What exactly happened to the Playstation 3?

191012141517

Comments

  • Reply 221 of 322
    carniphagecarniphage Posts: 1,984member
    They'll probably wait for Killzone 2 before the knives come out for the games people.



    If Sony is an unsinkable ship, the PS3 is the iceberg that is causing the a huge leak down the side.

    Cash is leaking out through the PS3 hole faster than anyone expected.



    In Summer, the PS3 project had cost the company $3B which works out at about $150 per customer. To pick up pace, Sony needs to slash the cost of the hardware. But it literally cannot afford to do that. You can't dig your way out of a hole.



    There were many many mistakes by Sony that led to this point, but the two most important are:

    1) The adoption of the Cell processor

    2) The linking of Blu Ray to the console.



    Cell caused the console to be expensive to manufacture.

    BluRay caused the console to be expensive and was shipped late

    Cell increased the cost of games development on the console.

    The high retail cost of the console impacted on sales of the console.

    For developers, the high cost of development combined with the smaller audience meant fewer games were created.



    To counter this,

    Sony has subsidized the console at retail, and paid subsidies to key developers to create exclusive high profile titles. This has allowed it to buy market share, but driven up the debt.





    C.
  • Reply 222 of 322
    I recently made the choice between the XBOX 360 and PS3 and opted for the PS3.



    While the XBOX 360 has more games, all the games I really cared about were on both platforms so that wasn't really an issue. I also heard through the grapevine that Sony will be sunsetting the PS2 which will free up game developers to focus solely on the PS3 - which is bound to expand their selection. The benefit of the PS3 being a BlueRay player was also factored in. When it came down to it, I could really see no compelling reason for me to buy a 360.
  • Reply 223 of 322
    e1618978e1618978 Posts: 6,075member
    I don't think that Sony has it as bad as all that - Microsoft started with a lead of 8 million consoles due to its early launch, and Sony has sold on par with Microsoft since then (i.e. Microsoft still has that 8 million lead).



    Also Microsoft losses on its game division dwarf Sony's losses, and Sony is still making a profit on the PS2. The PS3 is a much better piece of hardware than the junky 360 is - I have both.
  • Reply 224 of 322
    carniphagecarniphage Posts: 1,984member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post


    Also Microsoft losses on its game division dwarf Sony's losses, and Sony is still making a profit on the PS2. The PS3 is a much better piece of hardware than the junky 360 is - I have both.



    Microsoft certainly made some bad decisions too. Not least the choice to save a dollar on a certain chip resulting in the spectacular red ring of death.



    On the hardware the 360 is neutral. Sometimes making a profit, sometimes making a loss. - Something similar with the entertainment division as a whole.



    http://www.joystiq.com/2008/04/25/th...-profit-again/

    http://www.totalvideogames.com/Xbox-...fit-12974.html



    The PS3, on the other hand, has lost 3 billion. PS2 revenues are irrelevant now.



    http://kotaku.com/5018899/sony-lost-...cing-imbalance



    C.
  • Reply 225 of 322
    e1618978e1618978 Posts: 6,075member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post


    Microsoft certainly made some bad decisions too. Not least the choice to save a dollar on a certain chip resulting in the spectacular red ring of death.



    On the hardware the 360 is neutral. Sometimes making a profit, sometimes making a loss. - Something similar with the entertainment division as a whole.



    They didn't start making a profit until they first lost $8 billion - they have a ways to go before they shave that down to match Sony's $3 billion. In fact, comparing apples to apples, Sony's loss would be less because of the enormous profit they made on the PS2 (that $8 billion is first gen xbox + 360. Sony is still in the black when you add PS2+PS3).



    Microsoft has a lot more safety due to its cash horde, and its other businesses that kick off cash, but I doubt that Sony will ever lose as much money as Microsoft has so far in the games business.
  • Reply 226 of 322
    carniphagecarniphage Posts: 1,984member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post


    They didn't start making a profit until they first lost $8 billion



    The first XBox was an unmitigated disaster. So many stupid decisions.

    But MS could afford to make that mistake. And they did learn some lessons.



    I am not sure Sony *can* afford to lose so much cash.

    Projecting forwards, it looks unlikely that the PS3 will ever go into profit.



    C.
  • Reply 228 of 322
    carniphagecarniphage Posts: 1,984member
    Quote:



    These all came out about the same time.



    Gears 2 (360) = 3.3m

    COD5 (360) = 2.4m

    Fable 2 (360) = 1.8m

    Little Big Planet. 0.9M - which is a pity because it's a great game.





    C.
  • Reply 229 of 322
    irelandireland Posts: 17,798member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post


    These all came out about the same time.



    Gears 2 (360) = 3.3m

    COD5 (360) = 2.4m

    Fable 2 (360) = 1.8m

    Little Big Planet. 0.9M - which is a pity because it's a great game.



    Which is a pity because it's the greatest game! This will changed though. This game is going unnoticed by a lot of folks, but they are missing out. Unlike basically every other game to come out this year, this one is genuinely something 'new'.
  • Reply 230 of 322
    xyz001xyz001 Posts: 117member
    I think the sole reason to the failure of the PS3 compared to the PS2 is its BUTT-UGLY design.



    I think everybody here underestimates the cool factor of a nice console. The wii is awsome. The xbox 360 is at least not ugly. But the PS3 is the nastiest thing ever to come out of the sony labs.....
  • Reply 231 of 322
    carniphagecarniphage Posts: 1,984member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by xyz001 View Post


    But the PS3 is the nastiest thing ever to come out of the sony labs.....



    Not true. How many other consoles Knock out the Fat?



    C.
  • Reply 232 of 322
    irelandireland Posts: 17,798member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by xyz001 View Post


    I think the sole reason to the failure of the PS3 compared to the PS2 is its BUTT-UGLY design.



    This PS3 is far from a failure. It's currently outselling the 360 and costs more. And besides, it's sweet looking hardware. I own one, and love it.



    The PS3 is not "nearly", anywhere near as fat as most people think. And unlike the 360 it doesn't have a large Borg-like (ship) external power brick, with WiFi standard (built-in). It's slick looking in person, and works very well with any modern (black) TV set-up. Yo!
  • Reply 233 of 322
    irelandireland Posts: 17,798member
    Quote:

    BUTT-UGLY design



    What are you smoking?



    The PS3 is very slick looking:







    Compare that to this awful looking thing:







    Which comes with this?!! (below):



    YUCK!







    A real world example:



  • Reply 234 of 322
    I'd almost rather the PS3 power supply was a brick... i think it's the source of most of the heat the PS3 gerates... and that's a LOT of heat! Forces you to leave the PS3 all by itself on the shelf... constantly getting after the kids about leaning the game boxes up against the ventilation of the PS3.



    Looks?... I'm not real impressed there... the front of the PS# is the ONLY chrome in the whole electronics stack.



    Otherwise, I'm pleased with the PS3... GREAT games... doubles as a BluRay player... set your coffee mug on top and it stays warm!
  • Reply 235 of 322
    e1618978e1618978 Posts: 6,075member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by xyz001 View Post


    I think the sole reason to the failure of the PS3 compared to the PS2 is its BUTT-UGLY design.



    I think everybody here underestimates the cool factor of a nice console. The wii is awsome. The xbox 360 is at least not ugly. But the PS3 is the nastiest thing ever to come out of the sony labs.....



    I think it is beautiful. Plus it does not need that ugly wireless adapter for an extra $100 that you plug in the back of the 360. And they made the hard drive easy to replace on the PS3...



    It is a way better unit overall - you can even run it 48 hours straight in a 130 degree sauna. Try that with a 360.
  • Reply 236 of 322
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,870member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post


    What are you smoking?



    The PS3 is very slick looking:



    No, what are you smoking? It amazes me that someone who can appreciate the aesthetics of Macs could ever refer to the PS3 as "very slick" They are seriously, seriously ugly.



    And what's the Xbox 360 got to do with whether or not the PS3 is ugly? Going by pictures and as long as the brick is out of sight, I'd say the 360 is better looking than a PS3 (but still ugly), but I've never seen a 360 in the flesh so I can't be sure.
  • Reply 237 of 322
    irelandireland Posts: 17,798member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post


    No, what are you smoking?



    Whatever it is, it's clearly not as strong as what you're smoking. Own one, and then make an informed opinion, please.
  • Reply 238 of 322
    irelandireland Posts: 17,798member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post


    I'd almost rather the PS3 power supply was a brick...



    Thank God you don't work for them. No offence. We PS3 fans often tout this as a bonues, I prefer it all-in-one, and I "mega-hate" power-bricks!



    If you want to leave the PS3 under the TV the secret is to keep it about 2" away from the right side wall. And the power-brick is not the main reason for the heat, removing it wouldn't have a huge impact on that. That would merely annoy every new PS3 owner.
  • Reply 239 of 322
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,384moderator
    The PS3 always reminds me of the Spiderman films. Seems like a marketing thing. I'm not impressed with the appearance much, it's pretty bulky. Here's a random guy holding one:



    http://cache.gawker.com/assets/image...ps3holding.jpg



    Given that the power brick from the XBox is external and massive, it's not bad by comparison but compared to the PS2 slim and the Wii, it's pretty big.



    I think Sony made a lot of mistakes and they may not recover. A $3 billion loss is very bad and the consoles are still double the price of the 360 and that's without PS2 compatibility, which reduces the game library dramatically.



    I think Blu-Ray was one of the biggest problem. Considering how much the drives cost, using standard DVD would have pushed the PS3 much closer to the XBox. They had to do it though or they may have lost the format war to HD-DVD.



    DVD titles on Amazon still outnumber Blu-Ray 100 to 1. It's not surprising that's the case but it highlights how insignificant Blu-Ray is at present.



    The PS3 sales have gained some ground and as the prices continue to drop, they will increase but I think it will take at least another year and a sub-£200 price point to overtake Microsoft:



    http://www.vgchartz.com/
  • Reply 240 of 322
    The games industry is not like the computer industry. The volume of console sales is not a good indication of profits. - In fact the more PS3s sold, the deeper the debt to pay back.



    Profits are made on the sales of games. Each disk sold makes a profit for MS or Sony.

    Game volume sales are a much better indicator.



    http://vgchartz.com/hwcomps.php?cons...9418&end=39782



    However, to guarantee market presence, both Sony and MS subsidize developers, (or provide free engineering support). So many seemingly successful games are, in reality, loss-making.





    C.
Sign In or Register to comment.