Sony's brilliant strategy and the future of gaming

The strategy involves Blu-ray and the PS2.

BLU-RAY:

The inclusion of Blu-ray is looking more and more brilliant. You see, the PS3 was a very difficult console for game development. So naturally, the early games didn't look good and were few in numbers relative to the 360's. Blu-ray, while making the console expensive, helps keep the PS3 afloat.

Now, games on the PS3 are looking better and bigger thanks to familiarity with the PS3 architecture and to the space in the Blu-ray disk. Microsoft's use of DVD9 and weaker processor will make the Xbox 360 looking more and more dated.

PS2:

Gamers are still buying the PS2 in the about the same numbers as the 360. These PS2 owners will take a few years to enjoy their games. After that the PS3 will come down in price to the range of 200-300 dollars. These PS2 owners will naturally adopt the PS3 as their next gen consoles because of familiarity with brand name, exclusive games, free on-line, blu-ray movies, the biggest, best looking games, etc.

PREDICTIONS:

1) Because of the PS3's Blu-ray, the PS2, and free online, Microsoft knows that it will lose this genration. It has resisted reducing the price of the 360, adopting Blu-ray, and making LIVE free. Frankly, because Microsoft wants to be profitable this gen, no matter what it does it will still lose. To me, without a doubt, the 360 has already lost this generation.

2) Games selling better on the PS3 is only a matter of time, 1 to 2 years at most.

3) The PS3 will win the Wii this generation because Sony will adopt a similar strategy of the PS2; Sony will continue to make and sell the PS3 long after the Wii stop selling.

4) Sony will win this generation and the generation after that if Sony can make the PS4 backwards compatible with the PS3 with little or no additional cost.

Bluray was a risky gamble. How can taking a gamble such as that be brilliant?

They're strategy is just to make everything cost a ridiculous amount.Acemaster27

Blu-ray wasn't brilliance. It was a risk sony took. and it didn't work. It made the console too expensive for people to buy,so sony started scrambling a few months to make the console more attractive.

And don't assume that ps2 owners will naturally go to the ps3. If that were true, the ps3 should already be in first place by now.

Bluray was a risky gamble. How can taking a gamble such as that be brilliant?

rimnet00

Now they can make money on games and movies. People who buy the PS3 for blu-ray will sooner or later give the PS3 games a try. People who buy the PS3 for games will sooner or later give Blu-ray movies a try. A very good combination in the HD generation.

Mark my words. The cows will become more and more confident in this systems wars forum.

Bluray was a risky gamble. How can taking a gamble such as that be brilliant?

rimnet00

Taking risks is not brillant, but if it pays of, the rewards far outweigh the risks.

Bluray was a risky gamble. How can taking a gamble such as that be brilliant?

rimnet00

by making it work something M$ cant do

Blu-ray wasn't brilliance. It was a risk sony took. and it didn't work. It made the console too expensive for people to buy,so sony started scrambling a few months to make the console more attractive.

And don't assume that ps2 owners will naturally go to the ps3. If that were true, the ps3 should already be in first place by now.

BuryMe

The PS3 is still somewhat expensive for the average gamer, but still the best value for what you get compared to the 360 or the Wii.

It's not in first place now because Sony hasn't reduced the price of the PS3. They will. It is common sense to assume most PS2 gamers will buy the PS3. Think about it: the people who buy the PS2 now are too cheap to pay for LIVE fees. This is just one reason out of many.

Wii number one cause a lot of casuals around.

X360 number two cause the best games for hardcore gamers

PS3 number three cause very soon HD video players will become cheap and nobody will buy PS3 as BR player like most people now. Games are too casual for hardcore players and not casual enough for Wii audience

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]

Blu-ray wasn't brilliance. It was a risk sony took. and it didn't work. It made the console too expensive for people to buy,so sony started scrambling a few months to make the console more attractive.

And don't assume that ps2 owners will naturally go to the ps3. If that were true, the ps3 should already be in first place by now.

Sihanouk

The PS3 is still somewhat expensive for the average gamer, but still the best value for what you get compared to the 360 or the Wii.

It's not in first place now because Sony hasn't reduced the price of the PS3. They will. It is common sense to assume most PS2 gamers will buy the PS3. Think about it: the people who buy the PS2 now are too cheap to pay for LIVE fees. This is just one reason out of many.

It's not common sense to say that people will just continue with the same company. Nintendo fans easily switched over to sony with the ps1, and now it seems people are switching over to the wii or 360.

brand loyalty alone has never made a company win a generation.

Blu-ray wasn't brilliance. It was a risk sony took. and it didn't work. It made the console too expensive for people to buy,so sony started scrambling a few months to make the console more attractive.

And don't assume that ps2 owners will naturally go to the ps3. If that were true, the ps3 should already be in first place by now.

BuryMe

Yeah, it didn't work, Blu-ray is dying and so is Sony. :roll:

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]

Blu-ray wasn't brilliance. It was a risk sony took. and it didn't work. It made the console too expensive for people to buy,so sony started scrambling a few months to make the console more attractive.

And don't assume that ps2 owners will naturally go to the ps3. If that were true, the ps3 should already be in first place by now.

dream431ca

The strategy involves Blu-ray and the PS2.

BLU-RAY:

The inclusion of Blu-ray is looking more and more brilliant. You see, the PS3 was a very difficult console for game development. So naturally, the early games didn't look good and were few in numbers relative to the 360's. Blu-ray, while making the console expensive, helps keep the PS3 afloat.

Now, games on the PS3 are looking better and bigger thanks to familiarity with the PS3 architecture and to the space in the Blu-ray disk. Microsoft's use of DVD9 and weaker processor will make the Xbox 360 looking more and more dated.

PS2:

Gamers are still buying the PS2 in the about the same numbers as the 360. These PS2 owners will take a few years to enjoy their games. After that the PS3 will come down in price to the range of 200-300 dollars. These PS2 owners will naturally adopt the PS3 as their next gen consoles because of familiarity with brand name, exclusive games, free on-line, blu-ray movies, the biggest, best looking games, etc.

PREDICTIONS:

1) Because of the PS3's Blu-ray, the PS2, and free online, Microsoft knows that it will lose this genration. It has resisted reducing the price of the 360, adopting Blu-ray, and making LIVE free. Frankly, because Microsoft wants to be profitable this gen, no matter what it does it will still lose. To me, without a doubt, the 360 has already lost this generation.

2) Games selling better on the PS3 is only a matter of time, 1 to 2 years at most.

3) The PS3 will win the Wii this generation because Sony will adopt a similar strategy of the PS2; Sony will continue to make and sell the PS3 long after the Wii stop selling.

4) Sony will win this generation and the generation after that if Sony can make the PS4 backwards compatible with the PS3 without little or no additional cost.

Sihanouk

blu ray helping keep them afloat? wasnt that what sunk them in the first place?

Blue-ray worked but it cost Sony 1st place this gen. If they had made PS3 a cheap console like PS2 it would have destroyed Xbox 360 and would be challenging Wii.

I don't care who wins the console war, I'm a gamer and will own all three eventually, I find console wars extremely childish.

[QUOTE="dream431ca"][QUOTE="BuryMe"]

Blu-ray wasn't brilliance. It was a risk sony took. and it didn't work. It made the console too expensive for people to buy,so sony started scrambling a few months to make the console more attractive.

And don't assume that ps2 owners will naturally go to the ps3. If that were true, the ps3 should already be in first place by now.

BuryMe

That was another risk, which payed off.

[QUOTE="BuryMe"][QUOTE="dream431ca"][QUOTE="BuryMe"]

Blu-ray wasn't brilliance. It was a risk sony took. and it didn't work. It made the console too expensive for people to buy,so sony started scrambling a few months to make the console more attractive.

And don't assume that ps2 owners will naturally go to the ps3. If that were true, the ps3 should already be in first place by now.

dream431ca

they had to do that to keep up with the competition.

[QUOTE="Sihanouk"][QUOTE="BuryMe"]

Blu-ray wasn't brilliance. It was a risk sony took. and it didn't work. It made the console too expensive for people to buy,so sony started scrambling a few months to make the console more attractive.

And don't assume that ps2 owners will naturally go to the ps3. If that were true, the ps3 should already be in first place by now.

BuryMe

The PS3 is still somewhat expensive for the average gamer, but still the best value for what you get compared to the 360 or the Wii.

It's not in first place now because Sony hasn't reduced the price of the PS3. They will. It is common sense to assume most PS2 gamers will buy the PS3. Think about it: the people who buy the PS2 now are too cheap to pay for LIVE fees. This is just one reason out of many.

It's not common sense to say that people will just continue with the same company. Nintendo fans easily switched over to sony with the ps1, and now it seems people are switching over to the wii or 360.

I meant Sony will drop the price to the $200-300 range. People switch to the PS1 because it was a lot better value. People are not switching to the Wii or 360. Wii owners are mostly gamecube owners and new casuals entering the console space. The 360? It can't even beat the PS3 in any territory this year, and you PS2 gamers to flock to the 360? We are both fanboys. I am just more reasonable.

[QUOTE="dream431ca"][QUOTE="BuryMe"][QUOTE="dream431ca"][QUOTE="BuryMe"]

Blu-ray wasn't brilliance. It was a risk sony took. and it didn't work. It made the console too expensive for people to buy,so sony started scrambling a few months to make the console more attractive.

And don't assume that ps2 owners will naturally go to the ps3. If that were true, the ps3 should already be in first place by now.

BuryMe

they had to do that to keep up with the competition.

Even though the PS3 was priced so high, why was it being bought at a faster rate than the 360 when it launched?

The price drop came because it was getting cheaper to manufacture the PS3's.

Blue-ray worked but it cost Sony 1st place this gen. If they had made PS3 a cheap console like PS2 it would have destroyed Xbox 360 and would be challenging Wii.

I don't care who wins the console war, I'm a gamer and will own all three eventually, I find console wars extremely childish.

M3tro1d

and yet here you are posting...

Better looking games because of blu-ray... I'm saying where?Bebi_vegeta

Why would Blu-ray make the games look better? Maybe if the games were in native 1080p they might, but it's just for disk space.

I meant will drop the price to the $200-300 range. People switch to the PS1 because was a lot better value. People are not switching to the Wii or 360. Wii owners are mostly gamecube owners and new casuals entering the console space. The 360? It can't even beat the PS3 in any territory this year, and you PS2 gamers to flock to the 360? We are both fanboys. I am just more reasonable. Sihanouk

And even if your theory is right, it is far from genius. Companies don't win the console war by letting the competition getting millions of units ahead of them and then trying to catch up a few years later. They win by taking an early lead. That's how the ps2 did so well.

Even though the PS3 was priced so high, why was it being bought at a faster rate than the 360 when it launched?

The price drop came because it was getting cheaper to manufacture the PS3's.dream431ca

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]Better looking games because of blu-ray... I'm saying where?dream431ca

Why would Blu-ray make the games look better? Maybe if the games were in native 1080p they might, but it's just for disk space.

That's exaclty what I am asking, since TC thinks so.

Better looking games because of blu-ray... I'm saying where?Bebi_vegeta

Better looking games because of the Cell processor. Bigger games because of Blu-ray. The PS3's first year exclusive games already look the same or better than the 360's 2nd year games. By the time 2008 is over, there will be no doubt which console has the biggest, best looking games.

If you don't want to be disappointed, stop hoping that the 360 can match the PS3 in game graphics or size.

[QUOTE="dream431ca"]

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]Better looking games because of blu-ray... I'm saying where?Bebi_vegeta

Why would Blu-ray make the games look better? Maybe if the games were in native 1080p they might, but it's just for disk space.

That's exaclty what I am asking, since TC thinks so.

Well, you could implement high res textures, but that doesn't make any sense. Native 1080p is the only way to get the graphics to look better. They will look sharper and more defined, but the textures will have little improvement unless you make textures that are fully compatible with 1080p. Movies look awesome on Blu-ray, so why not games? You have to say this game will have 1080p support even before drawing the first pixel. Otherwise if you just upscale the game to 1080p, it's not gonna look right.

Cognitive dissonance am confirmed.

Last gen Sony had a 75% market share

This gen Sony has less than a 25% market share

The Wii has already sold more units than the GC all last gen

Even with a mediocre year the 360 will have sold as many units as the Xbox by the end of this year.

The PS3 is not gaining on the Wii. In fact, the Wii is outselling the PS3 in every market, every month. Growing its lead.

The Wii is effectively unstoppable now.

Yep, the brilliance of Sony's strategy is clear.

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]Better looking games because of blu-ray... I'm saying where?Sihanouk

Better looking games because of the Cell processor. Bigger games because of Blu-ray. The PS3's first year exclusive games already look the same or better than the 360's 2nd year games. By the time 2008 is over, there will be no doubt which console has the biggest, best looking games.

If you don't want to be disappointed, stop hoping that the 360 can match the PS3 in game graphics or size.

Too bad better visual and bigger games don't automaticaly = to better games.

[QUOTE="BuryMe"][QUOTE="Sihanouk"][QUOTE="BuryMe"]

Blu-ray wasn't brilliance. It was a risk sony took. and it didn't work. It made the console too expensive for people to buy,so sony started scrambling a few months to make the console more attractive.

And don't assume that ps2 owners will naturally go to the ps3. If that were true, the ps3 should already be in first place by now.

Sihanouk

The PS3 is still somewhat expensive for the average gamer, but still the best value for what you get compared to the 360 or the Wii.

It's not in first place now because Sony hasn't reduced the price of the PS3. They will. It is common sense to assume most PS2 gamers will buy the PS3. Think about it: the people who buy the PS2 now are too cheap to pay for LIVE fees. This is just one reason out of many.

It's not common sense to say that people will just continue with the same company. Nintendo fans easily switched over to sony with the ps1, and now it seems people are switching over to the wii or 360.

I meant Sony will drop the price to the $200-300 range. People switch to the PS1 because it was a lot better value. People are not switching to the Wii or 360. Wii owners are mostly gamecube owners and new casuals entering the console space. The 360? It can't even beat the PS3 in any territory this year, and you PS2 gamers to flock to the 360? We are both fanboys. I am just more reasonable.

Casuals will go to where the games are and right now its not the ps3. Its as simple as that. The 360 has more games and the Wii's controller is whats making it sell well not to mention the price. What also makes you think that when the ps3 does get in the 200-300 dollar range that the 360 and wii will not be cheaper by then. When the ps3 gets in that range the wii and 360 could be less than 200 dollars. You still think casuals will go to the ps3 when they can get one of the other two systems for cheaper price? Answer that question with a logical answer.

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="dream431ca"]

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]Better looking games because of blu-ray... I'm saying where?dream431ca

Why would Blu-ray make the games look better? Maybe if the games were in native 1080p they might, but it's just for disk space.

That's exaclty what I am asking, since TC thinks so.

Well, you could implement high res textures, but that doesn't make any sense. Native 1080p is the only way to get the graphics to look better. They will look sharper and more defined, but the textures will have little improvement unless you make textures that are fully compatible with 1080p. Movies look awesome on Blu-ray, so why not games? You have to say this game will have 1080p support even before drawing the first pixel. Otherwise if you just upscale the game to 1080p, it's not gonna look right.

Blu ray has nothing to do with 1080p for games... what are you talking about?

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="dream431ca"]

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]Better looking games because of blu-ray... I'm saying where?dream431ca

Why would Blu-ray make the games look better? Maybe if the games were in native 1080p they might, but it's just for disk space.

That's exaclty what I am asking, since TC thinks so.

Well, you could implement high res textures, but that doesn't make any sense. Native 1080p is the only way to get the graphics to look better. They will look sharper and more defined, but the textures will have little improvement unless you make textures that are fully compatible with 1080p. Movies look awesome on Blu-ray, so why not games? You have to say this game will have 1080p support even before drawing the first pixel. Otherwise if you just upscale the game to 1080p, it's not gonna look right.

The reason why games are not native 1080p is because of the ram restrictions on the consoles. The 360 and ps3 do not have enough ram to run games at 1080p natively.

[QUOTE="Sihanouk"]I meant will drop the price to the $200-300 range. People switch to the PS1 because was a lot better value. People are not switching to the Wii or 360. Wii owners are mostly gamecube owners and new casuals entering the console space. The 360? It can't even beat the PS3 in any territory this year, and you PS2 gamers to flock to the 360? We are both fanboys. I am just more reasonable. BuryMe

And even if your theory is right, it is far from genius. Companies don't win the console war by letting the competition getting millions of units ahead of them and then trying to catch up a few years later. They win by taking an early lead. That's how the ps2 did so well.

They didn't rush their console like Microsoft did and avoided the Red Ring of Death. Microsoft is paying dearly for coming out first: reliability issues, and less future-proof technologies. The PS2 did well because it had many, many more exclusives than the 360 including the Madden and GTA series, which only came to the Xbox when it's too late.

[QUOTE="BuryMe"] [QUOTE="Sihanouk"]I meant will drop the price to the $200-300 range. People switch to the PS1 because was a lot better value. People are not switching to the Wii or 360. Wii owners are mostly gamecube owners and new casuals entering the console space. The 360? It can't even beat the PS3 in any territory this year, and you PS2 gamers to flock to the 360? We are both fanboys. I am just more reasonable. Sihanouk

And even if your theory is right, it is far from genius. Companies don't win the console war by letting the competition getting millions of units ahead of them and then trying to catch up a few years later. They win by taking an early lead. That's how the ps2 did so well.

[QUOTE="dream431ca"][QUOTE="BuryMe"]

Blu-ray wasn't brilliance. It was a risk sony took. and it didn't work. It made the console too expensive for people to buy,so sony started scrambling a few months to make the console more attractive.

And don't assume that ps2 owners will naturally go to the ps3. If that were true, the ps3 should already be in first place by now.

BuryMe

Dismal PS3 sales? You seem to forget PS3 out sold 360 in 2007.

Well, its hopeful predictions which i sort of doubt, rather i would love for that to happen. Ok well i agree about the 360. Its been dated since it was released. The thing is. The PS3 and the 360 both rely on graphics and processing power to boost them in this next generation. And while the 360 was good the better of the two should theoretically win. Which is the PS3. However there are alot of ignorant people still buying 360's even though in America the decent 360 is $50 less than a regular Ps3. So for $50 more than a 360 pro you get something that is many times more powerful, comes with a Blu Ray player, and isnt as faulty as the 360. Not to mention if you want to paly online Live for one year already makes the 360 cost as much as a PS3. So i dont understand why youd prefer a system that has a 67% failure rate (source 1 below) over a system that has about a .02% failure rate (source 2 below) and comes with so much more. Why people buy 360s will always make me wonder. (Halo isnt a good enough reason)

Source 1:http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=175137

Source 2:http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/678514/Sony_PS3_Failure_Rate_At_02.html

[QUOTE="BuryMe"][QUOTE="dream431ca"][QUOTE="BuryMe"]

Blu-ray wasn't brilliance. It was a risk sony took. and it didn't work. It made the console too expensive for people to buy,so sony started scrambling a few months to make the console more attractive.

And don't assume that ps2 owners will naturally go to the ps3. If that were true, the ps3 should already be in first place by now.

coldsteel321

Dismal PS3 sales? You seem to forget PS3 out sold 360 in 2007.

The Ps3 is selling faster than the 360 ever did. So hopefully the 360 just stops selling.

Wii owners are mostly gamecube owners and new casuals entering the console space. Sihanouk

Wrong.

"The reality is that the Wii is not expanding the market as much as Nintendo wants us to believe," Goodman said. "According to a publisher I have spoken to, less than 10 percent of Wii buyers did not previously own a console. So basically, Wii growth is coming at the expense of other console manufacturers--mainly Sony--not by expanding the market. It is only once a Wii enters a household that others start using it.

http://e3.gamespot.com/story.html?sid=6174649&pid=942009&cpage=4&prev_button=1

And while the 360 was good the better of the two should theoretically win. Which is the PS3. beinss

Now I understand. No games, less power and inferior multiplats means "better".

I'm just not too much familiar with cow's language

Blu-ray wasn't brilliance. It was a risk sony took. and it didn't work. It made the console too expensive for people to buy,so sony started scrambling a few months to make the console more attractive.

And don't assume that ps2 owners will naturally go to the ps3. If that were true, the ps3 should already be in first place by now.

BuryMe

Are you ok? IF you like I can drive you to the doctor to get your head cat-scanned.

It wasnt brilliant so much as Luck. IF Blu-Ray tanked, it would have seriously crippled PS3. Thankfully, Blu-Ray won and that makes PS3s Gamble a huge pay off. black_awpN1

Yep, the greater the risk = the greater the return or loss. In this case it was a big risk that gained a BIG return.

[QUOTE="Sihanouk"] Wii owners are mostly gamecube owners and new casuals entering the console space. SUD123456

Wrong.

"The reality is that the Wii is not expanding the market as much as Nintendo wants us to believe," Goodman said. "According to a publisher I have spoken to, less than 10 percent of Wii buyers did not previously own a console. So basically, Wii growth is coming at the expense of other console manufacturers--mainly Sony--not by expanding the market. It is only once a Wii enters a household that others start using it.

http://e3.gamespot.com/story.html?sid=6174649&pid=942009&cpage=4&prev_button=1

I was not wrong. I am rarely wrong. Read my sentence again. Former Gamecube owners + totally new comers >>greater than former PS2 owners.

I can see later on, former PS2 owner may outnumber gamecube owners, but not yet. That's because more people will own 2 consoles this generation than last gen. There will be a lot of PSWii owners.

Well, its hopeful predictions which i sort of doubt, rather i would love for that to happen. Ok well i agree about the 360. Its been dated since it was released. The thing is. The PS3 and the 360 both rely on graphics and processing power to boost them in this next generation. And while the 360 was good the better of the two should theoretically win. Which is the PS3. However there are alot of ignorant people still buying 360's even though in America the decent 360 is $50 less than a regular Ps3. So for $50 more than a 360 pro you get something that is many times more powerful, comes with a Blu Ray player, and isnt as faulty as the 360. Not to mention if you want to paly online Live for one year already makes the 360 cost as much as a PS3. So i dont understand why youd prefer a system that has a 67% failure rate (source 1 below) over a system that has about a .02% failure rate (source 2 below) and comes with so much more. Why people buy 360s will always make me wonder. (Halo isnt a good enough reason)

Source 1:http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=175137

Source 2:http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/678514/Sony_PS3_Failure_Rate_At_02.html

beinss

Wow, I'd like to argue, but that was some class A fanboyism right there. People like me are ignorant because we chose the 360 over the PS3? Perhaps it was because of the exclusives and the better multiplats which we get earlier (Lost Planet and Orange Box are prime examples of this)? Or maybe that XBL has a larger online community and more efficient service than PSN? Or maybe you should realize that 67% failure rate is a complete bulls**t figure. Oh well, I guess ignorant people like me will never understand. :roll: