235 replies to this topic

[DeathDude]

It's a bit of a link really, with the high profile titles that the ps3 does have, they may well be some awesome games, but you also have to sell the fact that you have to shell out more than 700 bucks for the system and plus the game and maybe other perpherials, so far sony hasn't done a great job doing that.

[Potatoe]

DeathDude, on Sep 8 2006, 08:01 PM, said:

It's a bit of a link really, with the high profile titles that the ps3 does have, they may well be some awesome games, but you also have to sell the fact that you have to shell out more than 700 bucks for the system and plus the game and maybe other perpherials, so far sony hasn't done a great job doing that.

700 dollars for console
70 for a game.
Doesn't seem worth buying to me...

[DeathDude]

Well again that's if the game will even be 70 since might be more expensive since on a blu-ray disc.

[Docktor_Worm]

A system isnt going to flat out fail, since there's always going to be a large audience for each console, what will really decide this is if Blu-ray or HD DVD wins out. If Blu-ray fails, thats a PS3 with an couple of extra hundreds on the price tag for little benefit to the buyer

[DeathDude]

It will fail, if you treat your potential audience with such an attitude that they are going to buy your product blindly and not make any questions about it, which is what Sony has been doing, the blu-ray player will be the big draw, but so far HD-DVD is winning the race, even with the bigger space on a disc, blu-ray is already losing the battle, will that change, hard to say but not looking good so far.

[Blood-Pigggy]

I don't think they're really doing much wrong with the inclusion of the Blu-ray, but what is wrong is the audience their aiming at with the Blu-ray player.

The thing is, they're trying to catch non-gamers with a cheaper Blu-ray player than the ones out in stores right now, the only problem that lies in that is the fact that non-gamers don't want to buy a gaming console, even if it is cheaper than a fully fledged Blu-ray player, it's the same as people buying a PSP for less than a DVD player, since they can both play movies, but no non-gamer is going to do that, they're just going to go for the DVD Player, expensive price whatever.

While non-gamers are really focused on with a console, unlike the Wii, the PS3 is trying to convince people to buy it with addons instead of the console itself like the Wii.

I don't think casual gamers want it either, a lack of games, and a steep price tag will blow them off as well.
Hardcore gamers will buy it, but how many of them are actually in the mass market?

If I were them, I'd just add HD-TV or a DVD player instead of the Blu-ray, reduce the price to around $500 max, and $400 dollars for the minimum system (hell, if they did take the Blu-ray out, it'd probably cost less.)

[DeathDude]

Exactly there is only so many hardcore gamers in the market and if they really try to appeal to new gamers somehow they are going about it the wrong way. Look at the DS there is a reason why it is bringing in new gamers, with it's affordable price tag and games that both appeal to casual and hardcore gamers and even unique new titles.

Sony is going about it the wrong way so far, but there is still time to see if they will learn their lesson and perhaps change their thinking, but from the looks of it, doesn't look like it will happen.

[Sinke]

Deathdude

Quote

Actually the Saturn launched before the N64, so they were the last....

I didn't say N64 was launched before Saturn, I said it ended up second in "war of consoles". As far as I remember, Saturn was the first console out there (from "recognized" 32-bits) in matter of launch time.  PS One followed- US launch at least.

Irony is that, if there weren't for PS One, Saturn would probably be a mega-hit for gamers and would give Sega huge power in this industry. Saturn is, however, considered the first step towards Sega's drop from console production.

To tell the truth, Sega deserved that because of their silly company managment. Sega USA was developing marketing for Mega Drive 32X , while Sega Japan was working on Saturn- without telling that to Americans.

[DeathDude]

Well add to the fact that the Saturn just had it's share of problems, being very hard to develop for with it's dual processors, even if there would be no ps1 that wouldn't have made it ideal for selling, it had it's fair share of difficulties and was losing developer support as the months went by, Sony was just in the right place at the right time, with the right idea and right system, hence why they won that race.

But indeed it was bad mismanagement that hurt them in the race shame what happened but that's the way it goes.

[Blood-Pigggy]

Saturn had some damn stinky launch games though, and the entire selection wasn't that great either (there aren't really that many notable games that go along with Panzer Dragoon or such).

[Sinke]

Yeah, Saturn was quite bad console. But it seemed quite cool, black and stuff. They really knew how to design outfit of consoles in that time. Or maybe it is just me who thinks that next-gens are more similar to microwave cookers than gaming stations.

By the way, did you know this? They really had weird tactics in that company! They spent millions on those monsters! And who knows them today? I certainly didn't!

[DeathDude]

Ahh yeah I remember that, I got the second model myself, still have it downstairs in my basement but yeah do not know why they did that, heck the first design was alright, second one should have been the last one, number 3 was a waste.

Actually think the wikipedia article for Sega has a really good link at the bottom of the Sega article to another website that goes through all the history of sega up till it bowed out with dreamcast, really in depth but good to check out if your a fan of Sega and want to know the behind the scenes of what went on.

[Potatoe]

DeathDude, on Sep 8 2006, 09:13 PM, said:

Well again that's if the game will even be 70 since might be more expensive since on a blu-ray disc.

Ok.

700 dollars for console
Up to 100 dollars for a game.

That really doesn't seem worth buying, by buying 3 games you've alredy wasted about 1000 dollars on a console and three games. I tought of buying the PS3, but when I found out the cost and how they acted really cockily, I went with Wii.

[Sinke]

I honestly think Sony is just earning money on first launch. Price will probably go down after a while, they just want those spoiled kids to give that fortune for a shiny fog machine.

I doubt first shipment of consoles will last for a week, no matter the cost. There are enough of junkies out there who would spit more than the price already mentioned.

[DeathDude]

That may well be the case, the system will sell out first launch no question, for the really hardcore gamers who do have the cash they will buy it, will the price go down fast? Don't think so and usually it takes a year before a system price goes down, till that happens that's where Sony will start losing sales, after the intitial launch period. With the high cost of the system and the games, gamers won't break their bank accounts to continually support it when they could just buy wii and or 360 which is more affordable.