Slashdot Log In
Why Sony Won't Lose The Next-Gen War
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Oct 27, 2006 03:53 PM
from the sheer-grit dept.
from the sheer-grit dept.
GamesDaily has up an opinion piece, talking about why author James Brightman sees Sony walking away with the next-gen crown, again. From the article: "Sony is well aware of the power of its brand and it will do everything it can to leverage the PlayStation name. Providing backwards compatibility with both the PS1 and PS2, as well as offering full PS1 titles for download through the PS3, can only help to reinforce that brand and remind gamers of the PlayStation games they hold so dear. Selling over 100 million units, twice, has its advantages. In fact, there are a number of people who have probably owned nothing but PlayStation consoles, and those consumers are likely to stick with a brand they know and trust. Before they've even learned anything about Sony's new console, many consumers have already made up their minds that they want the next PlayStation no matter what. A strong brand should not be underestimated." Relatedly, the company released a few more details on its online plan via its Japanese office. That article touches on AV chat, a puzzle games service, and downloadable games.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Leaning on the name? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyone care to say otherwise?
Re:Leaning on the name? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1) It's too expensive
and
2) Sony suxxorz!
It remains to be seen how much the price will drag down mainstream sales. I think Sony will come out with a smaller marketshare this time around, but I'm not Microsoft and Nintendo have what it takes to win out. In theory, the graphics will be noticeably worse on the Wii and 360 won't have the children's games. Each of the consoles in this generation has it's down sides, all that's left is to see which one wins in the marketp
Re:Leaning on the name? (Score:5, Insightful)
A brand can help, but in the end, it all comes down to the games. It's really that simple. The PS3 is going to need some really high-end exclusive games to match its high-end price tag, but if they can build up a solid library, they'll do fine. I don't think they'll dominate as forcefully as they did with the PS2, but they'll end up making some money, and life will go on.
Parent
Re:Leaning on the name? (Score:5, Funny)
The 5200 never really did all that well. Mostly because Atari wouldn't support it.
My thoughts?
1995
Sega: "The Sega Saturn is going to be the most advanced gaming machine of our time! At only $399, it will be a value. On top of that, we're releasing it six months early!"
Sony: "$299"
(The Sega empire fell.)
2006
Sony: "The PS3 is going to be the most advanced gaming machine of our time! At only $599, it will be a value. On top of that, we're releasing it ahead of Nintendo's offerings!"
Nintendo: "$249"
(Will Sony's empire fall? Tune in to the next exciting episode of Slashdot for the thrilling conclusion!)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
2000
Sega: "The Dreamcast is going to be the most advanced gaming machine of our time! At only $149, it will be a value! On top of that, we're releasing it a year ahead of Sony's offerings!"
Sony: "$299"
2006
Microsoft: "The XBOX360 is going to be the most advanced gaming machine of our time (it's just as fast as the PS3)! At only $399 (+$50/year for live, +$199 if you want HD-DVD) it will be a value! On top of that, we're releasing it a year ahead of Sony's offerings!"
Sony: "$499 (+$1
Re: (Score:2)
And "No one needs more than 480p!"
I am without question getting a Wii (eventually anyway... I'm not planning on getting any console at launch) just for Zelda, but it's a big disappointment that it won't at least be Zelda at 720p. The screenshots look at best marginally better than the Cube version, and worse even than some PS2 games (compare to Shadow of the Colossus and other recent games). I don't think the Wii will age very well. (And low-resolution 3D is far worse than low-resolution 2D.)
A strong brand. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A strong brand. (Score:5, Funny)
Lets go with Enron and MCI
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Ford could be an example, but you can't look at Ford today. You have to look at Ford in the 70s, when the price of gas went through the roof and pollution regulations were introduced. Their response was to stick with old technology and muddle around with smaller, less powerful engines. GM's response was to introduce a new Cadillac that got 8 mpg on the freeway. They ignored the wants and needs of their customers completely.
The qu
Re: (Score:2)
In particular I'm talking about the delay in the battery recal, the root-kit and the grey market crackdown this week.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What I think is interesting is the Playstation brand has been searched less than the Nintendo brand over the past 6 months:
http://www.google.com/trends?q=Playstation%2C+Nint endo [google.com]
http://www.google.com/trends?q=Playstation%2C+Nint endo&ctab=0&geo=US&date=all [google.com]
Not really representative of anything except that the
Re: (Score:2)
Will Sony still dominate after this round? Maybe, but definitly not as much as they once did. 2nd place overall would'nt suprsise me at all. Will they go out of business over this? Not by a long shot.
Re: (Score:2)
The CD32 especially (first 32bit cd based conole, vastly superior to sega's megacd and cheaper), was going very well for Commodore UK until it's US parent company went belly up and took them down with it.
PS3 vs. Wii (Score:2)
http://www.google.com/trends?q=ps3%2C+wii [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(In one sense, PepsiCo is "winning" though, insofar as they have a higher market capitalization than Coca-Cola. That's more a product of their diversification than success in the "cola wars" though. Less than a quarter of their revenue comes from their carbonate
Time (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Both of these are comparable in scope to Halo... FF13 probably even a bit larger. Interesting thing is that Microsoft was probably better off having Halo and little else, because it got so attention because it was the ONLY THING that anyone was noticing. After all, a mountain is going to stand out more in the midwest than it will the Alps.
Well.. everybody has an opinion... (Score:3, Interesting)
That said, I think there's more than enough room in the console market that nobody truly loses this round.
But I also think that no matter how you slice it, Microsoft has cut, and cut deep, in the what would have been much greater profits for Sony from the PS3. Everybody who thought their opinion mattered said when the xBox first came out that Microsoft could never compete with Sony and the Playstation line. But, as Microsoft has shown time and time again, Microsoft is capable of assimilating a successful business strategy and making their own version viable and profitable. Sure, Microsoft has failed, don't get me wrong. Just not most of the times, or even really a substantial percentage of the times, that they've done so. Witness the Zune. I am prepared to predict that the Zune doesn't really steal the market from the iPod, much in the same way the xBox didn't from the Playstation. But the Zune will be profitable. That is my prediction.
Oh and one other thing. I am not an owner of a single game console, from any year. So I don't think I am biased towards any particular one. I prefer the PC.
TLF
Re: (Score:2)
You lost all credibility with this one line. The Xbox line has never turned a profit, and the 360 is highly unlikely to make a profit this time around either. No other company could afford to lose the billions of dollars that Microsoft is losing on the Xbox.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you expect that argument to have any credibility in the context you put it in? DO you realize how vastly unprofitable the Xbox was? And that's what you're holding up to say that the Zune has a chance in hell?
Have a look at this graph [photobucket.com]. It shows console sales over time where t0 is the release
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And once the fans realize..... (Score:4, Informative)
Sony isn't going to win this round on name recognition, they COULD have, if it was a 400 dollar console, and would have at 300, but going to 600 dollars makes it less likely.
Sony needs to win this round, and they might pull it off if Microsoft still can't break Japanese markets after Christmas next year (give them time). If Blue Dragon doesn't make a huge in-road for the 360, Sony will not have to worry.
However sony is already running scared, dropping the price of the 20 gig model in Japan, low numbers (now saying they might not make 2 million consoles by the end of the year), a almost constant hype session, at least one a day. And all for one reason. The 360 is already here, and already getting better and better.
Will the 360 be perfect? no. But the PS3 is looking worse as the launch window comes up, they'll sell out, but the 360 has 6 MILLION consoles out there. The PS3 has 2 million at the end of the year if they are lucky. Developers know this, and know the score.
Which will win though? Who knows, it all rests on Japan right now, and even there people arn't thrilled with Sony.
What about $500 then? (Score:2)
The cheapest PS3 is $500, not $600. And people seem quite happy paying $400 for a premium 360 with a fee for Live so a slightly more expensive PS3 with free online service should sell equally well - at least for the first six million units or so. And then they have sold enough to build momentum.
Re: (Score:2)
To quote Penny Arcade: (Score:4, Funny)
"Because it's 600 f*cking dollars..."
It's amazing how far we've gone (Score:3, Interesting)
It's been almost a complete 180. Now you have analysts trying to prove why Sony won't lose the next-gen war, and a lot of people doubting them.
I'm no Sony fanboi (or anyone's fanboi for that matter, I'm console agnostic), but I don't think Sony is going to lose the next-gen war either, despite all of the company's goof-ups and mistakes. However, it's still amazing to note how far Sony has fallen, and much Nintendo's and MS's stock has risen over the course of only a year.
Re: (Score:2)
Its really Nintendo that has been the largest dynamic in this go-round of console launches. (Don't mind me, I'm just going to type aloud (?) here for a bit.)
We've been speculating for years and now we can see the shape of games to come. I find it quite fascinating to see how strategies have coalesced amongst the big 3 respectively. Previous trend was to go bigger, more
3rd Party Wii-mote Devices (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
The problem is that the PS3 is NOT 3x a 360 (Score:3, Interesting)
I think your comment, regarding performance, is exactly what Sony wants you to think. It's the same game they played with the PS2, in order to sink the Dreamcast.
Lose, win... what does that mean? (Score:2, Insightful)
Nintento will win the war (Score:4, Funny)
The entrenched system has a huge advantage (Score:2)
Re:You proved your point wrong. (Score:2)
Pretty much. I agree. Now, let's update that with current information.
Historically, it took some major screw up on Sony's part (PS3)and a briliant system (Wii) for market leader to exchange.
Given the numbers Sony has an uphill battle. Day 1, the Wii will be the next gen market leader in Japan*, where much of the game development is.
*To Date Microsoft hasn't sold 100,000 X-b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's really too early to know how the market will take it. Gaming news sites really don't have their finger on the pulse of the market, in my opinion.
It's still about the games. (Score:2)
Unlike other industries though these people don't give any kind of indication of whether or not things will go well. Most of the great games that will really sell consoles are halfway into development by the time release comes out and they'll be released even if the initial sales are bad. If those g
Brand only takes you so far... (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, this is just personal experience speaking, but myself and three other close friends have all purchased Xbox360s over the last five months, ever since Sony's premium price was announced. These were all people (including myself) who had a strong interest in the Playstation brand but were immediately turned off by the pricing vs. features, lack of an online plan, and general corporate behavior. And while my personal experience by no means constitutes a trend, I have no doubt that others feel the same way. I think that Sony's in bad shape.
There's no doubt that Blu-Ray may appeal to a subset of consumers. I wonder if those same consumers will enjoy paying 30 dollars or more for the Blu-Ray titles - a 50 percent premium over DVDs. This is something that no one talks about and I don't see why not. Until the price of the disks come down you, Blu-Ray and HD-DVD will be a no-go no matter how you slice it. You could put a Blu-Ray player in every home and it still wouldn't sell because the media is simply too expensive for cost vs. performance. So, at this point Sony is essentially selling a media playing format at a loss - and no one will want to pay the premium to get that media, because they either a) don't want to spend the money, or b) literally don't have the equipment to properly display high-def signal (look at the fury over Dead Rising). That's a losing proposition to me.
I think this is probably the most interesting generation of console releases ever, and I've seen them all. What is interesting to me is that Nintendo is poised to walk away in second place (worst case scenario) or even get to first place if they manage to cross that mystical boundry that seperates "gamers" from the game-playing public. A few games have managed to do this; The Sims and Myst being the two most notable examples. If you can make a fun, easy-to-use system with a TRUE wide variety of appeal then you will become the king of the living room. But even if you can't get the casuals, Nintendo's low price and unique controller basically guarantees that it will become the second console of choice to the hardcore gamer crowd who wants either a different kind of game or something more tactile and accessible to rope in their casual friends. I also think that pro-Wii Nintendo fans, who will buy the console for Nintendo's franchises, have not yet realized the impact of buying a slightly-upgraded Gamecube down the line. In two or three years, when a game is released for Xbox360 or PS3 that really blows away the public (and it will happen, as it has happened in every generation) Wii owners are going to want to get in on that. At that point, their console's anemic power might be a liability. A port might not be technically feasible, in which case, they will then have to make a choice: Xbox360 or PS3? Which leaves us with the distinct possibility that Nintendo might get a Wii into the majority of gamer's homes (and at a profit, too!) and also appeal to the casual audience.
Microsoft and Sony are not so lucky. By pricing their consoles expensively and having similiar technical specs, Microsoft and Sony have turned their segment into an "all or nothing" proposition. They will either take first place or die.
There are, of course, other factors, but they rely on games, mindshare, game franchises, and online play...not console branding. Final Fantasy and Metal Gear may move units, but niether game will appeal to anyone beyond it's already hardcore fan groups. What's hilarious is that a simple look back through the history of consoles shows that console-branding means jack squat. Atari was king, but bad games let the crown slip to Nintendo. Nintendo built an almost insurmountable lead with the NES, was chipped away at by the Genesis (and how was that accomplished? GAMES! The product was inferior technically), crushed by the Playstation (also an inferi
Contestable (Score:2, Insightful)
That said, his opinion is highly contestable.
The Brand
I would have thought that his comparing the ubiquitous association of Sony's brand now to Nintendo's ubiquitous association then would have given him reason to say why Sony won't repeat Nintendo's failure. He failed to account for it
You know, guys, its not going to be $600 forever (Score:2, Insightful)
My point is the war isn't won at launch. Its won when the system has lots of GOOD games for it, and they become cheap. When production becomes cheap so the manufacturer makes a profit off it. When the console becomes cheap enough to be able to buy another one, just as a bac
Critics not readin article (Score:4, Insightful)
"certain PS3 launch games (e.g. Resistance: Fall of Man) already look as good as the best Xbox 360 has to offer. In one to two years, we think the combination of the Blu-ray medium and the Cell processor will lead to a noticeable difference between the visuals of the PS3 and the Xbox 360, as developers begin to really harness the technology in the PS3. And by that time the PS3 won't be retailing for $500 or $600 anymore. Nintendo may not care about hi-def graphics, but in the ultra-tech battle between Microsoft and Sony, it's beginning to look like Sony has the edge."
People have said you can always just use multiple DVD's on the 360, but really that is way more clunky and drastically reduces profits for manufacturers. The extra storage space will be useful to PS3 developers, as it is even at launch. I'm not sure why people discount this as an advantage for Sony, given that the game developers have expressed displeasure with the 360's anemic storage and we can see right before our eyes that it is being used.
Another point was about the online service:
"With the inclusion of free online play, publishers know that anybody in the PS3's install base can go online. Not only does that automatically encourage developers to make use of online functionality, but it also could have important ramifications with regards to in-game ads that are streamed online. All of a sudden the potential audience for these ads is that much bigger, while on the 360 publishers of online titles with streamed in-game ads will still be limited to the number of Xbox Live Gold subscribers. Ultimately, we think that Microsoft will have no choice but to go free as well (perhaps with some ad-supported scheme with the help of MS-owned Massive Inc.), even if it's not for another couple years."
Free online play is a big draw for us computer gamers who were leery of a recurring fee to play online. It makes buying console versions of games more acceptable rather than just waiting for a PC version of some things.
But fundamentally the point here is that making it so that every console owner can easily be online means that game makers may well focus even more on the quality of online play, just as including a hard drive in every console gives freedom to game developers in use of system resources. The PS3 has a more expansive list of things the developer can assume exist for every player:
*) Hard drive
*) Match service/online play
*) Large storage capacity
*) Motion detection
Any one of those items alone does not guarantee a great game. But each one of them opens up new avenues for developers and can enable them to make a great game they might not have been able to make otherwise.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This article headline proves the contrary (Score:3, Insightful)
And now, today, what we have? An article trying to prove why "Sony won't lose the war?". Maybe it won't "lose the war", but it has cleary lost *something*.
At the gym... (Score:4, Interesting)
The point is: it's not just pasty-faced geeks on websites bitching about Sony any more - anti-Sony sentiment has gone mainstream. Sony are in meltdown and they're betting the farm on a console that ordinary, non-techie people are displaying a visceral aversion to. The general perception of Sony producing quality products is gone. And the beauty of it is they've given pretty much everyone in every one of their markets reason to suspect and reject their goods.
Sony's unlikely to fail in the long-term due to Japanese business practises - shareholders holding onto stock well past the point westerners would cut their losses and corporations shoring each other up - but in the short- and medium-term they're looking pretty damned screwed.
Re: (Score:2)
I would counter with, "Before they've even learned anything about Sony's new console, many consumers have already made up their minds that they won't pay $500+ for a gaming console."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Base PS3 is $500 (Score:2)
If your theory were correct Microsoft would not have sold six million 360's, many of them premium bundles almost as expensive (after costs for Live) as a base PS3.