and renting. And now I can D/L HD movies for only $3-4.

So if I only use the machine to play games occasionally, there are other functions that make it much more appealing.

That may indeed be an issue for Nintendo.... but a cheap enough price will likely allow consumers to look past the lack of HD compatibility.... Besides... Nintendo's strategy has been to give gamers a dedicated game machine... that is truly fun to play... rather than just competing on which machines has the best graphics... so since people aren't buying the Wii for graphics, then HD may not be a big issue for Nintendo... but only time will tell.

I think it will be more of an issue as time goes on.

Yes, Sony is undoubtedly the worst offender in the current war.... but I really find it hard to imaging either console outselling the PS2.... unless they have a ridiculously long life cycle... which I can't see happening... since there are currently 3 major players in the Market and at least one of them... will probably launch a new console within 5 years...

I don't know. Depends on how developing markets play into the equation. Check out this article about the 360 in India:

http://informationweek.com/news/show...leID=196602650

You may have to go through an add to get to the article. Pretty interesting read though. I dont' think they are going to sell a million units, but shows the ways the companies are trying to get new markets to adopt the technology.

This is one of the advantages Nintendo has (even though logic might imply that it should be a disadvantage)... because its core/sole business is gaming... it has to remain profitable (even at launch)... and will not try to subsidize an unprofitable console... Therefore Sony and Microsoft take years to make any real profit on there consoles which is obviously a far riskier stragegy and one that could backfire if they don't get the kind of market penetration they expect....

Actually, MS is in the black in 1 year on the hardware. Not sure when they will recoup initial investment, but falling hardware costs have helped. As Sony developed its own tech (cell) and custom graphics card, those costs will fall more slowly.

I'm really interested to see if HD has the huge impact that many are expecting... I'm currently on my 2nd High Def TV in 2 years.... yet I don't think I've watched even an hour of HDTV in the last 2 years (despite having HD channels on my cable).... Yes my HD channels mostly suck... and my TV is excellent with Standard Def.... but it's hard to analyze the significance of HD, since it is really a format that has been pushed on the consumer as the new standard as opposed to being pulled into the market by demand...

You need to pull your signal OTA. If you think your SD is good watch LOST, 24, or Football in HD. Your tune will change after a few hours of HD programming. The detail, sound, and experience are totally different. PBS offers many hours of compelling HD programming as well. Considering youve already paid for it, you might as well expereince it.

The Core Unit is a poorly implemented joke.... so serious gamers ignore it and even casual gamers find the thought of spending extra money on the crap version of the 360 to be laughable...

Its actually not "crap". There are not any differences in hardware to the premium other than a lack of hard drive. If you simply want to play games, the Core unit will allow you to do it in full next gen glory. However if you have a HD tv, then I would suggest the premium unit to exerience full HD.

The Core is to simply fit the casual gamer pocketbook. Just gaming without all the extras.

[kexodusc]

So tell me does Sony pay you by the word or per post? MS just cuts me a fat check each month. Perhaps PS3 failure wouldn't be the biggest failure, but I cant think of a larger capital expenditure on a single line that Sony has invested in recently. Coupled with the fact that Apple basically stole the portable music party that Sony once had (Walkman) and that Sony was very late to the Flat Screen Party, and that the Movie division seems intent on only releasing stinkers, yeah Sony has problems all over.

LOL. You couldn't find a company I dislike more an Sony - From what I've seen, I'll be sticking with XBOX 360 if it's price drops enough. Otherwise Wii has peaked my interest the most of the 3. PS3 is a distant 3rd, and it would take some pretty magnificent games for me to get into PS3. I'm not sold on BluRay, and I'm personally rooting for HD-DVD for cost/benefit reasons. I think consumers have more options this time around, and less incentive to upgrade. So this format war is still very, very early. There's a lot of early Xbox buyers, but it remains to be seen if they'll be able to keep up their sales now that Wii and PS3 are fighting them head on in 2007. I'll boldly predict 2007 is harder on them than 2006.
Truth, is I think I've agreed with every point you've made about Sony's troubles except the magnitude of the current crisis. Sony's missed the ball big time in a lot of areas - crappy hi-fi, poor quality products, a cost-ineffective brand name retail store, and now seemingly a poor start to their one star product in the PS. (Movies are different though, 1 good title can change a company's fate in movies in a matter of weeks- most studio's are struggling these days - past performance is not an indicator of future performance).

I've maintained all along, I'm not ready to write of Sony based on the success of PS3. They could overcome PS3 being a big bust, and rebound with PS4. Now, if they continue to suck donkey balls for another 5-10 years they'll have serious problems. But that's assuming PS3 doesn't recover. I think there's lots of time for it to make Sony a lot of money on PS3. Not as much as they did on PS2, but not a wash either. People snarfed them up as fast as they could get them in most places. You can't find one in my region. Plenty of time left in the game.

Were going to have to agree to disagree on this point. Perhaps it was easier for MS to cut the Xbox Console because it had a smaller installed base. But MS hasn't abandoned those gamers. Deveolpers are still releasing games for the console. 14 in Nov-Dec alone. With the PS2 base being larger, I can see that it is tempting to want to cater to them. But, without compelling them to upgrade, it only gives MS more of a lead in the next gen console arena.

The temptation to upgrade is the always taken care of in the new releases of supposedly better games on the next platform. That's going to happen regardless of how much support they provide PS2. When PS2 starts cutting into PS3 to the point that Sony is losing money on the total basket, they'll drop PS2 (well, significantly scale back at least). I think we also have to consider that a ton of 360 owners are going to also get the PS3. They'll probably wait a year or two though. We're what - 3 or 4 months into the PS3's launch?

Probably, unless future PS3 releases don't show marked improvement over the 360. Realizing that my anecdotal stories carry small weight, I work with several PS2 owners. In the past 3 months 6 have gotten 360's. Only 1 was considering the PS3, but couldn't pull the trigger for $600+. So we shall see who shows up late for the party!

I own a PS2 and XBox. I prefer the XBox by a wide margin. Enough that I have no brand loyalty to PS and some to XBox (though my recent experience with the Windows XP hotline has really soured me on MS).
I just found most of the common games were so much better on XBox.
I like XBox exlusives more than Sony exclusives too. And I like the HD-DVD aspect as well as the online gaming foundation XBox has. Significant advantages I think.
But those same advantages didn't translate into better sales in the last round. And at current prices, I don't see XBox 360 as being any better a value than the PS3 right now. I don't underestimate Sony's marketing ability, brand power, or the PS3 machine itself. I kind of suspect the vast majority of the market is going to wait until year 2 or 3 before finally buying the first console. I'll decide at the time what's a better value.

I agree with you - PS is gonna lose a ton of market share to Wii and XBox 360. I think Sony's tough talking aside, they recognize this and accept that. But I think the potential is there for them to make money off this.

One last thing - someone else mentioned it already, but I wouldn't be surprised if this generation fails to meet everyone's expectation - maybe too much, too soon, and too expensive for the average user. Wii really added a new dimension to the console war. I look forward to revisiting this a year from now to see where these 3 companies stand.

[Groundbeef]

Looks like MS likes to throw down also. Check out this little outburst at the CES.

http://gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=22117

[Groundbeef]

It appears that the sales of PS3 are so slow that Gamestop and EB games are now offering PS2 owners a $100 credit to trade in their PS2 machines for a PS3.

That is really pathetic that the PS3 has to be discounted so early in its life cycle for buyers. 360 only recently began offering incentives for purchase, and thats after a year of solid full price sales.

BTW was in BB today and they had a stack of PS3's (about 20 of them) right next to the 360 that was almost sold out. People were looking at them like they were going to bite, and no one bought any. Wii's are sold out.

http://www.gamestop.com/gs/weeklyad/...i_011207-1.asp