PS3 Puts Sony's Future on the Line
The Sly Fox
USAPosts: 467MI6 Agent
IGN: "Sony's Huge Playsation 3 Bet"
The above article explains that the future of Sony depends on the success of the PlayStation 3. One of the things it said was that last year, out of $67.94 billion in revenue, only 1.65% of that was profit. With most of its other divisions not doing so well (its music department is already disliked by many, thanks to the Digital Rights Management fiasco), the company's fate seems to rest with the video game division's PS3. Who knows--after Sony's MGM acquisition, even Bond's fate could be in the hands of the PS3.
I honestly was considering buying a PS3... Until it was set to be a whopping $599... It's supposedly this price because it will be able to handle Blu-Ray discs--Blu-Ray players are set to be around the same price, so this is supposed to be a good deal. Really though, I can't see myself spending that kind of money on games, even if it does play Blu-Ray discs. At that price, the only reason I would buy a PS3 would be for Final Fantasy XIII...
At least FF13 probably won't be out for another couple of years. Maybe I'll wait until then--it might translate to a couple hundred dollars off the PS3's sticker price... :S
What do you think? Who plans to buy a PS3 on its release date, and who has reasons for not buying one? ...And who plans on buying one to ensure the future of Bond?
The above article explains that the future of Sony depends on the success of the PlayStation 3. One of the things it said was that last year, out of $67.94 billion in revenue, only 1.65% of that was profit. With most of its other divisions not doing so well (its music department is already disliked by many, thanks to the Digital Rights Management fiasco), the company's fate seems to rest with the video game division's PS3. Who knows--after Sony's MGM acquisition, even Bond's fate could be in the hands of the PS3.
I honestly was considering buying a PS3... Until it was set to be a whopping $599... It's supposedly this price because it will be able to handle Blu-Ray discs--Blu-Ray players are set to be around the same price, so this is supposed to be a good deal. Really though, I can't see myself spending that kind of money on games, even if it does play Blu-Ray discs. At that price, the only reason I would buy a PS3 would be for Final Fantasy XIII...
At least FF13 probably won't be out for another couple of years. Maybe I'll wait until then--it might translate to a couple hundred dollars off the PS3's sticker price... :S
What do you think? Who plans to buy a PS3 on its release date, and who has reasons for not buying one? ...And who plans on buying one to ensure the future of Bond?
Comments
1) As you said, Sony is pricing the PS3 at $500-$600 largely because of the inclusion of the Blu-Ray drive. However, Sony has a terrible track record with introducing and nurturing new formats. They failed with Beta, MiniCD's and most recently UMD movies. The jury is still very much out on whether Blu-Ray will be the dominant hi-def format or whether HD-DVD (which has some pretty powerful supporters and is said to be less expensive) will come out on top.
2) Sony's $500 "core" PS3 looks to be something of a ripoff. The absence of an HDMI port means that you will not be able to view movies in hi-def since most companies will be requiring HDCP compliance and component video does not meet that criteria. The absence of wifi means you'll need additional hardware for a wireless internet connection. And the abense of flash media support would imply there is no easy way to transfer game saves and other media between consoles.
3) Sony has a lousy record when it comes to releasing games at a console's launch. The PS2 had maybe a handful of good titles and then there was practically nothing for months thereafter, with Sony touting the console's DVD playback capabilities instead. With the PSP Sony again released a few good titles and then there was another drought. Again, Sony touted the device's movie playback capabilities though the UMD's were ridiculously overpriced and never caught on. With the PS3 we still have very little hard data on what games will be released at launch. Sony says they will have 15 games but a lot of developers are grumbling that they still don't have completed dev kits. I wouldn't put it past Sony to again release a handful of games and then revert to pushing the console's Blu-Ray capabilities when the game software dries up.
4) Over the past few years Sony's hardware reliability has really gone down the toilet. The PS2's were notorious for having DVD read errors (I had 2 units die on me), the PSP has gotten a lot of complaints about sticky buttons, loose analog nubs and frozen pixels on the LCD display, and the lifespan of a lot of their A/V components like DVD players and surround sound systems can often be measured in months. Given such a spotty hardware record, the thought of spending $500-$600 on an unproven piece of hardware is daunting at best.
Bottom line, for all of the above reasons buying a PS3 at launch is a big risk. The fact that so many of their games at E3 looked no better than Xbox 360 software doesn't help either. About the only game that really got my interest was Warhawk. I enjoyed the original and am intrigued by what I saw of the new version. But I cannot justify a $600 investment to play one game.
So I for one will be passing on the PS3. As I wrote elsewhere, Sony just seems to be asking too much of its consumers.
As for the Bond games, Activision (the current license holder) is a multi-platform developer and just paid 70 million dollars for the license. Given the bread they laid out, there is absolutely no way a Bond game will be exclusive to the PS3. They'll need to release their games on as many platforms as possible to recoup their costs. As such I'm sure we'll see any future Bond games on all the next gen consoles.
The Nintendo Wii (revolution) looks awesome! and is taking games to another level with that really cool and groundbreaking controller.
I also bet it is going to be half the price.
PS2 on release was about 300-400 quid
Gamecube on release was 120 and was a more powerful console!
Sony games' don't cut it for me! Nintendo produce masterpieces and after reading my new copy of Nintendo magazine it has reassured my thoughts on Nintendos new console. {[]
As for the Wii, I'm hoping it launches with a price of $150. If so, I'll get it at launch. It is looking very cool.
Still lovin' the 360, though.
Ah, something I can relate to, although my experience goes way back. I remember getting the PS1 as a Christmas gift in 1998. Straight out of the box, I put the included demo disc in the drive, waiting for the now-familiar PS boot screen, but instead I get... Nothing. "Please insert a PlayStation format disc..." I assume the laser lens was total junk before it even got off the assembly line. Anyway, I remember the Wal-Mart I took it back to already had three PlaySations on a cart marked "Defective," and there were three people in line behind me with apparent bad apples...
Perhaps that was just because it was Christmas-gift-return-time, but nonetheless, my first experience with Sony's games was certainly less than spectacular.
Anyway, I see your point about the "core" $500 system... What's the point of Blu-Ray discs without HD??? And at that price??
Not to mention that Sony is getting less and less attractive to the consumer every day. I'm sure many here have heard of the little hidden program on their "Copy Protected" CDs that nearly disabled audio CDs on some PCs... There's also a rumor that the PS3 will somehow "register" the game disc's signature so that it can never be played on another console but that one--thus eliminating used PS3 game sales. I don't see how this is possible, (or why they would bother), but if someone made up this rumor, that does say something about the general consensus on Sony. Companies alienating their customers doesn't exactly make for good publicity or image...
Actually, what I was referring to was Bond in general. According to the article, a PS3 failure would be "catastrophic" for Sony. The article was probably sensationalized just a little bit, but you get the idea. What I was saying was that if Sony goes under due to a PS3 failure, it might not be good news for Bond. Although, this will probably never happen, since Sony's executives most likely have billions upon billions of dollars in reserve...
Without taking that into consideration however, you could buy a PS3 to ensure the future of Bond. As Nightshooter has said, it'd be awfully expensive, but you could do it...
I think Sony's suggested solution for that was to play your PS1 upside down (I'm not kidding).
Personally, I think the failure of Casino Royale would be even more catastrophic for Activision as it might cause them to lose faith in the license (interesting how EA jumped ship so soon after CR went into production). But as to whether PS3 bombs or not, Activision is console agnostic so I don't think that's an issue. They'll do whatever they can to recoup their investment or minimize their losses.
I can just see the ads of Daniel Craig playing a PS3 now.
Personally, I really don't like what Sony and EON are doing with Casino Royale, but that's a discussion for another thread. Still, their turning my beloved Bond universe on its ear has really upset me and if anything, it's even more incentive for me not to get a PS3 (guilt by association and all that). :v
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
Since Halo3 won't be out till sometime in 2007; it's a safe bet Gears of War will be MS's answer to the PS3. Expect a near simultaneous release.
Can someone tell me why Sony thinks it can be successful with a $600 console with no good (exclusive) games?
EDIT: Oh, I forgot Dead Rising. And I also forgot a little game called BIOSHOCK, which got the BEST E3 GAME award from Gamespot.
http://gear.ign.com/articles/709/709495p1.html
Very interesting article, TonyDP. Interestingly, they've just put out another related article:
Hollywood Agrees to Postpone Image Constraint Token until 2012
It's now rumored that a secret, unofficial "agreement" has been reached between Sony, Microsoft and the Hollywood film companies. It now sounds just a little better for the consumer, but not by much...
If this agreement turns out to be a completely bogus rumor (which wouldn't surprise me), it doesn't look good for anyone... Particularly Sony, as they're further damaging their already tarnished reputation for being very anti-consumer.
I have a theory about all this. If the three-million HD TVs already sold actually will soon become incompatible with HDCP, people won't exactly like the fact that their brand-new $3000 HD TV (or the budget-PS3 that they thought they were getting a bargain on, for that matter) is no-longer HD-compatible. This might create massive distrust among consumers--especially with Sony. What if we were to see something similar to the Video Game Crash of 1983?
Obviously, the situation then was completely different from now, but didn't consumer distrust have something to do with it? After the game companies' poor-quality mishaps and even worse sales, they thought they would give people the new "home computers." The concept failed miserably. This was the final blow that led to Atari's (and a few others') bankruptcy. What if we see this happen with Sony's introduction of Blu-Ray? True, it's not nearly as much a quality issue as a consumer trust issue, but Atari's future also depended on the introduction of a new product--and we didn't exactly see an Atari 360 at last year's E3...
Consumer distrust leads to poor sales... and the PS3 is already ridiculously priced. Could all this prove to be a fatal error for Sony and perhaps a few other companies? If not directly around the time of the PS3's release, then sometime down the road, perhaps? Your thoughts.
I really hope that rumor about HDCP being pushed back to 2012 is true; it will make life much easier for everybody. There might actually be some truth to it as Microsoft is going to be releasing an HD-DVD add on for the 360 even thought the console clearly does not support an HDMI connection (and as you know HDCP compliance requires an HDMI connection).
If Hollywood really wants to minimize piracy, there's a very easy solution: make the hardware and software more affordable for everybody, agree on a single standard so consumers aren't punished into having to buy multiple pieces of hardware to be able to see everything, and put out good quality products, not 18 repackaged versions of the same movie.
I've had all of the playstation consoles so all my games are for a playstation console, so I will most likely Have to buy a PS3 eventually to continue playing said games.
the only problem I have with Sony and Playstation and Its a big problem is the fact that they can die really easilly. My PS2 for example can no longer play DVDs because the DVD lense is broken, It broke after about 6 months.
So as I said above I will most likely wait a year and see if the PS3 bombs or not and then choose between the PS3 and the xbox360
http://www.gametrailers.com/viewnews.php?id=3383
Good old Sony, it just keeps finding new ways to hang itself.
Sony is doing so many things to make the consumer passionately dislike them. However, they seem to think that they are immune to this, and that all consumers are valiantly loyal to them no matter what, thinking:
[list=*]
[*]They can price the PS3 at $600 when the PS2 has a very bad track record of unreliability[/*]
[*]They can make a $500 "budget" PS3 with, more or less, no hi-def[/*]
[*]That just because it's Blu-ray, everyone's going to flock to it[/*]
[*]That they can charge more than the standard price of games (of course, Nintendo did the same thing a while back, charging $80 for N64 games)[/*]
[*]That everyone will ignore the DRM rootkit scandal[/*]
[*]That everyone loves them so much that they can afford to gamble the company's future on one product...[/*]
[/list]
Sony is headed for disaster. They're going to end up dooming themselves the same way Atari did...
By the way, TonyDP, I completely agree with you about how there shouldn't be eighteen versions of the same DVD. I particularly like the ones where widescreen and fullscreen are on the same disc, like Transporter 2, for example (excellent movie, by the way
I hear you. With the advent of these new high-capacity DVD formats, including both versions of a movie on one disc should not be a problem and it would make manufacturing easier as well since you don't need to print and stamp 2 of everything. Even current DVD technology with dual layering can hold 4 hours of high quality video on a single side of a disk, plenty of room to put both versions of many movies.
But somehow I don't see it happening. Call me cynical but I sometimes think these companies pull the double just to confuse the consumer.
It also bugs me no end when a filmmaker releases a movie on DVD and then, 6 month or less later, releases an "ultimate" edition. With the branching technology available even in current DVD's that kind of scam is completely unnecessary and just a cynical way of plundering more money from the consumer.
Anyhow, sorry for the rant.
Well unless it comes with its own ATM machine, I'm hands off. Talk about arrogance on their part. 8-)
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
Ok...
Hey, Pierce if that's what you want,man, go for it.
Just out of my price range and another reason why I'm a staunch X-Man.
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/716/716047p1.html
Also, noted game developer Jeff Minter has gone on record as calling Sony's attitude arrogant. Even though he's currently on the Microsoft payroll, Minter is a respected developer:
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=9997
And here's an article that quotes an independent market research company who speculates that Sony could very well come in third in this round of videogame wars:
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/716/716144p1.html
Obviously, a lot of people will buy the PS3 no matter what, even if it means forgoing luxuries like food and clothing. But all this strangely reminds me of how Nintendo ignored the move to CD's back in the mid-90's and released the Nintendo64 with cartridges. That led to higher prices for their games and Nintendo really lost their dominance.
As one of my favorite sayings goes, "those who do not learn from history's mistakes are doomed to repeat them."
Couldn't resist could you?
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -