Japan Analyst Slashes PS3 Forecasts; PS3 Sales Figures 'Not Good'

Sony has kind marketed the other features of the PS3, although I guess not as much as the gaming features (nor as much as they should to justify the price). The PS3 does come with a Blu-ray movie and coupons for BR movies, so they aren't ignoring that feature. The PC stuff should be pushed more, but since it might take a little more time to get things working bug-free and efficiently on the PS3, that might not be a good idea (HD video playback through Linux is still a little difficult if I'm not mistaken...that should be a breeze given the hardware). I don't think it is out yet (or maybe it has been released), but there is a distributed-computing application that was developed for the PS3 (part of the Folding at Home project IIRC).

To be fair though, I'm not sure if a video game console is should be directed towards kids (or at least, directed only at kids). The average gamer is like 33...although they may care as much about the PS3's extra functionality as the average kid.

I doubt it...especially since that PC probably wouldn't be able to play Blu-ray movies, among other things AFAIK.

To be fair, the PS3 is WAY, WAY more like a computer than the PS2 ever was.

I do agree that it will be the games that really make the PS3 successful more so than any of that other functionality. The PS3's biggest selling point right now is that it is the best Blu-ray player and also the cheapest; that won't always be the case.

PS2 was ~$300 at launch, not ~$200. And there is the $500 PS3 no one ever talks about for some reason. I actually prefer that model personally, although I don't have any use (at the moment) for the built-in WiFi in the $600 PS3 (the only advantage to getting that SKU IMO). Doesn't help that Sony ships way more 60GB PS3s (helps to lessen their losses, so why not?).

BTW, I think the US is getting screwed with PS3 pricing (well Europe too, but they always get screwed). PS3s in Canada are like $50 cheaper, and the PS3 is even cheaper in Japan (pretty close to $100 IIRC). Of course, I think the other systems are cheaper too, not to mention that $400+ is still really expensive.

EA's not going to sell the PS3 to people that want to buy a new console though. All their games will be on the 360 as well (in some cases, with better performance/features). They're good if you already have a PS3, but that's not the problem for Sony right now.

BTW, I recall you giving your impressions of NFS in the PS3 thread. Out of curiosity, have you ever played the 360 version? What are the differences, if any, between the 2? I learned today that the PS3 version takes up like 12GB, which has to be like 5+GB more than the 360 version. I was under the impression that they were virtually the same, or even that the 360 version was better. So I'm just wondering what EA did with that extra space. It might just be something as small as extra language support though (a universal disc basically, as opposed to multiple discs for every region).

Someone else might have to comment, but I think HOFD is one of the worst BR movies in terms of video quality, which is a shame given how amazing it should look. That's not to say it won't look amazing though. I've seen some people say Talladega Nights looked amazing, and that's also among the worst (maybe even the worst...great job in packing that in with the PS3, Sony).

What do you mean by the revamped 360? Unless I've missed something, everything that is being rumored about a revamped 360 would either keep the price the same or lower it. Unless you're referring to a HD DVD drive, a 120GB HDD, or something like that.

Otherwise, you might as well get a 360 right now or as soon as that 360 gets released...maybe. I guess if PS3 sales suck but Sony is able to improve yields for blue laser yields (as well as Cell and RSX yields...maybe even transitioning to 65nm), they could get to $400/$500 this year. It is practically $400 in some parts of the world as it is.

Guess you could do the PS2 trade-in offer right now at EB/GS to get the $500 PS3 for $400 though. Of course no one wants to touch that SKU, except for me apparently.

 

I think the PS3 is what Ken Kutaragi had in mind when he created the PlayStation. It is basically his dream becoming a reality. In his mind, PS was never just a video game system nor was it supposed to be, and I guess he's trying to make that apparent with the PS3. I guess he'd like PS to be a part of people's live beyond just games, even if it was the best at doing just that (not to mention extremely profitable at doing just that). In his eyes, he probably doesn't think of gamers being screwed with the PS3, but probably being rewarded with extra "must-have" functionality at a "slight" premium. I imagine that's what it's like anyway...kind of how I see the PS3, but I'm biased since I'd love using all that extra functionality.

Of course, the PS3 providing computer-like functionality is not really why the PS3 costs what it costs. That functionality simply requires an effort by Sony (and others) to take advantage of the hardware necessary for making next-gen games and using it for other applications.

Regarding the 20GB SKU, yeah, there are adapters for enabling WiFi, although I haven't actually seen anyone try to use them. I assume someone has though. The only bad thing is that I thought I read that these adapters might not provide some of the PS3-PSP functionality that the $600 PS3 with built-in WiFi offers. I'm not exactly sure why though...might be BS even. And yeah, external HDDs work too, although only for media (movies, music, pictures, I think Linux, etc.; basically can't use it for games I believe). You could use any internal 2.5" SATA HDD too, which is what I was planning on doing. Whenever I plan on getting one, I think I'll get the 20GB system (hopefully after a price cut if I can hold out), sell/give away that HDD, and spend $80-$100 (maybe even less depending on when I buy a PS3) on a ~100GB HDD that is faster than both of the normal HDDs.

I figured more $600 PS3s would be shipped (kind of a "duh" thing for Sony considering how much they're losing...20GB PS3s won't even be available in the UK IIRC). I'm somewhat surprised that people prefer the 60GB PS3, but I'm also surprised so many people have use for WiFi; I can't even get broadband at home, so sometimes my expectations are a little off in this category. I figured that most people actually interested in a PS3 but put off by the price would consider both options though, despite all the marketing and stuff like that. If you want a PS3 but don't want all that extra functionality, why not get the PS3 for $100 less that doesn't provide some of that functionality that you don't care about? If you actually want that stuff, then yeah, the $500 PS3 is really a lesser option for you, but considering all the complaints, I'm assuming that isn't an issue for everyone (especially those that just want a video game console).

 

I'm not even sure if he cares about that to be honest. I wouldn't be surprised if he was willing to sacrifice success by creating the product he wants to create. He might prefer making a unsuccessful computer system rather than a successful video game system. He's an engineer, not a businessman.

Although again, that's probably all a moot point. The PS3 won't fail because Kutaragi and Sony decided to push the computer aspect of the system...unless there's a huge security flaw with doing that or something.

 

Here's a question for people that don't want to pay $500 or more for a PS3...

Would you be happier with the following?

A PS3 that costs $400/$500. A HDD is not included in every system. There will be HDDs for sale and a SKU with a HDD, but there would be a "core" PS3 that does not come with a HDD (the $400 system). Memory cards would be used, either specific to video games (like the PS2 and 360), or perhaps something like the Memory Stick format by Sony (maybe a 32MB MS could be included in the core, like the PSP). USB HDDs would not be supported, although I think they could allow you to use generic 2.5" SATA HDDs (more profitable to not do this, but that might make Linux support unlikely). A PS3 that is not 90%+ BC with the PS1/PS2, at least on day one. BC might also require a HDD, like the 360. No built-in WiFi, only an adapter for sale (like the 360). You need to pay for a subscription in order to play games online (maybe something like $20-$30 a year...can't be $50 since it would be inferior to XBL...though I guess that couldn't really stop them from charging $50 or even more).

Basically the PS3 as we know it, but more like the 360 in some areas. I'm guessing this would be more than possible, assuming Sony is willing to lose as much as they are now. They might even be able to charge $300-$350 for it.

Of course, they could also have used DVD tech instead of Blu-ray (maybe together with the above, making for a ~$200 system ). I'd rather go with just the changes I made though.

Seems like there are a lot of little things that are upping the price of the PS3 that, while important to varying degrees, could probably be dropped without angering gamers too much (the type of BC the PS3 provides right now probably adds close to $50 to the PS3's cost) . Actually, while it might not be obvious, a lot of gamers would probably be spending more on the PS3 with the situation above than they would now.

 

Nope. I liken them to the DVD and Emotion Engine tech used in the PS2 (and they by themselves didn't make the PS2 a computer...at least to the degree the PS3 is). There's not even much use of having Blu-ray from a computer aspect (unless it was a burner I guess).

Yep. I prefer the PS3 as is, but I imagine that scenario would be easier for gamers to accept (as you said).

 

I'm thinking the inclusion of Blu-ray is of greater benefit to gamers than the inclusion of the things I listed (which is why I ditched those). Probably wouldn't be able to get to $300 for a 60GB PS3 though (although in my scenario, you might be able to get a HDD-less PS3 for ~$300 and a 60GB or larger HDD for under a $100...assuming Sony doesn't go proprietary with the HDDs). I was going with a 20GB and a HDD-less SKU BTW (like the 360).

BTW, yeah, Blu-ray is primarily the reason why the PS3 was delayed. I'm thinking it would have been hard to release the PS3 6 months earlier though if they didn't use Blu-ray. A lot of the games and OS/PSN features seemed rushed as it is.

Also, FWIW, in my scenario, you'd be paying more down the line w/o watching HD movies. Not sure if that's what you were thinking.

 

Here's a bit of an update regarding the PS3's sales (namely the number PS3s sitting on store shelves, with a little bit of statistical evidence):
http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4552&Itemid=2