PS3 Problems

univera

I don't play, but thought the gamers would find this interesting.

http://articles.news.aol.com/business/_a/playstation-3-not-playing-some-older/20061114061909990005?ncid=NWS00010000000001

Shizelbs

Well that does it. If I can't play my Parrappa the Rappa on the PS3, I'm not buying one.

zombie boy 2000

Shizelbs wrote:

Well that does it. If I can't play my Parrappa the Rappa on the PS3, I'm not buying one.

My favorite game OF ALL TIME...


so yeah, eff the PS3

bobman1235

Thye have said that it's a bug, they're aware of it, and will release firmware upgrades via internet to everyone who has the console, so it's really not that much of an issue.

cam5860

Yeah but there's another problem with the ps3 it cost 600 bucks. **** that!!!!!

MikeC78

cam5860 wrote:

Yeah but there's another problem with the ps3 it cost 600 bucks. **** that!!!!!

WOW!!:eek: Such hatred and language toward Sony products!:) Don't you realize that it's a Blu-Ray player also for that price?

Hell, if it works as it's suppose to that's a damn bargain for a BD player if you ask me, plus a gaming machine. Have you seen the going prices on a BD player?? They start out at about $1000!

Mike

2002tahoe

such hatred toward sony products?? SONY BLOWS!!!!! thats why i bought a 360.
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p1.html . check that site out and you will see how much better the 360 truly is.

Demiurge

2002tahoe wrote:

such hatred toward sony products?? SONY BLOWS!!!!! thats why i bought a 360.
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p1.html . check that site out and you will see how much better the 360 truly is.

I hadn't read that before, but that's a great article. I don't think Sony blows, but I do think they're potentially committing business suicide at their price point. It's the long term that's important. Not that you can get a bunch of chuckle heads to be the first in line on launch day.

CONCLUSION
When you break down the numbers, Xbox 360 has provably more performance than PS3. Keep in mind that Sony has a track record of over promising and under delivering on technical performance. The truth is that both systems pack a lot of power for high definition games and entertainment.

However, hardware performance, while important, is only a third of the puzzle. Xbox 360 is a fusion of hardware, software and services. Without the software and services to power it, even the most powerful hardware becomes inconsequential. Xbox 360 games—by leveraging cutting-edge hardware, software, and services—will outperform the PlayStation 3.

2002tahoe

i believe that the only reason i would buy a PS3 would be to resell it on ebay and make triple the price back. otherwise i am sticking with my xbox 360 and playing gears of war and waiting it out for HALO 3. im so stoked for that!!!

mutelight

The PS3 eventually will be a great system as long as Sony tames their ego a little bit. I just worry about developer support since there is so much money needed to create a game. Once the system proves itself and there is a large enough user base you can expect to see some extremely stunning looking titles. The launch titles really do not appeal at all to me. To be honest, in my opinion, I think the 360 has better looking titles at its launch. (Almost undoubtedly due to it being so easy to program for.) The only problem is it might take a long time (1-2 years) if ever.

Their main priority right now should be creating easy to use effecient Devkits with lots of documentation because the Cell is one extremely powerful and equally complicated CPU.

krabby5

People were skeptical of the PS2 as well...remember...too hard for developers to program games

Time will tell...It better be DAMN good for $600 bucks though..

What caught my eye in that article was that there were 16000 different games for the PS1 and 2...wow

As for me, I don't have a HD tv yet, so the 360 or PS3 will have to wait anyways

PhantomOG

It's obvious Sony can't make enough to keep up with demand. It's obvious there are people out there willing to pay $1500 for it regardless of the fact that in 6 months time you will be able to easily buy it for less than half that price.

1+1=2... Why the hell doesn't Sony charge more??? They can always lower the price later. It would still be all over the media, maybe even more so because of the outrageous price. I just don't see the point in passing all those dollars to resellers.

Demiurge

PhantomOG wrote:

It's obvious Sony can't make enough to keep up with demand. It's obvious there are people out there willing to pay $1500 for it regardless of the fact that in 6 months time you will be able to easily buy it for less than half that price.

1+1=2... Why the hell doesn't Sony charge more??? They can always lower the price later. It would still be all over the media, maybe even more so because of the outrageous price. I just don't see the point in passing all those dollars to resellers.

It would backfire on Sony, obviously. It should work in principle, but it wouldn't sit well with the consumer base. It's not to say the people paying $1,500 for one on eBay wouldn't buy them and Sony would pocket the cash, but they would be seen as gouging the market. It works for the eBay crowd because they have no reputation to uphold.

PhantomOG

In almost every other technology sector I can think of, brand new/cutting edge technology always cost a huge premium. I just don't really think ~6 months of a premium would hurt their market that much. They could in turn invest the extra profit into manufacturing and lower the over cost of the system quicker. Economically it just makes more sense to me.

EDIT: As long as their price still insured at or near sell-out inventories, their hope of flooding the market as quickly as possible is still achieved AND they make higher profits.

PhantomOG

For example HD-DVD / Blu-Ray. Almost the same business model. Both camps want their "side" to win out so more media is made and is accepted as the industry standard. I don't see any sub-$400 HD-DVD or Blu-Ray players on the market in an effort to "please" the market. They charge the premium and take it to the bank since they can't make enough to satisfy demand at a lower price. Then use the profits to turn around and lower manufacturing costs as quickly as possible.

cheddar

Nice using an article from E3:2005 to make a buying decision on a product. Nothing like year and a half old information to use to bash Sony.

Now that the war's on, why not just wait for the actual sales figures to come out. You can trash the console all you want, but if the first 2 million go into homes before Christmas and the next 2 million go into homes before summer, I think Sony will be doing just fine.

They're not in this to make money on the hardware, obviously, since it's well known that they're selling the hardware at a loss. If a quick profit was all they were after, they'd raise the price to keep it in line with ebay.

They've got their sights set on flooding the market with over 4 million HDMI 1.3 equipped, 1080p blu-ray players by the summer setting the stage for one helluva Christmas in 2007. That's their strategy. With demand this high for the first 2 million, they will probably get there.

Will it payoff the way they think? Who knows? But they'll easily sacrifice quick early profits to win the format war. Otherwise, there would be no need to limit production because they wanted to include a blu-ray player and they ran out of enough diodes. They'd just go the 360 route and stick a last generation dvd in there with a blu-ray add on for later.

I want to be clear, I'm just telling you Sony's strategy. I'm not saying that Sony is great, the 360 is bad. Sony and blu-ray will win, whatever...:rolleyes: Just telling you why they're selling so much expensive hardware for cheap and taking a chance on a strategy that made them come up short against demand.

AsSiMiLaTeD

there were people camped outside of our Best Buy on Monday night...wow

cheddar

Hard to pass up a chance to make possibly $2000 in a week.

PhantomOG

cheddar wrote:

Hard to pass up a chance to make possibly $2000 in a week.

obviosly not for sony.

I think its more of a media issue. For some reason the console market is one where the media decries any type of premium pricing for initial units.

cheddar

Well, and a very vocal videogame fan base that thinks they should get all their hardware for under $299 as well. And like I said, Sony has bigger fish to fry...

PhantomOG

well regardless of a fan base that doesn't understand the principles of economics, if Sony can sell units as fast as they can make them for, let's say, $999, flooding the market won't happen any sooner by trying to sell them at $499. The same number of units are in the market, just the $$$ don't go to Sony, but to a bunch of video game store employees selling on ebay.

cheddar

I'd say that for the first 4 million, you're dead-on. They'll sell them even if they let the price float to the market price. But after that, they've got a marketing problem just like everyone else. Will the public remember the ps3 as that $1500 console or the $599 blu-ray player that also plays kick a$$ games?

PhantomOG

It could go either way. Imagine what a bargain people will think they are getting in 4 months when that $1500 console is now the low low price of $399!

cheddar

Well, I think it will take a lot longer for the retail price to drop to $399. But your point is good. If these machines keep going for $1500 thru Christmas, it may take some of the sting out of paying retail when the supply problems ease.

tommyboy

PhantomOG wrote:

It's obvious Sony can't make enough to keep up with demand. It's obvious there are people out there willing to pay $1500 for it regardless of the fact that in 6 months time you will be able to easily buy it for less than half that price.

Thats for the true hardcore gamers.For the mainstream, I don't see people spending $600 for a system IMO. After the true hardcore fans get their system, the ps3 will have to drop their price to get more sales they want.

Demiurge

PhantomOG wrote:

In almost every other technology sector I can think of, brand new/cutting edge technology always cost a huge premium. I just don't really think ~6 months of a premium would hurt their market that much. They could in turn invest the extra profit into manufacturing and lower the over cost of the system quicker. Economically it just makes more sense to me.

EDIT: As long as their price still insured at or near sell-out inventories, their hope of flooding the market as quickly as possible is still achieved AND they make higher profits.

You can't sell a unit for $1,500 when a nearly equally powerful system sells for $900 less (with HD-DVD) -- $1,100 less without.

This is why Sony is fighting an uphill battle as it is. Not to mention it's bad publicity no matter how much business sense you think it would make. Image is also important in the long term.

cheddar

tommyboy wrote:

Thats for the true hardcore gamers.For the mainstream, I don't see people spending $600 for a system IMO. After the true hardcore fans get their system, the ps3 will have to drop their price to get more sales they want.

How many of the 100 million ps1 owners and 110 million ps2 owners are hardcore and how many are mainstream? The true breakdown would be very telling for future sales...

cheddar

Demiurge wrote:

You can't sell a unit for $1,500 when a nearly equally powerful system sells for $900 less (with HD-DVD) -- $1,100 less without.

I agree with you that marketing wise it would be a questionable move. But the high demand on ebay proves that you can...;)

Demiurge

cheddar wrote:

How many of the 100 million ps1 owners and 110 million ps2 owners are hardcore and how many are mainstream? The true breakdown would be very telling for future sales...

I owned PS1, and PS2 at launch, and I am not even 50/50 on a PS3 right now. The 360 offers way more options for gamers that the PS3 doesn't offer. The future of gaming is more important than just a 'kick **** console'. Of course that makes me a Microsoft Fan Boy despite only owning one of the two M-Soft console at current.

The true tale of the success of the PS3 will not be known for at least 2 years. The 360 has a year under it's belt at this juncture, and it's too soon to call on the success of that unit as well.

zombie boy 2000

I think I'll just bust out the Sega CD tonight and play some Night Trap with Dana Plato:p

tommyboy

cheddar wrote:

How many of the 100 million ps1 owners and 110 million ps2 owners are hardcore and how many are mainstream? The true breakdown would be very telling for future sales...

yes, but probably 98-99% of them payed retail price. And a lot of the people that will wait in line for the ps3 are going to pay $600 for their system and keep it. So you can prolly cut that 400,000 at least in half. So, imo, at most, about 200,000 will pay more than retail(between 1500 and 3000).

And lets not forget the ps2 was half the price ps3 was at launch... If your saying that the $600 price tag is not going to hurt ps3 sales, you gotta be crazy;)