Why did Sony think people would pay that much for a PS3 & PSP?

I stopped reading when you said disapointment, i realized this is a fanboy threadGsSanAndreas

It is a disappointment, it'll likely end up in third place this gen 

Brand.m_machine024

[QUOTE="GsSanAndreas"]I stopped reading when you said disapointment, i realized this is a fanboy threadaxt113

It is a disappointment, it'll likely end up in third place this gen

There is no way to know that this early.   

It's obvious that PS3 is a disappointment and PSP is going to lose to the DS. Let's be real about it, the main reason why Sony has had two very disappointing systems is for one reason: PRICE! These systems are not losing because of poor game selection. EVERY new console had crappy games at launch. You simply can't expect people to pay almost $300 for a handheld and almost $700 for a console. (I'm including the extra money for a game and any essential peripheries.) That's utterly ridiculous! Now... I knew the price points were ridiculous even though many internet fanboys were clueless. Although, I think its was majority opinion on the internet several years ago that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea, so yeah, I don't put much credence into what some anonymous internet dude thinks about the next console. BUT SONY... they should know better! What the heck were they thinking? Do their chief planners make so much money, that they aren't in touch with the average budget? Did they think people would want Blu-Ray THAT bad? Were they just arrogant? I think the last suggestion is most likely. Nintendo had this problem too when they refused obvious upgrades like games on CDs. Is it just the natural order that when you ride high for too long, you become careless and lose sight of the common sense ideas that succeed in the video game bizness? (Such as affordable consoles!)The__MCP

Apparently Sony didn't learn anything from the 3D0 debacle. 

[QUOTE="The__MCP"]It's obvious that PS3 is a disappointment and PSP is going to lose to the DS. Let's be real about it, the main reason why Sony has had two very disappointing systems is for one reason: PRICE! These systems are not losing because of poor game selection. EVERY new console had crappy games at launch. You simply can't expect people to pay almost $300 for a handheld and almost $700 for a console. (I'm including the extra money for a game and any essential peripheries.) That's utterly ridiculous! Now... I knew the price points were ridiculous even though many internet fanboys were clueless. Although, I think its was majority opinion on the internet several years ago that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea, so yeah, I don't put much credence into what some anonymous internet dude thinks about the next console. BUT SONY... they should know better! What the heck were they thinking? Do their chief planners make so much money, that they aren't in touch with the average budget? Did they think people would want Blu-Ray THAT bad? Were they just arrogant? I think the last suggestion is most likely. Nintendo had this problem too when they refused obvious upgrades like games on CDs. Is it just the natural order that when you ride high for too long, you become careless and lose sight of the common sense ideas that succeed in the video game bizness? (Such as affordable consoles!)Cynicize

Apparently Sony didn't learn anything from the 3D0 debacle.

Wow. A 3DO reference on on page 1.  Come on give us a Betamax reference for posterity! 

[QUOTE="axt113"]

[QUOTE="GsSanAndreas"]I stopped reading when you said disapointment, i realized this is a fanboy threadramey70

It is a disappointment, it'll likely end up in third place this gen

There is no way to know that this early.   

No I can't prove it, but if history is any judge then its very likely

[QUOTE="Cynicize"]

[QUOTE="The__MCP"]It's obvious that PS3 is a disappointment and PSP is going to lose to the DS. Let's be real about it, the main reason why Sony has had two very disappointing systems is for one reason: PRICE! These systems are not losing because of poor game selection. EVERY new console had crappy games at launch. You simply can't expect people to pay almost $300 for a handheld and almost $700 for a console. (I'm including the extra money for a game and any essential peripheries.) That's utterly ridiculous! Now... I knew the price points were ridiculous even though many internet fanboys were clueless. Although, I think its was majority opinion on the internet several years ago that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea, so yeah, I don't put much credence into what some anonymous internet dude thinks about the next console. BUT SONY... they should know better! What the heck were they thinking? Do their chief planners make so much money, that they aren't in touch with the average budget? Did they think people would want Blu-Ray THAT bad? Were they just arrogant? I think the last suggestion is most likely. Nintendo had this problem too when they refused obvious upgrades like games on CDs. Is it just the natural order that when you ride high for too long, you become careless and lose sight of the common sense ideas that succeed in the video game bizness? (Such as affordable consoles!)ramey70

Apparently Sony didn't learn anything from the 3D0 debacle.

Wow. A 3DO reference on on page 1.  Come on give us a Betamax reference for posterity! 

well it would make sense....but Blu-ray is beating HD-dvd so i guess sony has one thing they can boast.....they are 1st in a 2 way race no one wants to be in....HIZZAH!...seriously though...first years are never good for a sony console...it wasnt good until the console gets good games then it some how sky rockets above everyone else....so for anyone to pass judgement on a console this early really needs to just let go of any thought that may unfortunately cross your mind... happy days

[QUOTE="ramey70"][QUOTE="axt113"]

[QUOTE="GsSanAndreas"]I stopped reading when you said disapointment, i realized this is a fanboy threadaxt113

It is a disappointment, it'll likely end up in third place this gen

There is no way to know that this early.   

No I can't prove it, but if history is any judge then its very likely

kind of like how the ps1 and 2 both did somewhat bad in their first years then somehow became the consoles to beat......my point is that history is two sided to fanboys....are you one?

[QUOTE="ramey70"][QUOTE="axt113"]

[QUOTE="GsSanAndreas"]I stopped reading when you said disapointment, i realized this is a fanboy threadaxt113

It is a disappointment, it'll likely end up in third place this gen

There is no way to know that this early.

No I can't prove it, but if history is any judge then its very likely

Actually it isn't.  It's like trying to predect the winner of a Superbowl 1 minute into the game. 

[QUOTE="axt113"][QUOTE="ramey70"][QUOTE="axt113"]

[QUOTE="GsSanAndreas"]I stopped reading when you said disapointment, i realized this is a fanboy threadhyperboy152000

It is a disappointment, it'll likely end up in third place this gen

There is no way to know that this early.   

No I can't prove it, but if history is any judge then its very likely

kind of like how the ps1 and 2 both did somewhat bad in their first years then somehow became the consoles to beat......my point is that history is two sided to fanboys....are you one?

PS2 didn't do badly in its first year, look at Japanese sales at Week 22 it had sold 3 times as many in Japan as the PS3 has sold 

[QUOTE="hyperboy152000"][QUOTE="axt113"][QUOTE="ramey70"][QUOTE="axt113"]

[QUOTE="GsSanAndreas"]I stopped reading when you said disapointment, i realized this is a fanboy threadaxt113

It is a disappointment, it'll likely end up in third place this gen

There is no way to know that this early.   

No I can't prove it, but if history is any judge then its very likely

kind of like how the ps1 and 2 both did somewhat bad in their first years then somehow became the consoles to beat......my point is that history is two sided to fanboys....are you one?

PS2 didn't do badly in its first year, look at Japanese sales at Week 22 it had sold 3 times as many in Japan as the PS3 has sold 

thats in japan....im talking the first year it was avalable everywhere....still there is a valid point when the console doesnt even keep up with a last gen system in their home terr. (compairing launch year with launch year of course)

Hey TC shouldn't you get back to beating Gears in one sitting for the fifth time or maybe cursing at 8 year olds who own you in noobified Halo2 before your 360 eats your disks or gets the 3 rings of death, oh wait that already happened because obliviously you aren't playing a game now (nor am I because I'm at work but hey if I get bored I'll bust out my psp). Sony charges what they charge for those consoles because maybe they are thinking about giving you the most multimedia options at a reasonable price. You forget that Sony loses money on every ps3 sold.jyoung312

Wow someone got hurt for paying full price for everything.

The tc is right though :roll: 

thats in japan....im talking the first year it was avalable everywhere....still there is a valid point when the console doesnt even keep up with a last gen system in their home terr. (compairing launch year with launch year of course)

hyperboy152000

Well as i've tried to tell people Japan is where the system wars are won, in every generation the tredns of who wins shows up there first 

With Madden and EA Sonys PS2 beat the Dreamcast and when Xbox and GameCube came along it was still selling like hotcakes, the PS2 had the least ghaphical power, biggest game library and was the cheapest. I don't see resemblance with PS3.

It's obvious that PS3 is a disappointment and PSP is going to lose to the DS. Let's be real about it, the main reason why Sony has had two very disappointing systems is for one reason: PRICE! These systems are not losing because of poor game selection. EVERY new console had crappy games at launch. You simply can't expect people to pay almost $300 for a handheld and almost $700 for a console. (I'm including the extra money for a game and any essential peripheries.) That's utterly ridiculous! Now... I knew the price points were ridiculous even though many internet fanboys were clueless. Although, I think its was majority opinion on the internet several years ago that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea, so yeah, I don't put much credence into what some anonymous internet dude thinks about the next console. BUT SONY... they should know better! What the heck were they thinking? Do their chief planners make so much money, that they aren't in touch with the average budget? Did they think people would want Blu-Ray THAT bad? Were they just arrogant? I think the last suggestion is most likely. Nintendo had this problem too when they refused obvious upgrades like games on CDs. Is it just the natural order that when you ride high for too long, you become careless and lose sight of the common sense ideas that succeed in the video game bizness? (Such as affordable consoles!)The__MCP

i 100% agree my gamer friend. as i said many times before IMHO if blu-ray was an add-on the PS3 would be the same price as the x360 and it would be in 1st place right now. i think the gaming department of Sony knows this but can't back out now. so blu-ray disks are selling great but the PS3 is hurting at the same time.

Because I paid the money. :| And I don't regret it in the slightest.

[QUOTE="GsSanAndreas"]I stopped reading when you said disapointment, i realized this is a fanboy threadaxt113

It is a disappointment, it'll likely end up in third place this gen 

Maybe to you, but not to me. PS3 is everything I wanted it to be, and more.

I never bothered reading your rant, because well it's a fanboy rant. But I just wanna remind you that the PSP has over 20 million user base. It's more expensive than the DS and it's Sony's first handheld EVER. And it has over 20 million users. Stop and think about that for a sec.KSD22

Okay, maybe I can give you that.  It is a first generation handheld.  But this is no fanboy rant.  I'm sure I'll buy a PS3 eventually.  I always own all systems.  I just think the main reason why people don't buy Sony's news sytems are ridiculous prices.  Maybe the PSP is suffering because it aims at an adult market, and really, kids are the biggest handheld players in the USA.  Or at least it feels that way.

I tend to suspect a little bit of all of the above.  As seen with the previous market leaders (Atari, Nintendo and Sega), some focus gets lost which usually breeds a little arrogance. 

With Atari they took thier muscle and bought up any developer they deemed a possible threat and ran them into the ground.  Such practices contributed to the game crash of the 80's.  Then came Nintendo.

Nintendo, an already proven arcade game developer, decidied to throw their hat into the console arena with the NES. The timing was perfect too because it literally re-vitalized the home console business. The reign of the NES was swift and un-paralelled at the time.  The success of the NES must have given other arcade developers the inspiration because halfway through the NES lifecycle another arcade game developer decided to jump into the home cosole pool.  SEGA (Service Games)

SEGA dropped the master system console in the midst of the NES reign.  Was it more powerful than the NES?  Yes. But not enough to make anyone jump ship. By the time the master system dropped, the NES game library had grown to monstrous proportions. SEGA's main problem was how the hell to convince the gaming public (who was knee deep into the NES) that they had the goods too. That was around the time that they dropped the Genesis. Only this time, people took notice.

Nintendo was still riding high on the NES and newly launched Gameboy success to worry about SEGA until a little game called John Madden's Mud N Guts Football dropped on the Genisis.  That was when the tide started to turn. Before you knew it "Genesis" and "SEGA!"became the new houseold names.  I remember the "Genesis does what Nintendon't" ads like it was yesterday. SEGA succeeded where others failed and actually took a big bite out of Nintendo's market leadership. All wasn't lost for the big N though cuz they had plenty of mindshare and revenue to fire back with the SNES. 

Powered with a larger color pallete and better sound then the Genesis, the SNES proved that winning the 8-bit war wasn't a fluke.  Feeling froggy, SEGA decided to upgrade their already estabilshed Genesis with the SEGA CD. That was their way of 1up-ing Nin with cd quality sound and music.  I must have intitially sold pretty well because Nintendo had a CD-Rom drive in the works for the SNES developed with none other than the current/former market leader.....SONY. Before long interest for the SEGA CD tappered off along with the urgency for the Big N to drop a CD-Rom of their own so they decide not to launch the CD-Rom (Which pretty much left SONY high and dry with a CD-Rom and nothing to show for it).

By this time arcade machines started getting into 3D gaming, which naturally would be the next step for home consoles. Nintendo's stance was that CD's weren't needed for 3D games as seeing how they had major mindshare, they thought the devs would follow their lead.  SEGA, and I have yet to figure out how, didn't seem prepared for the fact that 3D gaming was going to spread from the arcades to the homes in the near future. Seeing as how SEGA was THE premier 3D arcade game maker at the time, it boggles my mind that they weren't the first ones trying to bring 3D gaming to homes. As it turns out, SONY was the new kid on the block flexing it's muscle through press conference after press conference showcasing the PLAYSTATION.  Between SEGA and Nintendo, i believe SEGA felt that 2D gaming would have been just fine for at least 1 more generation. But SONY had other plans. The press release of the PLAYSTATION must have worried SEGA the most for they currently had no3D technology developed for home use. So what did they do? They decided to add a 3D chip into the Saturn at the 11th hour but SOJ must have thought that the time-gap between the Saturn and the Genesis was too wide so to keep the consumers interest they slapped the 32X together as another Genesis add-on as a stop gap so to speak, to the Saturn. That ended up costing them mindshare and revenue big time. Then the PLAYSTATION launches.

3D gaming at home is finally ushered in with the PSX and Sony is in it to change the game. Without the benefit of being a game company, Sony had to almost completely rely on 3rd party support to get their foot in the door. In order for that to happen, they had to offer 2 things.

1. User friendly developer tools.

2. Low licensing fees.

Both of which they had the financial backing to offer. The rest pretty much took care of itself. Devs clearly were ready to move away from carts to CDs thus cutting Nintendo out of the loop from nearly the beginning of the N64's life and the PSX gameplan gave an out to whatever developers were left having a nightmare of a time getting 3D to work right on he Saturn. Both Nintendo and Sega lost out due to their over-confidence and underestimation of the new kid on the block.... Sony.

The 32 bit era pretty much began the reign of Sony Computer Entertainment. By the end, "PLAYSTATION" became the new household name and the big N and SEGA were left scratching their heads. The PS2 generation is a subject I can go on for days about so let's just say it that war claimed a casualty with SEGA leaving the hardware biz and gave birth to another new kid on the block, Microsoft. The Sony name strengthened even more during the PS2 days so more of the same was to be expected with the PS3. But just like Atari, Nintendo and SEGA, I feel that SCE might have reached their apex with the PS2.

I guess they feel just like the big N and Sega felt when they were riding high. Just do it and the people will follow. Well the jury is still out on the PS3 but seeing as how only 5 months into it's life, one of it's sku's is discontinued and a upgraded version is possibly in the works cannot be a good sign for anyone in the SCE camp. Do they have enough muscle to retain the market leadership this time around? Only time will tell. I will say this though, Sony's primary focus is NOT games. That is painfully obvious.

the price is high but only for people who are not serious about games.  I live in chicago and lost one psp in lake michigan and had to but another and i have a ps3.  I afford all of this and I work as a school teacher.  I guess the people who are complaining are either children begging their parents or adults without an adults income.  Stop saying the price is too high and just say that you are too poor.
McMorgue

I'm just asking.  At what price do you consider a game system too expensive?  At what point do you say to yourself "They have lost their minds if they think I'm going to by thier system at that price no matter how many good games come out for it."  The only reason why I ask is that it's starting to look a little like some people have reached that point with the PS3 price at least for right now.  My cut off price is $250.00.  That's as high as I go so that pretty much means I'll be a retro gamer for a while longer.

[QUOTE="GsSanAndreas"]I stopped reading when you said disapointment, i realized this is a fanboy threadaxt113

It is a disappointment, it'll likely end up in third place this gen

its selling pretty well considering it has no games and is losing exclusives plus its 600 bucks.   psp is doing good too.  getting its butt whooped by ds but its still doing good in sales. 

Sony wants to get all the money they can out of their fanbaseMCGSMB

which is why they are losing money for every ps3 sold.  ps3 cost more to make than to sell you know............... 

[QUOTE="Cynicize"]

[QUOTE="The__MCP"]It's obvious that PS3 is a disappointment and PSP is going to lose to the DS. Let's be real about it, the main reason why Sony has had two very disappointing systems is for one reason: PRICE! These systems are not losing because of poor game selection. EVERY new console had crappy games at launch. You simply can't expect people to pay almost $300 for a handheld and almost $700 for a console. (I'm including the extra money for a game and any essential peripheries.) That's utterly ridiculous! Now... I knew the price points were ridiculous even though many internet fanboys were clueless. Although, I think its was majority opinion on the internet several years ago that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea, so yeah, I don't put much credence into what some anonymous internet dude thinks about the next console. BUT SONY... they should know better! What the heck were they thinking? Do their chief planners make so much money, that they aren't in touch with the average budget? Did they think people would want Blu-Ray THAT bad? Were they just arrogant? I think the last suggestion is most likely. Nintendo had this problem too when they refused obvious upgrades like games on CDs. Is it just the natural order that when you ride high for too long, you become careless and lose sight of the common sense ideas that succeed in the video game bizness? (Such as affordable consoles!)ramey70

Apparently Sony didn't learn anything from the 3D0 debacle.

Wow. A 3DO reference on on page 1.  Come on give us a Betamax reference for posterity! 

Both are great examples of why the PS3 is not the smashing success Sony had planned.  Your point?

I tend to suspect a little bit of all of the above.  As seen with the previous market leaders (Atari, Nintendo and Sega), some focus gets lost which usually breeds a little arrogance. 

With Atari they took thier muscle and bought up any developer they deemed a possible threat and ran them into the ground.  Such practices contributed to the game crash of the 80's.  Then came Nintendo.

Nintendo, an already proven arcade game developer, decidied to throw their hat into the console arena with the NES. The timing was perfect too because it literally re-vitalized the home console business. The reign of the NES was swift and un-paralelled at the time.  The success of the NES must have given other arcade developers the inspiration because halfway through the NES lifecycle another arcade game developer decided to jump into the home cosole pool.  SEGA (Service Games)

SEGA dropped the master system console in the midst of the NES reign.  Was it more powerful than the NES?  Yes. But not enough to make anyone jump ship. By the time the master system dropped, the NES game library had grown to monstrous proportions. SEGA's main problem was how the hell to convince the gaming public (who was knee deep into the NES) that they had the goods too. That was around the time that they dropped the Genesis. Only this time, people took notice.

Nintendo was still riding high on the NES and newly launched Gameboy success to worry about SEGA until a little game called John Madden's Mud N Guts Football dropped on the Genisis.  That was when the tide started to turn. Before you knew it "Genesis" and "SEGA!"became the new houseold names.  I remember the "Genesis does what Nintendon't" ads like it was yesterday. SEGA succeeded where others failed and actually took a big bite out of Nintendo's market leadership. All wasn't lost for the big N though cuz they had plenty of mindshare and revenue to fire back with the SNES. 

Powered with a larger color pallete and better sound then the Genesis, the SNES proved that winning the 8-bit war wasn't a fluke.  Feeling froggy, SEGA decided to upgrade their already estabilshed Genesis with the SEGA CD. That was their way of 1up-ing Nin with cd quality sound and music.  I must have intitially sold pretty well because Nintendo had a CD-Rom drive in the works for the SNES developed with none other than the current/former market leader.....SONY. Before long interest for the SEGA CD tappered off along with the urgency for the Big N to drop a CD-Rom of their own so they decide not to launch the CD-Rom (Which pretty much left SONY high and dry with a CD-Rom and nothing to show for it).

By this time arcade machines started getting into 3D gaming, which naturally would be the next step for home consoles. Nintendo's stance was that CD's weren't needed for 3D games as seeing how they had major mindshare, they thought the devs would follow their lead.  SEGA, and I have yet to figure out how, didn't seem prepared for the fact that 3D gaming was going to spread from the arcades to the homes in the near future. Seeing as how SEGA was THE premier 3D arcade game maker at the time, it boggles my mind that they weren't the first ones trying to bring 3D gaming to homes. As it turns out, SONY was the new kid on the block flexing it's muscle through press conference after press conference showcasing the PLAYSTATION.  Between SEGA and Nintendo, i believe SEGA felt that 2D gaming would have been just fine for at least 1 more generation. But SONY had other plans. The press release of the PLAYSTATION must have worried SEGA the most for they currently had no3D technology developed for home use. So what did they do? They decided to add a 3D chip into the Saturn at the 11th hour but SOJ must have thought that the time-gap between the Saturn and the Genesis was too wide so to keep the consumers interest they slapped the 32X together as another Genesis add-on as a stop gap so to speak, to the Saturn. That ended up costing them mindshare and revenue big time. Then the PLAYSTATION launches.

3D gaming at home is finally ushered in with the PSX and Sony is in it to change the game. Without the benefit of being a game company, Sony had to almost completely rely on 3rd party support to get their foot in the door. In order for that to happen, they had to offer 2 things.

1. User friendly developer tools.

2. Low licensing fees.

Both of which they had the financial backing to offer. The rest pretty much took care of itself. Devs clearly were ready to move away from carts to CDs thus cutting Nintendo out of the loop from nearly the beginning of the N64's life and the PSX gameplan gave an out to whatever developers were left having a nightmare of a time getting 3D to work right on he Saturn. Both Nintendo and Sega lost out due to their over-confidence and underestimation of the new kid on the block.... Sony.

The 32 bit era pretty much began the reign of Sony Computer Entertainment. By the end, "PLAYSTATION" became the new household name and the big N and SEGA were left scratching their heads. The PS2 generation is a subject I can go on for days about so let's just say it that war claimed a casualty with SEGA leaving the hardware biz and gave birth to another new kid on the block, Microsoft. The Sony name strengthened even more during the PS2 days so more of the same was to be expected with the PS3. But just like Atari, Nintendo and SEGA, I feel that SCE might have reached their apex with the PS2.

I guess they feel just like the big N and Sega felt when they were riding high. Just do it and the people will follow. Well the jury is still out on the PS3 but seeing as how only 5 months into it's life, one of it's sku's is discontinued and a upgraded version is possibly in the works cannot be a good sign for anyone in the SCE camp. Do they have enough muscle to retain the market leadership this time around? Only time will tell. I will say this though, Sony's primary focus is NOT games. That is painfully obvious.

[/QUOTE/]

true as all that is in sales the PSX beat the hell out of the N64 ,but the N64 was a much better system for games imo.

I tend to suspect a little bit of all of the above.  As seen with the previous market leaders (Atari, Nintendo and Sega), some focus gets lost which usually breeds a little arrogance. 

With Atari they took thier muscle and bought up any developer they deemed a possible threat and ran them into the ground.  Such practices contributed to the game crash of the 80's.  Then came Nintendo.

Nintendo, an already proven arcade game developer, decidied to throw their hat into the console arena with the NES. The timing was perfect too because it literally re-vitalized the home console business. The reign of the NES was swift and un-paralelled at the time.  The success of the NES must have given other arcade developers the inspiration because halfway through the NES lifecycle another arcade game developer decided to jump into the home cosole pool.  SEGA (Service Games)

SEGA dropped the master system console in the midst of the NES reign.  Was it more powerful than the NES?  Yes. But not enough to make anyone jump ship. By the time the master system dropped, the NES game library had grown to monstrous proportions. SEGA's main problem was how the hell to convince the gaming public (who was knee deep into the NES) that they had the goods too. That was around the time that they dropped the Genesis. Only this time, people took notice.

Nintendo was still riding high on the NES and newly launched Gameboy success to worry about SEGA until a little game called John Madden's Mud N Guts Football dropped on the Genisis.  That was when the tide started to turn. Before you knew it "Genesis" and "SEGA!"became the new houseold names.  I remember the "Genesis does what Nintendon't" ads like it was yesterday. SEGA succeeded where others failed and actually took a big bite out of Nintendo's market leadership. All wasn't lost for the big N though cuz they had plenty of mindshare and revenue to fire back with the SNES. 

Powered with a larger color pallete and better sound then the Genesis, the SNES proved that winning the 8-bit war wasn't a fluke.  Feeling froggy, SEGA decided to upgrade their already estabilshed Genesis with the SEGA CD. That was their way of 1up-ing Nin with cd quality sound and music.  I must have intitially sold pretty well because Nintendo had a CD-Rom drive in the works for the SNES developed with none other than the current/former market leader.....SONY. Before long interest for the SEGA CD tappered off along with the urgency for the Big N to drop a CD-Rom of their own so they decide not to launch the CD-Rom (Which pretty much left SONY high and dry with a CD-Rom and nothing to show for it).

By this time arcade machines started getting into 3D gaming, which naturally would be the next step for home consoles. Nintendo's stance was that CD's weren't needed for 3D games as seeing how they had major mindshare, they thought the devs would follow their lead.  SEGA, and I have yet to figure out how, didn't seem prepared for the fact that 3D gaming was going to spread from the arcades to the homes in the near future. Seeing as how SEGA was THE premier 3D arcade game maker at the time, it boggles my mind that they weren't the first ones trying to bring 3D gaming to homes. As it turns out, SONY was the new kid on the block flexing it's muscle through press conference after press conference showcasing the PLAYSTATION.  Between SEGA and Nintendo, i believe SEGA felt that 2D gaming would have been just fine for at least 1 more generation. But SONY had other plans. The press release of the PLAYSTATION must have worried SEGA the most for they currently had no3D technology developed for home use. So what did they do? They decided to add a 3D chip into the Saturn at the 11th hour but SOJ must have thought that the time-gap between the Saturn and the Genesis was too wide so to keep the consumers interest they slapped the 32X together as another Genesis add-on as a stop gap so to speak, to the Saturn. That ended up costing them mindshare and revenue big time. Then the PLAYSTATION launches.

3D gaming at home is finally ushered in with the PSX and Sony is in it to change the game. Without the benefit of being a game company, Sony had to almost completely rely on 3rd party support to get their foot in the door. In order for that to happen, they had to offer 2 things.

1. User friendly developer tools.

2. Low licensing fees.

 

Both of which they had the financial backing to offer. The rest pretty much took care of itself. Devs clearly were ready to move away from carts to CDs thus cutting Nintendo out of the loop from nearly the beginning of the N64's life and the PSX gameplan gave an out to whatever developers were left having a nightmare of a time getting 3D to work right on he Saturn. Both Nintendo and Sega lost out due to their over-confidence and underestimation of the new kid on the block.... Sony.

The 32 bit era pretty much began the reign of Sony Computer Entertainment. By the end, "PLAYSTATION" became the new household name and the big N and SEGA were left scratching their heads. The PS2 generation is a subject I can go on for days about so let's just say it that war claimed a casualty with SEGA leaving the hardware biz and gave birth to another new kid on the block, Microsoft. The Sony name strengthened even more during the PS2 days so more of the same was to be expected with the PS3. But just like Atari, Nintendo and SEGA, I feel that SCE might have reached their apex with the PS2.

I guess they feel just like the big N and Sega felt when they were riding high. Just do it and the people will follow. Well the jury is still out on the PS3 but seeing as how only 5 months into it's life, one of it's sku's is discontinued and a upgraded version is possibly in the works cannot be a good sign for anyone in the SCE camp. Do they have enough muscle to retain the market leadership this time around? Only time will tell. I will say this though, Sony's primary focus is NOT games. That is painfully obvious.

 

 

sinseers

 I say N64 was so much better then ps1 I had a ps1 and 64 my 64 got wya more use and i dint sell one game  i only kept 1 ps1 game.Kinda sucks sold my ps1 all the games sept FF7 to get a ps2.Anyway and the cube imo was tied for 1st with ps2 for gmes .As long as it sells good enough to keep in bussiness and made money its good to me for sales.For games ps2 and cube were the **** xbox1 had DOA halo of course fable and live.So yea psp and ps3 are both pretty over priced if psp had a 40 dollar rpcie drop id buy one and ps3 had a 150 dollars one id buy one.Also to the guy who said there a teacher in chicago that says were to poor excuse me dude some of us are students athletes and gamers so our money gets split 3 way  so unlike you who grades papers  watches kids and then games and eats at home .

Ok OP I'm sure it's been said but just incase to answer your question...

first off the PSP. Sony wanted to promote their new media format = UMD. Sony wants you to buy UMD movies because they get royalties since the films are being put on their media format. Sony makes the PSP use UMD's. This jacks up the price of the system.

lots of ppl buy the PSP and therefore lots of people buy tons of UMDs = tons of $$$ for sony.

The PS3 is the exact same scenario. Sony wants everyone to buy blu-ray discs. This requires a blu-ray player. blu-ray players are hella expansive since they're brand f****ng new. Sony's dilemma- we need people to buy blu-ray players. Sony realizaton: a lot of people want to buy PS3s. Sonys dilmma: blu-ray players are expansive. Sony's realization: people really want the PS3 so they'd probaby be willing to pay alot for one. Sony's solution: make the PS3 use blu-ray disks!

Yes say it again and again... the PS3 is a fu***ing bargan. I know it is. But it's still really really really expensive when it doesn't have to be.

It's obvious that PS3 is a disappointment and PSP is going to lose to the DS. Let's be real about it, the main reason why Sony has had two very disappointing systems is for one reason: PRICE! These systems are not losing because of poor game selection. EVERY new console had crappy games at launch. You simply can't expect people to pay almost $300 for a handheld and almost $700 for a console. (I'm including the extra money for a game and any essential peripheries.) That's utterly ridiculous! Now... I knew the price points were ridiculous even though many internet fanboys were clueless. Although, I think its was majority opinion on the internet several years ago that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea, so yeah, I don't put much credence into what some anonymous internet dude thinks about the next console. BUT SONY... they should know better! What the heck were they thinking? Do their chief planners make so much money, that they aren't in touch with the average budget? Did they think people would want Blu-Ray THAT bad? Were they just arrogant? I think the last suggestion is most likely. Nintendo had this problem too when they refused obvious upgrades like games on CDs. Is it just the natural order that when you ride high for too long, you become careless and lose sight of the common sense ideas that succeed in the video game bizness? (Such as affordable consoles!)The__MCP

I own both.

Get a job. 

Yeah, DS is slaughtering the PSP.  But let's not forget this...PSP is the ONLY handheld to ever outsell the DS for a couple of months.  Not much to say I know.  DS just has more games on it.  PSP didn't fail.  It just didn't sell as well as expected.  AvIdGaMeR444

[QUOTE="hyperboy152000"]

thats in japan....im talking the first year it was avalable everywhere....still there is a valid point when the console doesnt even keep up with a last gen system in their home terr. (compairing launch year with launch year of course)

axt113

Well as i've tried to tell people Japan is where the system wars are won, in every generation the tredns of who wins shows up there first 

doesnt that mean that ps3 will get second place...

[QUOTE="The__MCP"]It's obvious that PS3 is a disappointment and PSP is going to lose to the DS. Let's be real about it, the main reason why Sony has had two very disappointing systems is for one reason: PRICE! These systems are not losing because of poor game selection. EVERY new console had crappy games at launch. You simply can't expect people to pay almost $300 for a handheld and almost $700 for a console. (I'm including the extra money for a game and any essential peripheries.) That's utterly ridiculous! Now... I knew the price points were ridiculous even though many internet fanboys were clueless. Although, I think its was majority opinion on the internet several years ago that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea, so yeah, I don't put much credence into what some anonymous internet dude thinks about the next console. BUT SONY... they should know better! What the heck were they thinking? Do their chief planners make so much money, that they aren't in touch with the average budget? Did they think people would want Blu-Ray THAT bad? Were they just arrogant? I think the last suggestion is most likely. Nintendo had this problem too when they refused obvious upgrades like games on CDs. Is it just the natural order that when you ride high for too long, you become careless and lose sight of the common sense ideas that succeed in the video game bizness? (Such as affordable consoles!)GloverD

please if i may. i had a N64 when it was released i was in the 9th grade i think. any way if i remember correctly for me the N64 lost to PSX was because the games were too much (i paid about $65 for StarFox64 in the mid 90's thats alot of money) when my freinds with a PSX could get 2 or 3 games for the same price as one N64 game plus PSX had games coming out like every two weeks the N64 games were coming every 4-6 months......... i was only a teenage than so i'm basing this off what i remember so please if i'm wrong correct me. thx:) norm

I stopped reading when you said disapointment, i realized this is a fanboy threadGsSanAndreas

Well, market researching, developers and many other people have also been disappointed with the PS3. So it's not just fanboys. You don't have to read it here. You can read about it all over the NET. People try to avoid the facts and wish it away. Still, the PS3 can turn things around. They are trying hard to do so. More games and a lower price will definitely help. The system will still has some strong exclusives and people will eventually get the PS3 for those exclusives. I don't see the PS3 selling like the PS2, but it'll sell enough to stay into the market and make some kind of profit in a couple of years from now.

Ok OP I'm sure it's been said but just incase to answer your question...

first off the PSP. Sony wanted to promote their new media format = UMD. Sony wants you to buy UMD movies because they get royalties since the films are being put on their media format. Sony makes the PSP use UMD's. This jacks up the price of the system.

lots of ppl buy the PSP and therefore lots of people buy tons of UMDs = tons of $$$ for sony.

 

 

The PS3 is the exact same scenario. Sony wants everyone to buy blu-ray discs. This requires a blu-ray player. blu-ray players are hella expansive since they're brand f****ng new. Sony's dilemma- we need people to buy blu-ray players. Sony realizaton: a lot of people want to buy PS3s. Sonys dilmma: blu-ray players are expansive. Sony's realization: people really want the PS3 so they'd probaby be willing to pay alot for one. Sony's solution: make the PS3 use blu-ray disks!

Yes say it again and again... the PS3 is a fu***ing bargan. I know it is. But it's still really really really expensive when it doesn't have to be.

Rev2221

That pretty much sums it up. The problem is Sony like to take these big risks that could cost them millions of dollars. Even though Blu-Ray is selling better then UMD did, the format still isn't selling they way Sony though it would. They have over 3 million Blu-Rays in homes world wide, but can only sell 1500-2000 Blu-Ray movies a week for each title? These type of sales aren't making movie studios happy. Their profits are pennies compares to what they make with DVD's. DVD profits per disc is probably 4-5x's greater then Blu-Ray & HD-DVD.

[QUOTE="Rev2221"]

Ok OP I'm sure it's been said but just incase to answer your question...

first off the PSP. Sony wanted to promote their new media format = UMD. Sony wants you to buy UMD movies because they get royalties since the films are being put on their media format. Sony makes the PSP use UMD's. This jacks up the price of the system.

lots of ppl buy the PSP and therefore lots of people buy tons of UMDs = tons of $$$ for sony.

 

 

The PS3 is the exact same scenario. Sony wants everyone to buy blu-ray discs. This requires a blu-ray player. blu-ray players are hella expansive since they're brand f****ng new. Sony's dilemma- we need people to buy blu-ray players. Sony realizaton: a lot of people want to buy PS3s. Sonys dilmma: blu-ray players are expansive. Sony's realization: people really want the PS3 so they'd probaby be willing to pay alot for one. Sony's solution: make the PS3 use blu-ray disks!

Yes say it again and again... the PS3 is a fu***ing bargan. I know it is. But it's still really really really expensive when it doesn't have to be.

blackace

That pretty much sums it up. The problem is Sony like to take these big risks that could cost them millions of dollars. Even though Blu-Ray is selling better then UMD did, the format still isn't selling they way Sony though it would. They have over 3 million Blu-Rays in homes world wide, but can only sell 1500-2000 Blu-Ray movies a week for each title? These type of sales aren't making movie studios happy. Their profits are pennies compares to what they make with DVD's. DVD profits per disc is probably 4-5x's greater then Blu-Ray & HD-DVD.

Sales weren't great for DVD its first 1 year either.  It's a new format and takes time to establish itself.   

[QUOTE="blackace"][QUOTE="Rev2221"]

Ok OP I'm sure it's been said but just incase to answer your question...

first off the PSP. Sony wanted to promote their new media format = UMD. Sony wants you to buy UMD movies because they get royalties since the films are being put on their media format. Sony makes the PSP use UMD's. This jacks up the price of the system.

lots of ppl buy the PSP and therefore lots of people buy tons of UMDs = tons of $$$ for sony.

 

 

The PS3 is the exact same scenario. Sony wants everyone to buy blu-ray discs. This requires a blu-ray player. blu-ray players are hella expansive since they're brand f****ng new. Sony's dilemma- we need people to buy blu-ray players. Sony realizaton: a lot of people want to buy PS3s. Sonys dilmma: blu-ray players are expansive. Sony's realization: people really want the PS3 so they'd probaby be willing to pay alot for one. Sony's solution: make the PS3 use blu-ray disks!

Yes say it again and again... the PS3 is a fu***ing bargan. I know it is. But it's still really really really expensive when it doesn't have to be.

ramey70

That pretty much sums it up. The problem is Sony like to take these big risks that could cost them millions of dollars. Even though Blu-Ray is selling better then UMD did, the format still isn't selling they way Sony though it would. They have over 3 million Blu-Rays in homes world wide, but can only sell 1500-2000 Blu-Ray movies a week for each title? These type of sales aren't making movie studios happy. Their profits are pennies compares to what they make with DVD's. DVD profits per disc is probably 4-5x's greater then Blu-Ray & HD-DVD.

Sales weren't great for DVD its first 1 year either.  It's a new format and takes time to establish itself.   

well DVD's could be played on any TV the user had unlike Hd-DVD and blu-ray you have to buy a HDTV to play it on

[QUOTE="ramey70"][QUOTE="blackace"][QUOTE="Rev2221"]

Ok OP I'm sure it's been said but just incase to answer your question...

first off the PSP. Sony wanted to promote their new media format = UMD. Sony wants you to buy UMD movies because they get royalties since the films are being put on their media format. Sony makes the PSP use UMD's. This jacks up the price of the system.

lots of ppl buy the PSP and therefore lots of people buy tons of UMDs = tons of $$$ for sony.

 

 

The PS3 is the exact same scenario. Sony wants everyone to buy blu-ray discs. This requires a blu-ray player. blu-ray players are hella expansive since they're brand f****ng new. Sony's dilemma- we need people to buy blu-ray players. Sony realizaton: a lot of people want to buy PS3s. Sonys dilmma: blu-ray players are expansive. Sony's realization: people really want the PS3 so they'd probaby be willing to pay alot for one. Sony's solution: make the PS3 use blu-ray disks!

Yes say it again and again... the PS3 is a fu***ing bargan. I know it is. But it's still really really really expensive when it doesn't have to be.

thenorminator

That pretty much sums it up. The problem is Sony like to take these big risks that could cost them millions of dollars. Even though Blu-Ray is selling better then UMD did, the format still isn't selling they way Sony though it would. They have over 3 million Blu-Rays in homes world wide, but can only sell 1500-2000 Blu-Ray movies a week for each title? These type of sales aren't making movie studios happy. Their profits are pennies compares to what they make with DVD's. DVD profits per disc is probably 4-5x's greater then Blu-Ray & HD-DVD.

Sales weren't great for DVD its first 1 year either. It's a new format and takes time to establish itself.

well DVD's could be played on any TV the user had unlike Hd-DVD and blu-ray you have to buy a HDTV to play it on

That's not true.  HD-DVD's and Bluray can both be played on regular TV's.

[QUOTE="axt113"]

 

PS2 didn't do badly in its first year, look at Japanese sales at Week 22 it had sold 3 times as many in Japan as the PS3 has sold

hyperboy152000

thats in japan....im talking the first year it was avalable everywhere....still there is a valid point when the console doesnt even keep up with a last gen system in their home terr. (compairing launch year with launch year of course)

the ps2 launched in nov in the US and Europe and by march the PS2 had sold more than 5 million just in those 2 regions.