Sometimes when success is fading, rebranding can be an incredibly useful way of rebooting your position in a market. Why is it so difficult to digest simple on-topic postulations?
Ah, you mean like New Coke.
Or the Nintendo Wii, but yes, that's one example of a rebranding exercise; albeit one unnecessary because sales weren't in a state of decline.
Well done though, nice to see you're beginning to understand the wonders of topical conversation. Now if you can manage it without facetiousness we might see about getting you a sweetie.
Skykid wrote:Or the Nintendo Wii, but yes, that's one example of a rebranding exercise; albeit one unnecessary because sales weren't in a state of decline.
Well done though, nice to see you're beginning to understand the wonders of topical conversation. Now if you can manage it without facetiousness we might see about getting you a sweetie.
Wait, I thought they went towards Wii partially because the GameCube was such a flop. If you look at the GC, the idea seems to have been to create a powerful gamer-oriented console with a standard (albeit funky looking) control pad (by which I mean: it's a twin stick, 4 face buttons, 3 triggers plus d-pad setup). Pretty standard stuff, for the most part, so I think they really had to do something different (seemingly partially because they were never able to successfully shake their "kiddie" image that the competition was able to harp on from their past consoles, probably also due to Nintendo's main series' not really having their shit in gear).
Come to think of it, it did come out with SNES colors, which actually is a bit reminiscent of the Wii's Virtual Console cashing in on Nintendo nostalgia.
When it comes to Playstation, wasn't the PS3 *already* an attempt to brand the device as a media hub? I guess yeah, a different name might have helped that strategy.
louisg wrote:
Wait, I thought they went towards Wii partially because the GameCube was such a flop.
Nintendo launched the Wii purposely playing down affiliation with the company. They left 'Nintendo' off of all of their early launch advertising to distance association with the Gamecube and Nintendo 64, and market the Wii as a new independent product for the family.
As soon as it worked out for them they started sticking the company name back on everything.
louisg wrote:Oh, OK, I see what you mean now. I thought you were saying the Wii at launch wasn't a departure from the GameCube.
Ah, I see your confusion. No, I was saying the exact opposite, that it was a successful rebranding exercise. The other comment was in reference to Friendly's juvenile, but not entirely unexpected jab about New Coke, which is a terrible example of rebranding and certainly the exception rather than the rule.
So back on topic, would anyone like to see (or care) if Sony moved on from the 'PlayStation' suffix, or do you think it wouldn't help/matter in the current industry climate?
Last edited by Skykid on Wed Jun 27, 2012 8:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I can't say I'm surprised in the slightest. It was bound to happen as soon as both MS and Sony adopted the "push hardware that isn't yet affordable, try to subsidize the cost with accessories and other crap, and inflate development costs to ridiculous levels in the process" strategy. Yeah the 2 biggest players taking a stance that can't do anything but fuck up the entire industry is really great...
So back on topic, would anyone like to see (or care) if Sony moved on from the 'PlayStation' suffix, or do you think it wouldn't help/matter in the current industry climate?
I could see it happening. I bet Sony is going to try and push their full ecosystem more (like everyone else) which may require less game-centric branding. I hope they don't though, I hate the idea of having to lock myself into a brand like that. But so many companies seem dead set on copying Apple and doing just that.
Sony Computer Entertainment announced today that Kazuo Hirai will be stepping down as Representative Director and Chairman. He will remain on the company board in a part-time capacity.
Hirai is still President and CEO of Sony Corporation as a whole, a position he assumed on April 1 of this year. However, his departure from Sony Computer Entertainment's executive branch is notable, as Hirai rose the ranks of Sony through SCE and its international subsidiaries.
GaijinPunch wrote:I don't have 40 minutes to do anything other than fist myself these days.
Skykid wrote:So back on topic, would anyone like to see (or care) if Sony moved on from the 'PlayStation' suffix, or do you think it wouldn't help/matter in the current industry climate?
It'd be cool if they changed it. I'm actually surprised the PlayStation name went over well. I always thought it sounded like one of those things for toddlers with the spinny plastic ducks. I'm not sure what new audience they could aim at though. Phone and tablet companies already ate Nintendo's lunch.
There *is* the matter that, in general, you're aiming at teenagers. Teenagers often want to buy something that differentiates them from their older siblings or parents, and differentiates their current jaded state from when they were a kid. I always wonder if that's part of the reason that console companies never seem to be able to maintain a high level of success for more than two generations.
EDIT: It seems like with the PS3 that they really wanted to aim at the mid-20s set (if PSX was teenaged and PS2 was for 20-somethings, then this'd be the next logical step). That is, here's a game console that belongs next to your hi-fi set. I think in that way it's almost a rebranding in concept but not in name.
t0yrobo wrote:I can't say I'm surprised in the slightest. It was bound to happen as soon as both MS and Sony adopted the "push hardware that isn't yet affordable, try to subsidize the cost with accessories and other crap, and inflate development costs to ridiculous levels in the process" strategy. Yeah the 2 biggest players taking a stance that can't do anything but fuck up the entire industry is really great...
It's just a more extreme version though of the way consoles have been sold forever. I think Sony this generation was really hoping for a repeat of the PS2. They just took it way too far cost-wise and didn't have the brand power they came into the previous generation with (since XBox made inroads last gen, even though it was to a small degree-- the name was out there and established by the time this generation rolled around).
Its the TV division thats failing. Nothing needs to change on the PS front.
Samsung and LG make cheap TV's with extremely cheap parts. People can't differentiate one from a Sony sitting next to it for double the price. Sony lose.
Even if the PS brand was twice as successful it just isn't going to eat into that TV debt much. If Sony want more profit at this stage in the game they will have to drop non profitable ventures. Whats 5.7 billion anyway? Sony made billions and billions in the past 20 years. Sometimes you can't stay at no1 forever. and like I said, too many crap innovations and not enough "must have" innovations. Apart from PS2 and PS3 Sony have pretty much not done anything remotely worth talking about.
This industry has become 2 dimensional as it transcended into a 3D world.
I just had a dream where Sony and Microsoft have become smart companies who care (and have a clue) about their market.
In my dream, they've understood that 99% of their audience don't play the same game on two different consoles. They understood that nobody believes, let alone craves for software/platform exclusivity anymore. They understood that having two consoles for the same purpose leaves them with a fifty-fifty chance of losing a customer. So they have created one console in a joint venture, thus saving themselves half the R&D and manufacturing costs while taking advantage of the complete market.
In my dream, their console has a minimalist design similar to that of a Mac mini, without any bells and whistles. It has no optical drive; instead there were: fully integrated WLAN and Bluetooth controllers; a 1 TB high-density HDD storage for games, save data, and miscellaneous media files; a very fast highly-parallel 16 GB SSD cache with a controller tuned towards large sequential writes; a small high-discharge backup battery rated for one minute of functionality required for a graceful emergency shutdown; a built-in H.264 processor that would be able to record game footage at 60 FPS.
In my dream, MS and Sony have understood that they don't need to compete with PC in terms of power and scalability—what they can offer, however, is tight integration and loads upon loads of convenience for things that typically require external hardware, software, or hassle.
In my dream, MS and Sony have understood that it's not the overall expenses that are frightening the customers (where customers means people who pay for consoles and games, not necessarily play them), but the price of admission: 1) one needs to pay a significant sum of money up front; 2) it may turn out afterwards that it wasn't worth it in the first place. And so a brilliant idea has visited their minds: people can pay later, automatically, gladly so! So their console cost only 99$ up front, which instantly made it affordable for low-income households. All that would be required is a plastic card issued by a carrier that supports micropayments. A Blu-ray drive would be available as an optional add-on, because those who have a PS3 or don't want to purchase Blu-rays don't need to pay for the functionality they don't need. The drive would be designed and shaped the same, and would attach to the host machine from below as a Lego brick. Any further add-ons would also attach that way, no matter the order. The top surface needs to be free from ugly ports; there is only a Kinect-like camera there.
In my dream, MS and Sony have understood that market has people who prefer the safety and investment value of physical media and are willing to fork over the money, and there are people who prefer the delivery speed, convenience, and low cost of downloads, and moreover, there is a significant overlap between the two, because different people assign different value to games. So why not combine them in a way that would make both kinds of people happy? So they decided to let them choose between a cheap digital download and a premium physical edition that would basically be a read-only USB stick with the game and a highly secure unique hardware ID on it. Digitally downloaded games would only work when the console is connected to the network, the retail games would work offline (but would obviously lose the online functionality that way).
In my dream, MS and Sony have understood that people are quickly disappointed by overpriced pieces of garbage they ended up not liking, and are more than willing to pay for games they enjoy playing, not begrudging money spent on good time. So the digitally downloaded games would have no purchase price. They would just be downloaded the same way a torrent would. Instead, players would be charged hourly via micropayments: 1.5$/hour for the first 10 hours, 1$ for the next 60 hours, 0.5$ for the rest. Of course, one wouldn't be charged for menu navigation if nothing happens in the game world during this idle time that would allow to abuse the system. Suddenly developers are given an incentive to make games that last. Suddenly there is no need for paid DLCs because, if a DLC increases play time, the customer will pay for it automatically by playing the game. Suddenly "episode"-like segmentation won't annoy the audience anymore. Suddenly highly dynamic highly replayable games and arcade games that have been conceived as pay-per-credit make sense again from the developers' standpoint, and for the first time in decades they make more sense than pointlessly padding what is essentially a one-trick pony. Suddenly there's no need to pump ridiculous production values in a game as long as it plays well. General 20 hours spent on an average-quality game would translate to 25$, which is already more than most XBLA titles, except you don't have to pay them up front if you end up not liking the game or lose the interest sooner. To reach a typical retail price of 80$ one would only need 80 hours of play, which is at best an average figure if you remember how much time you've spent on your favorite games, especially multiplayer ones, especially MMOs. Obviously the console's interface would have a menu item with detailed statistics for total play time and total expenses, because hiding things has never worked that well when money is involved.
In my dream, the retail editions are aimed towards collectors and have nicely designed boxes, booklets, high-res wall posters and possibly some non-gameplay materials (such as soundtrack CDs); they have a fixed base price at 60$ which the developer or publisher are free to increase according to what they want to include and what distribution route to take; the player won't be charged any extra for playing the game no matter the time spent playing. For niche developers with self-published titles, it would be possible to order such an edition right from them without having a retailer up the price. Retail games all work out of the box, but for any online functionality the console will have to read the unique security code from the stick and authorize it on the server, at which point the game will have to be launched on the same console or using the same account if the console is different (on a different console, as long the stick is inserted into it, the same user will be able to play the digitally downloaded version of the same game at no charge). In case the user would like to sell or loan the stick, they would be de-authorized as soon as it is inserted into a different console and launched online with a different account. Starting from that point the new user's account will be treated as the owner of the game, and the old user will be charged with micropayments for any further plays until re-authorization. In case the same user connects from two different consoles and plays the game simultaneously, they will be charged hourly for each new instance without a stick.
In my dream, MS and Sony have understood that, while people like free online services, they're also quite willing to pay for premium features for a small fee. But nobody likes paying for unused functionality, so it's also done as micropayments depending on the usage of premium features. And yeah, simply playing a multiplayer game isn't a premium feature, of course. What's premium about that?
In my dream, they've understood that players take great pride and joy in sharing their success with their friends and teammates, which takes more forms than gamerscore, achievements or some other arbitrary small-time bullshit. Any time a game is played, the built-in H.264 processor would continually pre-record the last 30 minutes of gameplay and keep them in a buffer on the SSD cache drive with the ability to do these main things:
1) if it is a single-player session, to rewatch the buffer's contents in a timelapse manner;
2) start dumping the entire content or a part thereof to the main storage and continue recording if necessary;
3) instantly upload the desired video recording and/or singular frames from it as screenshots to the cloud which would be available for anybody else to view without any accounts or registrations or whatnot;
4) stream the video online without the hassle of setting up FMLE, streaming cards and all that bullshit;
5) optionally stream or record the player's face as they play as part of the video stream;
6) back up the saved video or screenshots to a USB stick for advanced editing or post-processing on a PC.
Obviously the features to make the uploaded videoclips publicly available and stream the gameplay would be premium. But most people would be glad to have it that way as it would save them the hassle and the cost of additional hardware, and for the rest it won't be expensive enough to offset the comfort.
In my dream, the MS and Sony's native hardware and services are all meticulously tested on real people, engineered well, and work without hassle (think Apple or Nintendo). They aren't rolled out until they're up to a high standard.
In my dream, it would be possible for user-generated content to be released as a DLC, obviously at no additional cost. It would benefit players as they would enjoy a game in a way only PC gamers can currently, and extend the play time for more money towards MS & Sony.
In my dream, during simple singleplayer games the console would make an automatic "savestate" every minute and store it in the SSD cache independent of the in-game save spots. A most recent state will be stored together with a state from 5 minutes ago and 20 minutes ago. Depending on the game, the player will have a choice to dump the contents of any of the three savestates to the main storage or the cloud, or force the game to save on the current position. In case of a power spike/loss, the game would finish saving the current state if it were in the process of making it, using the built-in battery as a UPS, and perform a graceful shutdown requiring no user input. Upon restoring the power the game will be restored from the cache at the most recent state. There would be no need to go through the game loading, as the console will just load the entire RAM content associated with the game back in one piece from the fast cache. For multiplayer sessions or anything else that must not be abused this way, a state will be saved before the start of such a session and immediately after its conclusion.
In my dream, the console tracks not only the overall game time but also the game time elapsed since the last restart (from the beginning) and the time elapsed since the last forced saving if a game allows that—both with the ability to save the results locally and upload them to a leaderboard (premium feature). Finally all applicable games can be conveniently speedrun AND recorded at the same time, all using the same piece of hardware, giving unbelievable freedom and convenience for speedrunners and, yet again, giving more incentive to replay the game.
In my dream, MS and Sony have come up with a working controller that reads heart rate and brainwaves in conjunction with tracking voice, face expressions and body movements using the Kinect-like camera, coming up with a synergistic control scheme allowing for actually fucking immersive first-person experience even heavily handicapped or injured people would be able to enjoy. They would also allow connecting PC keyboards and mice, and also pen tablets and touchpad/touchscreen devices for handwriting input, obviously without guarantees that all of them aside from the most popular ones would work as expected, but with at least some hope that they would work at all, as compared to the current state of affairs.
Then I woke up and realized both companies are actually dumb as fuck and would never do any of that. Stupid bastards.
Last edited by moozooh on Wed Jun 27, 2012 9:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Matskat wrote:This neighborhood USED to be nice...until that family of emulators moved in across the street....
Obiwanshinobi wrote:Walkman was the shit back in the day.
This is where Sony had a win with the PlayStation brand. From shortly after launch to pretty much until the Wii, "Playstation" was the parental/non-gamer term for a games console - much as everyone called personal casette players "Walkman" regardless of whether it was or not. It's more or less been replaced with Wii, so maybe now is the time to change it?
Playstation 4 does sound like a sequel that's running out of steam - like Die Hard 4 or Lethal Weapon 4. Maybe they could call it Playstation: Resurrection and properly shit themselves into the ground?
I don't much fancy where Sony and Microsoft are taking their consoles, so I'll probably Wii U it along with my existing gaming PC then either upgrade that or stick two fingers up depending on how far the DLC and Cloud obsessions go.
neorichieb1971 wrote:I think Skykid is missing the point a bit.
It's the TV division that's failing. Nothing needs to change on the PS front.
I agree for the most part. As far as the hardware is concerend, PS3 did way more things right than 360.
-The first 360 had no hdmi, PS3 did.
-Until the slim revision, 360 had no built-in wifi (you had to purchase stupidly expensive wifi adapters). PS3 had built-in wifi.
-During the first 3 years, 360 did not come with a wireless pad, PS3 always did (though the earliest PS3s came with Sixaxis controllers without rumble).
-All PS3 models always came with a built-in hdd.
-PS3 allows you to use regular 2.5" retail hdds if you wish to exchange yours for larger one; 360 requires you to purchase tiny proprietary hdds for stupid prices.
-PS3 allows you to use ANY usb gamepads (eg. Sega Saturn USB pads) for PS3 (and PS1) games, 360 only works with Microsoft controllers.
-PS3 has free online gaming, while Microsoft is brazenly charging money for something that should be free (because they can)
-PS3 is region-free, while 360 is region-locked
Aside from the crazy high launch price, which Sony paid for dearly by losing its position as market leader, they made two bad mistakes: The first was removing PS2 backwards compatibility after the 60GB model. The second was removing the Other OS feature; that was extremely anti-consumer, and they were rightfully punished for this by the hacking community.
Microsoft on the other hand had the Red Ring of Death blunder (as a consequence of rushing 360 to the market prematurely in order to beat Sony to the punch), which cost them a lot of cutomer confidence. It's pretty much a given that many potential buyers are going to take a wait and see stance after Microsoft's next console is released ("fool me twice, shame on me"). Many 360 owners were unhappy about being forced to pay for Xbox Live; if Sony retains free online gaming for PS4, they have a distinctive advantage.
Last edited by Friendly on Wed Jun 27, 2012 10:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
To address both Neorichie and Friendly's above posts:
neorichieb1971 wrote:I think people are missing the point a bit.
Its the TV division thats failing. Nothing needs to change on the PS front.
Yes, TV division is losing the most money, but plenty (plenty!) needs to change on the PS front, and Sony are well aware of it (see comment about replacing videogaming with a new primary market initiative.)
'PlayStation' is no longer a brand that will automatically propel their consoles to the top of the tree, evident with PSP and all its iterations, PS3 and Vita; none of which managed the kind of market leading pole position enjoyed by the PSX/PS2. More specifically, the 'Multimedia' angle has proven it no longer makes a difference in winning the console race.
From that perspective, Sony needs to rethink everything for PS4, and Microsoft the same.
God only knows what's cooking down in R&D, but I hope it's something special!
Ed Oscuro wrote:
Of course, if they hadn't been thinking too big, we'd never have had the PlayStation to begin with. Their original plans were for it to be a does-everything set-top box, though, which wasn't feasible back in 1994 and Mickey Schulhof's dreams, but it was a nice idea.
Ewwww Schulhof. The one name that people at Columbia/CBS records couldn't stand at all.
Friendly wrote:Microsoft on the other hand had the Red Ring of Death blunder (as a consequence of rushing 360 to the market prematurely in order to beat Sony to the punch), which cost them a lot of cutomer confidence. It's pretty much a given that many potential buyers are going to take a wait and see stance after Microsoft's next console is released ("fool me twice, shame on me"). Many 360 owners were unhappy about being forced to pay for Xbox Live; if Sony retains free online gaming for PS4, they have a distinctive advantage.
It's sad, but I don't know if customer confidence is really based on whether or not a console breaks. The PS1 was pretty breaky (the whole "turn it 90 degrees thing"-- I almost bought one around '98, and decided against it because of that). PS2 fat was also very easy to break: At jp launch, a local videogame store burned through two of those in a month and then just decided against buying a third.
The first model 360 had something like a 100% break rate though, didn't it? Does anyone still have a launch 360 that works? Pretty damn bad! But I won't be surprised if customers come back for more.
louisg wrote:
The first model 360 had something like a 100% break rate though, didn't it? Does anyone still have a launch 360 that works? Pretty damn bad!
It was unforgivable! Launching a console that's guaranteed to meltdown on customers is the least cool thing ever. An unfortunate result of wanting to get there first, which was a double-edged sword because it definitely did win a userbase advantage, but they had to replace a fuckload of units. I had three replacement 360's dropped off to me, quickly and for free, but it still sucked.
Sony Computer Entertainment announced today that Kazuo Hirai will be stepping down as Representative Director and Chairman. He will remain on the company board in a part-time capacity.
Hirai is still President and CEO of Sony Corporation as a whole, a position he assumed on April 1 of this year. However, his departure from Sony Computer Entertainment's executive branch is notable, as Hirai rose the ranks of Sony through SCE and its international subsidiaries.
Wtf!
So Hirai has already stepped down? Man, that was short lived. I suppose you're expected to rescind your position if you report a $5.7 billion loss, but I thought he'd have had more impact.
louisg wrote:The first model 360 had something like a 100% break rate though, didn't it? Does anyone still have a launch 360 that works? Pretty damn bad! But I won't be surprised if customers come back for more.
My launch model finally broke around last Christmas, so not terrible really. People were just using it wrong.
Breaking news: Dodonpachi Developer Cave Releases Hello Kitty Game
Friendly wrote:-During the first 3 years, 360 did not come with a wireless pad, PS3 always did (though the earliest PS3s came with Sixaxis controllers without rumble).
-PS3 allows you to use regular 2.5" retail hdds if you wish to exchange yours for larger one; 360 requires you to purchase tiny proprietary hdds for stupid prices.
-PS3 is region-free, while 360 is region-locked
These are partially false.
All the Pro 360 models included wireless controllers. It was only the cheaper Core models that had wired ones.
Certain off-the-shelf 2.5" Western Digital drives can be hacked to work with the 360, and they work as if they were official drives. The 360 also allows for extra storage via USB flash drives.
Most 360 games sold in the US and EU are region-free.
neorichieb1971 wrote:I think Skykid is missing the point a bit.
It's the TV division that's failing. Nothing needs to change on the PS front.
I agree for the most part. As far as the hardware is concerend, PS3 did way more things right than 360.
-The first 360 had no hdmi, PS3 did.
-Until the slim revision, 360 had no built-in wifi (you had to purchase stupidly expensive wifi adapters). PS3 had built-in wifi.
-During the first 3 years, 360 did not come with a wireless pad, PS3 always did (though the earliest PS3s came with Sixaxis controllers without rumble).
-All PS3 models always came with a built-in hdd.
-PS3 allows you to use regular 2.5" retail hdds if you wish to exchange yours for larger one; 360 requires you to purchase tiny proprietary hdds for stupid prices.
-PS3 allows you to use ANY usb gamepads (eg. Sega Saturn USB pads) for PS3 (and PS1) games, 360 only works with Microsoft controllers.
-PS3 has free online gaming, while Microsoft is brazenly charging money for something that should be free (because they can)
-PS3 is region-free, while 360 is region-locked
Aside from the crazy high launch price, which Sony paid for dearly by losing its position as market leader, they made two bad mistakes: The first was removing PS2 backwards compatibility after the 60GB model. The second was removing the Other OS feature; that was extremely anti-consumer, and they were rightfully punished for this by the hacking community.
Microsoft on the other hand had the Red Ring of Death blunder (as a consequence of rushing 360 to the market prematurely in order to beat Sony to the punch), which cost them a lot of cutomer confidence. It's pretty much a given that many potential buyers are going to take a wait and see stance after Microsoft's next console is released ("fool me twice, shame on me"). Many 360 owners were unhappy about being forced to pay for Xbox Live; if Sony retains free online gaming for PS4, they have a distinctive advantage.
All of this extra functionality came at a price - a good £100 above even the pro 360 if I remember rightly. I bought a Core as it was all I needed and was instantly playing the same games for about £250 less than on PS3.
Sorry man, Sony don't love you, you know? They don't even like you.
Forgot to mention one of the most prominent features: PS3 has a built-in Blu Ray drive (allowing you to watch Blu Ray movies right out of the box), while Microsoft sold an expensive HD-DVD add-on.
Blu Ray was the reason why PS3 was delayed for several months, but it certainly paid off for Sony; including the drive played a big role in helping the format win.
Considering everything I listed, Sony's PS3 was actually cheaper than 360; to get similar-ish functionality 360 owners had to pay much more money; Microsoft just (correctly) assumed that most consumers suck at math and would at first glance think that 360 is cheaper. If you've had an Xbox 360 since launch and subscribed to Xbox Live since then, you have now paid between $320 and $400 in addition to what the console(s)* cost you.
*Microsoft's extended warranty for early 360s is over; which means that once yours launch model breaks (not if), you will buckle and buy a new 360. This is due to customer lock-in; all your games and peripherals are for 360, your friends use Live (forcing you to also pay for Live).
Marc wrote:
All of this extra functionality came at a price - a good £100 above even the pro 360 if I remember rightly. I bought a Core as it was all I needed and was instantly playing the same games for about £250 less than on PS3.
Yes, and later on you probably bought a Microsoft HDD (costs 100 bucks and more), a wireless controller (50 bucks), a wifi adapter (80 bucks iirc) and paid for Live (another ~50 bucks p.a.). And since your launch model didn't have hdmi and died on you, you probably bought another 360 down the road.
Friendly wrote:Yes, and later on you probably bought a Microsoft HDD (costs 100 bucks and more), a wireless controller (50 bucks), a wifi adapter (80 bucks iirc) and paid for Live (another ~50 bucks p.a.). And since your launch model didn't have hdmi and died on you, you probably bought another 360 down the road.
Why are all these things even needed.
For instance, the only extra thing I'd ever bought for my X360 Arcade was wired Horipad EX2 for about 30-35 bucks. Microsoft has quite correctly assumed I don't need all this extra functionality, and I wouldn't trust them with the controller anyway. Dualshock and its derivatives are equally abhorrent.
Matskat wrote:This neighborhood USED to be nice...until that family of emulators moved in across the street....
Friendly wrote:Forgot to mention one of the most prominent features: PS3 has a built-in Blu Ray drive (allowing you to watch Blu Ray movies right out of the box), while Microsoft sold an expensive HD-DVD add-on.
Blu Ray was the reason why PS3 was delayed for several months, but it certainly paid off for Sony; including the drive played a big role in helping the format win.
Microsoft didn't care about winning the format war. They only backed HD-DVD in the hopes that the competition between Blu Ray and HD-DVD would lead to confusion/frustration among consumers, resulting in faster adoption of streaming/digital distribution of video content (what MS really wants). Blu Ray is merely a stop-gap format, which is why most view Sony's "victory" in the format war as pyrrhic at best.
Friendly wrote:Considering everything I listed, Sony's PS3 was actually cheaper than 360; to get similar-ish functionality 360 owners had to pay much more money; Microsoft just (correctly) assumed that most consumers suck at math and would at first glance think that 360 is cheaper. If you've had an Xbox 360 since launch and subscribed to Xbox Live since then, you have now paid between $320 and $400 in addition to what the console(s)* cost you.
You're also assuming most consumers actually cared about the extra features that the PS3 offers. I, for one, don't care about wireless or watching Blu Ray movies. Bringing up the MSRP of a Gold subscription on a videogame forum is kind of silly, since I'm willing to bet that most people here who pay for Gold don't pay full price for it (those living in the US at least). I've had Gold for about 4 years total, and I've paid less than $150 for it. The victory of the Wii over the 360 and PS3 shows us what consumers really care about.
Marc wrote:
All of this extra functionality came at a price - a good £100 above even the pro 360 if I remember rightly. I bought a Core as it was all I needed and was instantly playing the same games for about £250 less than on PS3.
Yes, and later on you probably bought a Microsoft HDD (costs 100 bucks and more), a wireless controller (50 bucks), a wifi adapter (80 bucks iirc) and paid for Live (another ~50 bucks p.a.). And since your launch model didn't have hdmi and died on you, you probably bought another 360 down the road.
I did indeed, and the 250gb slim STILL cost less than the PS3. Which I owned and sold. And I'm a rarity I admit, but I still have the original core, and it works fine.
Why are all these things even needed.
