What does Sony have to do to get back on top?

This is mostly a theoretical question for people who went PS1>PS2>Xbox 360.

Some of you are saying that "Sony should get their **** together for the next gen of consoles."

To meet your demands, do they have to charge for online? I don't see any consumers complaining that Sony isn't charging them to play online; in fact, it's optional and not even required in order to have peer-to-peer/server-based online play, so that doesn't seem right.

Do they have to make more exclusives? Their current output of exclusive software dwarves Microsoft's and Nintendo's put together. PlayStation fans don't have to clamor for 1st party titles like Xenoblade Chronicles or Killer Instinct because Sony is meeting demand for their 1st party franchises.

Do they have to be open to developers? Well, Sony has been pretty open to Valve and EA, who have been giving superior multiplats (in terms of content) to the PS3 for quite some time now. 3rd party companies are now making multiplatform games perform better than the competing platforms as well.

Oddly enough, it seems like Sony has "manned up" already, yet these same folks damning them are continuing to cut off their own noses to spite their faces. What benefits are you currently getting with the Xbox 360 that you can't get on PS3?

Now, speaking as a consumer, I went with the Xbox 360 from 2005-2010. After their anti-consumer announcement of arbitrarily raising the price of Xbox Live (the only feature of which I used was online gameplay), the revelation that they'll be focusing on Kinect/microtransactions/Avatar clothing, cancelling traditional games in development, PR stating that "core" gamers will still get their Halo/Fable/Forza/Gears of War fix (I want more than those same 4 games every year), getting worse versions of multiplatform games that I am interested in (Dead Space 2, L.A. Noire, Portal 2, etcetera), it seemed to me that the Xbox 360 was only a temporary console, not a long-term console.

So, I eventually spoke with my wallet and traded one in and all of my games and bought myself a PS3. I haven't looked back since, because I am not missing out on anything. Maybe Gears of War 3, but what makes you people think that I can't get it on PC later on? Fable 3 did it.

just keep doing what their doing. and dont launch another console at 600 bucks(700 in canada at the time) LOLTH1Sx1SxSPARTA

So, NOT launching a product at an exorbitant price (3DS also comes to mind), is pretty much what came to my mind as well.

I waited for a price drop and technically got my PS3 at $199 (it was $299 plus a $100 gift card).

EDIT: Tried to fix wording...

Good question, because they're currently destroying the competition in terms of everything but sales.

I think if Sony continues what they're doing now, that is keep the quality of everything high and keep making quality exclusives they'll be back on top *eventually*.

Then again, the Wii U will get the upperhand next gen by releasing first, and in general the Wii U should be a pretty amazing system. I'm not sure if Sony can get back to the top honestly, but we'll see.

Good question, because they're currently destroying the competition in terms of everything but sales.

I think if Sony continues what they're doing now, that is keep the quality of everything high and keep making quality exclusives they'll be back on top *eventually*.

Then again, the Wii U will get the upperhand next gen by releasing first, and in general the Wii U should be a pretty amazing system. I'm not sure if Sony can get back to the top honestly, but we'll see.

theuncharted34

Well, it is possible that the Wii U will get the same treatment as the 3DS. Even though WE know it's a different system, do regular people know?

I think that was the biggest issue with the 3DS. A lot of "not-in-the-know" consumers thought that it was just a DS with 3D.

Nintendo didn't do a good job with advertising the Wii U at E3, either. Even the attendees were confused and just thought that it was a new controller and not a new system.

This is mostly a theoretical question for people who went PS1>PS2>Xbox 360.

Some of you are saying that "Sony should get their **** together for the next gen of consoles."

To meet your demands, do they have to charge for online? I don't see any consumers complaining that Sony isn't charging them to play online; in fact, it's optional and not even required in order to have peer-to-peer/server-based online play, so that doesn't seem right.

Do they have to make more exclusives? Their current output of exclusive software dwarves Microsoft's and Nintendo's put together. PlayStation fans don't have to clamor for 1st party titles like Xenoblade Chronicles or Killer Instinct because Sony is meeting demand for their 1st party franchises.

Do they have to be open to developers? Well, Sony has been pretty open to Valve and EA, who have been giving superior multiplats (in terms of content) to the PS3 for quite some time now. 3rd party companies are now making multiplatform games perform better than the competing platforms as well.

Oddly enough, it seems like Sony has "manned up" already, yet these same folks damning them are continuing to cut off their own noses to spite their faces. What benefits are you currently getting with the Xbox 360 that you can't get on PS3?

Now, speaking as a consumer, I went with the Xbox 360 from 2005-2010. After their anti-consumer announcement of arbitrarily raising the price of Xbox Live (the only feature of which I used was online gameplay), the revelation that they'll be focusing on Kinect/microtransactions/Avatar clothing, cancelling traditional games in development, PR stating that "core" gamers will still get their Halo/Fable/Forza/Gears of War fix (I want more than those same 4 games every year), getting worse versions of multiplatform games that I am interested in (Dead Space 2, L.A. Noire, Portal 2, etcetera), it seemed to me that the Xbox 360 was only a temporary console, not a long-term console.

So, I eventually spoke with my wallet and traded one in and all of my games and bought myself a PS3. I haven't looked back since, because I am not missing out on anything. Maybe Gears of War 3, but what makes you people think that I can't get it on PC later on? Fable 3 did it.

GameShtopper

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

Good question, because they're currently destroying the competition in terms of everything but sales.

I think if Sony continues what they're doing now, that is keep the quality of everything high and keep making quality exclusives they'll be back on top *eventually*.

Then again, the Wii U will get the upperhand next gen by releasing first, and in general the Wii U should be a pretty amazing system. I'm not sure if Sony can get back to the top honestly, but we'll see.

GameShtopper

Well, it is possible that the Wii U will get the same treatment as the 3DS. Even though WE know it's a different system, do regular people know?

I think that was the biggest issue with the 3DS. A lot of "not-in-the-know" consumers thought that it was just a DS with 3D.

Nintendo didn't do a good job with advertising the Wii U at E3, either. Even the attendees were confused and just thought that it was a new controller and not a new system.

Nintendo surely has learned from that mistake, the Wii U will be advertised well I'm sure.

Their e3 presentation was rushed, I'm sure the next time they unveil the system they'll be more prepared and have much more to talk about.

I'm pretty excited about the Wii U, I can feel it's going to be an amazing console.

Pretty much what some are saying:

NEVER NEVER EVER launch a system with such an exorbant price tag.

Other than that, Sony should just KEEP DOING what they've always done:

1. Maintain Good relations with 3rd party publishers.
2. Maintain exclusive 1st party games
3. Cater to the core (and casual) gamers
4. continue the PLAYSTATION brand name

They'd have to make the PS4 with weak hardware and be really cheap. Is that what you really want?

make it $400 and lower that's it.

It would help if like others said, not release a console with an expensive price tag. It would also help if people had more faith in their online service, Most people know about the hacking of PSN, and it scares consumers from buying their system. It also doesn't help their controller is a replica gen after gen. A lot of people told me they arent buying a PS3 or like it, because of the sucky controller. (opinions) It's also not that user friendly. IMO. And lastly, the mainstream gaming population loves online multiplayer. the 360 does better in this department. And more people play XBL. Here are some pretty obvious reasons why Sony isn't on top. and what they'd have to do to change that.

Sony would be on top if they, like everyone else has said, did not have a $600 price tag at the start.

Don't care if they're on top sales wise as long as I'm enjoying the best console of all time.Cow4ever

I see where you get that Cow4ever username now....

[QUOTE="Cow4ever"]Don't care if they're on top sales wise as long as I'm enjoying the best console of all time.Snakemaster9

I see where you get that Cow4ever username now....

I bought ps1 and ps2 for the mass amounts of rpg games. ps3 is lacking in that department in my opinion.

Don't care if they're on top sales wise as long as I'm enjoying the best console of all time.Cow4ever

[QUOTE="Cow4ever"]Don't care if they're on top sales wise as long as I'm enjoying the best console of all time.charizard1605

[QUOTE="charizard1605"][QUOTE="Cow4ever"]Don't care if they're on top sales wise as long as I'm enjoying the best console of all time.Cow4ever

Sony needs to do ABSOLUTLY nothing...

There is no need to play the first place/second place/third place game...Just continue to make awesome consoles and amazing exclusives and I'm one happy gamer. Why do I care if they sell more consoles than another company? Last I checked I dont see a cut of that money.

Factually, every newer console beats an older console on a sheer technical basis, yes. However, one needs to look at two things while assessing a console: one needs to look at it in context and evaluate it as a product of its time. And one needs to look at the library of games the console had. On both those counts, systems such as the SNES, N64, PS1 and PS2 beat the PS3.charizard1605

Well we're talking about the best console of all time aren't we? So obviously we have to put them against each other not against their time. I'm sure all those consoles had a big library but the only one that comes close to PS3 in terms of quality is PS2 and it's pretty far from PS3 still. My opinion of course.Cow4ever

Even if you were to look at best consoles of all time, you'd need to look at the stuff the systems brought to the table when they launched- sure, something like wireless controllers is considered standard now, but is it fair to expect it on a system that launched in 1991?- and on that count, again, the SNES, the PS2, the PS1 and perhaps most of all, the N64 have the PS3 beaten.

And as for the quality of game libraries, it depends on what you're looking for. The N64 has probably the greatest AAA titles to total games released ratio, and it has some of the most groundbreaking games of all time. The SNES represents the pinnacle of the 2D era. The PS2 wins by sheer numbers. The PS3 doesn't even chart on any of those parameters.

It's a great system, and my personal favorite from Sony (after the PSP, of course), but honestly, it wouldn't even be in the running for 'greatest console of all time.'

They have done everything already with the Vita, it's easy to develop for, it's powerful and very flexible, has a nice lineup and confirmations still awaiting. It has cross-game chat, a great platform(android based) and interconnectivity with the PS3 so you play your PSn games on the Vita, it's the perfect storm as far as i care.

If they can continue this trend on the PS4 instead of ignoring everyone around them and expecting people to hail them as gods whatever they do then they should do fine. The only problem is MS has some serious money to fund whatever they want and now Sony just doesn't have that money anymore, so it's going to be a budget entry next time(which is probably a good thing) and another thing, they need to understand current tech is rubbish after 6 years on the market, design the PS4 with the future in mind instead of saying "Oh optimization optimization optimization!!!" and relying too heavily on it for great games, it's time consuming and expensive.

This is mostly a theoretical question for people who went PS1>PS2>Xbox 360.

Some of you are saying that "Sony should get their **** together for the next gen of consoles."

To meet your demands, do they have to charge for online? I don't see any consumers complaining that Sony isn't charging them to play online; in fact, it's optional and not even required in order to have peer-to-peer/server-based online play, so that doesn't seem right.

Do they have to make more exclusives? Their current output of exclusive software dwarves Microsoft's and Nintendo's put together. PlayStation fans don't have to clamor for 1st party titles like Xenoblade Chronicles or Killer Instinct because Sony is meeting demand for their 1st party franchises.

Do they have to be open to developers? Well, Sony has been pretty open to Valve and EA, who have been giving superior multiplats (in terms of content) to the PS3 for quite some time now. 3rd party companies are now making multiplatform games perform better than the competing platforms as well.

Oddly enough, it seems like Sony has "manned up" already, yet these same folks damning them are continuing to cut off their own noses to spite their faces. What benefits are you currently getting with the Xbox 360 that you can't get on PS3?

Now, speaking as a consumer, I went with the Xbox 360 from 2005-2010. After their anti-consumer announcement of arbitrarily raising the price of Xbox Live (the only feature of which I used was online gameplay), the revelation that they'll be focusing on Kinect/microtransactions/Avatar clothing, cancelling traditional games in development, PR stating that "core" gamers will still get their Halo/Fable/Forza/Gears of War fix (I want more than those same 4 games every year), getting worse versions of multiplatform games that I am interested in (Dead Space 2, L.A. Noire, Portal 2, etcetera), it seemed to me that the Xbox 360 was only a temporary console, not a long-term console.

So, I eventually spoke with my wallet and traded one in and all of my games and bought myself a PS3. I haven't looked back since, because I am not missing out on anything. Maybe Gears of War 3, but what makes you people think that I can't get it on PC later on? Fable 3 did it.

GameShtopper

I agree with everything you said.

The first Sony system I ever purchased was the PSP and then 2 years after owning the 360 exclusively I bought a PS3. Being one of a few people who actually plays both systems regularly I can say that all the criticisms that people lay on the PS3 and PSN is completely asinine and wrong. The amount of games being released exclusively for it is amazing and even though not all of the exclusive games are going to be system sellers at least Sony is giving me an option of something that may interest me. I loved Infamous 1 so much when I bought it 2 years ago that I bought the sequel, Resistance 1 was my first PS3 game so I bought Resistance 2 & 3 because I enjoyed them so much and this is coming from someone who loves the Halo series. I will gladly buy the PS4 and Sony knows what they need to fix when its released, hopefully they continue on the path they are on now.

[QUOTE="Cow4ever"] Well we're talking about the best console of all time aren't we? So obviously we have to put them against each other not against their time. I'm sure all those consoles had a big library but the only one that comes close to PS3 in terms of quality is PS2 and it's pretty far from PS3 still. My opinion of course.charizard1605

Even if you were to look at best consoles of all time, you'd need to look at the stuff the systems brought to the table when they launched- sure, something like wireless controllers is considered standard now, but is it fair to expect it on a system that launched in 1991?- and on that count, again, the SNES, the PS2, the PS1 and perhaps most of all, the N64 have the PS3 beaten.

And as for the quality of game libraries, it depends on what you're looking for. The N64 has probably the greatest AAA titles to total games released ratio, and it has some of the most groundbreaking games of all time. The SNES represents the pinnacle of the 2D era. The PS2 wins by sheer numbers. The PS3 doesn't even chart on any of those parameters.

It's a great system, and my personal favorite from Sony (after the PSP, of course), but honestly, it wouldn't even be in the running for 'greatest console of all time.'

[QUOTE="charizard1605"]

[QUOTE="Cow4ever"] Well we're talking about the best console of all time aren't we? So obviously we have to put them against each other not against their time. I'm sure all those consoles had a big library but the only one that comes close to PS3 in terms of quality is PS2 and it's pretty far from PS3 still. My opinion of course.Cow4ever

Even if you were to look at best consoles of all time, you'd need to look at the stuff the systems brought to the table when they launched- sure, something like wireless controllers is considered standard now, but is it fair to expect it on a system that launched in 1991?- and on that count, again, the SNES, the PS2, the PS1 and perhaps most of all, the N64 have the PS3 beaten.

And as for the quality of game libraries, it depends on what you're looking for. The N64 has probably the greatest AAA titles to total games released ratio, and it has some of the most groundbreaking games of all time. The SNES represents the pinnacle of the 2D era. The PS2 wins by sheer numbers. The PS3 doesn't even chart on any of those parameters.

It's a great system, and my personal favorite from Sony (after the PSP, of course), but honestly, it wouldn't even be in the running for 'greatest console of all time.'

Sony would be on top if they, like everyone else has said, did not have a $600 price tag at the start.

TrapJak

if it launched without blu ray it would have been 400 dollars but most probably end up losing the HD war against hd dvd. and then next gen sony would have to pay big money to put hd dvd in their system. so they had to do a small sacrifice to benefit in the future and the long run...so ps4 for sure wont have a 600 dollar price tag...400/450 seems about right..planbfreak4eva

just keep doing what their doing. and dont launch another console at 600 bucks(700 in canada at the time) LOLTH1Sx1SxSPARTA

just keep doing what their doing. and dont launch another console at 600 bucks(700 in canada at the time) LOLTH1Sx1SxSPARTA

^^ THIS ^^

I don't care about sales or anything like that so if Sony is in 1st or 2nd place or whatever the hell it's called I don't care because it has no effect on me. I'm not a share holder, I just want to play games. And Sony gives me exactly that. Sure they made a few mistakes this gen (so have the others) but that still doesn't mean they are dong "bad" like fanboys make it out to be.

Overall I'm quite happy with Sony and the Playstation this gen, hell I had WAYmore fun with the PS3 exclusivesthan I ever did with the 360 exclusives. Not saying that the 360 is bad or anything like that, just that I personally enjoyed the PS3 ones more.

sell systems

Make their console the cheapest like they did with the PS2.

Don't care if they're on top sales wise as long as I'm enjoying the best console of all time.Cow4ever

lols, wait a minute. Are you serious? :?

Basically the only thing that held Sony back this generation in terms of sales was the inclusion of Blu Ray in the PS3. The inclusion of it proved to be a smart choice in the end, as it helped seal the deal in the war against HD-DVD. PS3 put Blu Ray players in the homes of millions. Launching the console at $600 was a definite set back for Sony in terms of sales for the PS3, but if you look at time/sales ratios, the PS3 has outsold the Xbox 360 which is quite impressive considering the steep price.

Now that Blu Ray drives are relatively cheap, the inclusion of it in the PS4 will not drive the price up on the system in any significant way, so they will be able to launch it at a competitive price. At the end of the day, this generation was a success for Sony. Could you imagine if Blu Ray had lost the war against HD-DVD? The PS3 potentially could have wiped the Playstation brand off the face of the planet, but it prevailed and the future for it looks strong.

[QUOTE="charizard1605"][QUOTE="Cow4ever"]Don't care if they're on top sales wise as long as I'm enjoying the best console of all time.Cow4ever

True, except there's this other department the PS2 crushes the PS3 in: Games. The size and quality of the PS2's library crushes that of the PS3.

[QUOTE="charizard1605"]

[QUOTE="Cow4ever"] Well we're talking about the best console of all time aren't we? So obviously we have to put them against each other not against their time. I'm sure all those consoles had a big library but the only one that comes close to PS3 in terms of quality is PS2 and it's pretty far from PS3 still. My opinion of course.Cow4ever

Even if you were to look at best consoles of all time, you'd need to look at the stuff the systems brought to the table when they launched- sure, something like wireless controllers is considered standard now, but is it fair to expect it on a system that launched in 1991?- and on that count, again, the SNES, the PS2, the PS1 and perhaps most of all, the N64 have the PS3 beaten.

And as for the quality of game libraries, it depends on what you're looking for. The N64 has probably the greatest AAA titles to total games released ratio, and it has some of the most groundbreaking games of all time. The SNES represents the pinnacle of the 2D era. The PS2 wins by sheer numbers. The PS3 doesn't even chart on any of those parameters.

It's a great system, and my personal favorite from Sony (after the PSP, of course), but honestly, it wouldn't even be in the running for 'greatest console of all time.'

Agreed completly.

Yes Genesis and SNES had some GREAT games that had influences on future games...as well as the N64, dreamcast, etc. That being said, games today are on a completely different level and can immerse you unlike any games of the older generations. We now have insane voice acting, REAL character acting, phenomanel HD graphics, 1080p CGI and much more. Anytime I go back to play older games whether its on the DS or actually going back to play my Sega saturn, I end up turning it off shortly after because its so technically inferior to anything being released this gen. It has zero immersion factor, bad animations, no voice acting, poor written dialog among other things...

Ive had more fun playing games this gen (Uncharted series, Alan Wake, Heavy Rain etc) than any gen ive been apart of. (Grew up during NES days)

[QUOTE="planbfreak4eva"] if it launched without blu ray it would have been 400 dollars but most probably end up losing the HD war against hd dvd. and then next gen sony would have to pay big money to put hd dvd in their system. so they had to do a small sacrifice to benefit in the future and the long run...so ps4 for sure wont have a 600 dollar price tag...400/450 seems about right..foxhound_fox

Basically the only thing that held Sony back this generation in terms of sales was the inclusion of Blu Ray in the PS3. The inclusion of it proved to be a smart choice in the end, as it helped seal the deal in the war against HD-DVD. PS3 put Blu Ray players in the homes of millions. Launching the console at $600 was a definite set back for Sony in terms of sales for the PS3, but if you look at time/sales ratios, the PS3 has outsold the Xbox 360 which is quite impressive considering the steep price.

Now that Blu Ray drives are relatively cheap, the inclusion of it in the PS4 will not drive the price up on the system in any significant way, so they will be able to launch it at a competitive price. At the end of the day, this generation was a success for Sony. Could you imagine if Blu Ray had lost the war against HD-DVD? The PS3 potentially could have wiped the Playstation brand off the face of the planet, but it prevailed and the future for it looks strong.

arkephonic

And the biggest reason the PS3 was so much at launch was paying for the cell and all the research that went behind (IBM). It was way over budget and late which also hurt them. It caused them to launch late as well.

[QUOTE="Cow4ever"][QUOTE="charizard1605"] Best console of all time? :lol: I love the PS3, my favorite console this generation, but the best of all time? Lol no.Demonjoe93

True, except there's this other department the PS2 crushes the PS3 in: Games. The size and quality of the PS2's library crushes that of the PS3.

Yeah, considering this generation is done and everything and every PS3 game to ever be released has been released already, right?

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]

Basically the only thing that held Sony back this generation in terms of sales was the inclusion of Blu Ray in the PS3. The inclusion of it proved to be a smart choice in the end, as it helped seal the deal in the war against HD-DVD. PS3 put Blu Ray players in the homes of millions. Launching the console at $600 was a definite set back for Sony in terms of sales for the PS3, but if you look at time/sales ratios, the PS3 has outsold the Xbox 360 which is quite impressive considering the steep price.

Now that Blu Ray drives are relatively cheap, the inclusion of it in the PS4 will not drive the price up on the system in any significant way, so they will be able to launch it at a competitive price. At the end of the day, this generation was a success for Sony. Could you imagine if Blu Ray had lost the war against HD-DVD? The PS3 potentially could have wiped the Playstation brand off the face of the planet, but it prevailed and the future for it looks strong.

KC_Hokie

And the biggest reason the PS3 was so much at launch was paying for the cell and all the research that went behind (IBM). It was way over budget and late which also hurt them. It caused them to launch late as well.

While I agree the Cell was an expensive piece of technology, the Blu ray drive was FAR more costly than that. Blu Ray players were 3-400 bucks a year+ after the PS3 released. I know this because my friend bought a player instead of a PS3 and I called him a moron since he can just play the movies in his PS3 if he wanted. He ended up selling the Blu ray player and buying a PS3 soon after. I also remember when the Blu ray addon drives were a $500 addon for a laptop I bought years back.

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]

Basically the only thing that held Sony back this generation in terms of sales was the inclusion of Blu Ray in the PS3. The inclusion of it proved to be a smart choice in the end, as it helped seal the deal in the war against HD-DVD. PS3 put Blu Ray players in the homes of millions. Launching the console at $600 was a definite set back for Sony in terms of sales for the PS3, but if you look at time/sales ratios, the PS3 has outsold the Xbox 360 which is quite impressive considering the steep price.

Now that Blu Ray drives are relatively cheap, the inclusion of it in the PS4 will not drive the price up on the system in any significant way, so they will be able to launch it at a competitive price. At the end of the day, this generation was a success for Sony. Could you imagine if Blu Ray had lost the war against HD-DVD? The PS3 potentially could have wiped the Playstation brand off the face of the planet, but it prevailed and the future for it looks strong.

KC_Hokie

And the biggest reason the PS3 was so much at launch was paying for the cell and all the research that went behind (IBM). It was way over budget and late which also hurt them. It caused them to launch late as well.

Blu Ray players were more expensive than the PS3 when it released, and PS3 was considered one of the top Blu Ray players on the market. The Blu Ray drive was a huge factor in the steep price.

Sony was one of the members of the Blu Ray association, but they hold a pretty high % of the Blu Ray market, more than most of the others.

5 TOP THINGS SONY SHOULD CHNAGE TO WIN NEXT GEN

1. Low initial price (PS Vita is good omen I hope)
2. Launch closer to competition (They let 360 become the dev's console of choice)
3. Make it easier to develop for (PS3 is a nightmare, but again it appears Vita is a good omen)
4. Integrate Traditional and Motion controls, they should not be an afterthought (Wii U has the right idea, even if it is poorly executed)
5. Update PSN and make it more feature rich, while still free for MP(Yet again Vita appears to show Sony has gotten their **** together)

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]

Basically the only thing that held Sony back this generation in terms of sales was the inclusion of Blu Ray in the PS3. The inclusion of it proved to be a smart choice in the end, as it helped seal the deal in the war against HD-DVD. PS3 put Blu Ray players in the homes of millions. Launching the console at $600 was a definite set back for Sony in terms of sales for the PS3, but if you look at time/sales ratios, the PS3 has outsold the Xbox 360 which is quite impressive considering the steep price.

Now that Blu Ray drives are relatively cheap, the inclusion of it in the PS4 will not drive the price up on the system in any significant way, so they will be able to launch it at a competitive price. At the end of the day, this generation was a success for Sony. Could you imagine if Blu Ray had lost the war against HD-DVD? The PS3 potentially could have wiped the Playstation brand off the face of the planet, but it prevailed and the future for it looks strong.

SRTtoZ

And the biggest reason the PS3 was so much at launch was paying for the cell and all the research that went behind (IBM). It was way over budget and late which also hurt them. It caused them to launch late as well.

While I agree the Cell was an expensive peice of technology, the Blu ray drive was FAR more costly than that. Blu Ray players were 3-400 bucks a year+ after the PS3 released. I know this because my friend bought a player instead of a PS3 and I called him a moron since he can just play the movies in his PS3 if he wanted. He ended up selling the Blu ray player and buying a PS3 soon after. I also remember when the Blu ray addon drives were a $500 addon for a laptop I bought years back.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]

Basically the only thing that held Sony back this generation in terms of sales was the inclusion of Blu Ray in the PS3. The inclusion of it proved to be a smart choice in the end, as it helped seal the deal in the war against HD-DVD. PS3 put Blu Ray players in the homes of millions. Launching the console at $600 was a definite set back for Sony in terms of sales for the PS3, but if you look at time/sales ratios, the PS3 has outsold the Xbox 360 which is quite impressive considering the steep price.

Now that Blu Ray drives are relatively cheap, the inclusion of it in the PS4 will not drive the price up on the system in any significant way, so they will be able to launch it at a competitive price. At the end of the day, this generation was a success for Sony. Could you imagine if Blu Ray had lost the war against HD-DVD? The PS3 potentially could have wiped the Playstation brand off the face of the planet, but it prevailed and the future for it looks strong.

arkephonic

And the biggest reason the PS3 was so much at launch was paying for the cell and all the research that went behind (IBM). It was way over budget and late which also hurt them. It caused them to launch late as well.

Blu Ray players were more expensive than the PS3 when it released, and PS3 was considered one of the top Blu Ray players on the market. The Blu Ray drive was a huge factor in the steep price.

Sony was one of the members of the Blu Ray association, but they hold a pretty high % of the Blu Ray market, more than most of the others.

I wouldn't call losing money for several years in order to help the other members of the blu-ray association a smart decision by Sony.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]

Basically the only thing that held Sony back this generation in terms of sales was the inclusion of Blu Ray in the PS3. The inclusion of it proved to be a smart choice in the end, as it helped seal the deal in the war against HD-DVD. PS3 put Blu Ray players in the homes of millions. Launching the console at $600 was a definite set back for Sony in terms of sales for the PS3, but if you look at time/sales ratios, the PS3 has outsold the Xbox 360 which is quite impressive considering the steep price.

Now that Blu Ray drives are relatively cheap, the inclusion of it in the PS4 will not drive the price up on the system in any significant way, so they will be able to launch it at a competitive price. At the end of the day, this generation was a success for Sony. Could you imagine if Blu Ray had lost the war against HD-DVD? The PS3 potentially could have wiped the Playstation brand off the face of the planet, but it prevailed and the future for it looks strong.

arkephonic

And the biggest reason the PS3 was so much at launch was paying for the cell and all the research that went behind (IBM). It was way over budget and late which also hurt them. It caused them to launch late as well.

Blu Ray players were more expensive than the PS3 when it released, and PS3 was considered one of the top Blu Ray players on the market. The Blu Ray drive was a huge factor in the steep price.

Sony was one of the members of the Blu Ray association, but they hold a pretty high % of the Blu Ray market, more than most of the others.

Easily. My friend bought a Sony Blu-Ray player and it took LITERALLY 2 minutes to load a movie, while my PS3 took about 10-20 seconds...lol