PS3: My thoughts

While I'll agree the PS3 has some positive features, most of those are not purposeful for a game system. I've never been fond of so many additions. While I do like having the ability to pop a movie in and watch it..I've yet to find the need to browse the internet with my PS3 controller. Sure it's a more streamlined entertainment console but it's not the better game console, which is what I am looking for. I've maybe used my PS3 a total of 20 times in the year or more I've owned it.

When it comes down to it, I'd rather play nearly everything on 360. Better control, live, friends and for the most part I prefer the graphics. As for MS being money grubbers? The 360 has always been less expensive than the PS3 as well as relating to every single one of Sony's products: they're overpriced. Nearly everything TV's, Computers, MP3, etc can be bested by another product for at least 200 dollars the cheaper.

 

Quick fact:

For every PS3 sold/made, Sony loses approximately $20. If anything, Sony is the opposite of being a money hogging company. They're technically giving everyone a $20 discount on their game console for no reason whatsoever. That's a lot of money lost.

 

If this were true then sony would be out of business even thought they sell other products because that would be millions and millions of dollars in debt right there... and they aren't that nice, hell, no one is nice enough to lose millions to give us a "discount"; that is, a $600 console!(original price)... It only costs them $100 AT MOST(that would be only if the blu ray players are expensive)... so they too are hungreh for teh moniez/

 

No, he is telling the truth.

 

Although they probably make it up easily with the cost of the games/accessories.

 

Yeah I think they break even with the games and the hosting costs for PSN games.

 

Yep. However, so is this:

The interesting thing about U.S. vs Japanese business strategies is that the latter generally (I mean when comparing the end commercial output of various top ranking companies) see the benefit in taking an initial loss in releasing something at a lower cost in hopes of seeing huge dividends in the long run.

It's a matter of immediate profit vs. future profit.

U.S. = Concerned with initial profits and slowly declining dividends.
Japan = Concerned with initial loss and stable future profits

or for those of you that need an analogy

U.S. = Buying a hotdog stand and selling hotdogs now at $1
Japan = Waiting a year to invest in buying a hotdog stand. Thus losing the potential for earning this year's hotdog market, but with the thought that next year's market will be better primed for their brand of hotdog.

So, the way this comes into play regarding Microsoft vs Sony is this.

The Xbox 360 was sold for profit at a cheaper price, relying on the economic principle of supply and demand. With each subsequent limited release of affordable consoles being bought up instantaneously (take that in context). I'm sure many of you remember the scarcity of 360s for a few months.

The PS3, is being and always was sold at a net loss for Sony, as they were being sold as a home entertainment center, computer, HD player and all. They are technically underpriced well, price-in-context arguments aside.

The reason the PS3s were so high at launch was to limit the initial loss and adopt the same marketing strategy Microsoft used, limit and ship them. It worked at first, they were sold out for a few shipments, but as people realized the steep cost and saw that 360s were already around with a multitude of games, they chose the latter as the better alternative. Only recently did Sony refine their manufacturing technology to limit the loss drastically so that it could compete with 360s. As such, sales have increased significantly but still comes in at a deficit. So where do they make up the difference and ultimately earn a profit?

Well, aside from the major cut they get from first party accessories, Sony gains from games used on their platform. The PS3 was admittedly designed for a 10 year cycle (matching that of its predecessor). Here we see the aforementioned future-profit model coming into play, over ten years, with more and more consoles being sold, thus making it more persuadable for publishers to profit on making games for said consoles (a sale for a console shows interest in games for that platform). Over time, pennies (figurative mind you) on the dollar add up and they profit in the long run.

There's your gaming economics lesson for today kids.

 

If they tried to sell with a higher price, people wouldn't buy it and they would lose more money.

Not so much different from the Xbox from my experience.

But yeah, the Dashboard is faster, it runs Blu-Ray, PSN is FREE and doesn't have so many problems.
But the PS3 is the best console without the best games.
The best games are for the Xbox. PS3 owners will never play Fable, Mass Effect, Gears of War or Halo.

 

did you just ignore my explanation or do you disregard stuff inadvertently?

if they sold the launch PS3 at current prices they'd be losing AT LEAST $300 per console. They had to sell it that high due to expenses.

 

I've noticed this; Sony is almost like a designer technology. Like Skull Candy, but no better than any of the competition.

I can dig up some examples, one moment.

Generally Sony products cost around 10% more than the equivalent lesser brands.
Just look up Sony Vaio laptops and equivalent Dell, Toshiba, and HP laptops. Sure, some of the Sony ones have like 8GB of RAM and NVIDIA dedicated 512MB graphics cards, but who would pay £2000 for it?

 

I looked at TV's majorly. Sony is miles behind some of the TV companies. There are some damn nice looking Sharps, LGs, Samsungs, Toshibas. All less expensive than equivalent sized TV's but they look better, preform better and have better stats.

I'm also willing to bet production costs are down from the initial PS3's. As you produce something over time it starts to run more smoothly. Plus they've dropped things like backwards compatibility.

 

Exactly. They've advanced the PS3 so far - clear evidence of that being the new PS3 Slim. Sure, they're charging less for it, but I can guarantee that there's like a 5% increase in the profit margin now.
With the TVs, the tables turn. Toshiba, after its defeat (sort of) to Sony with the HD DVD vs Blu-Ray thing, seemed like a weak company. But I have a Toshuba 32" LCD TV at my Dad's house, and a Sony Bravia about-the-same-size" TV at my Mum's house. The Sony has better HD, but for regular picture the Toshiba always beats it. ALso, I dunno is anyone's noticed, but Toshiba products (not just TVs, laptops etc. also) have really good speakers. The Sony's sound is average, but does that annoying thing where the volume increments aren't equal, so when you turn up the TV, it's never really the right volume.
The Sony is slicker, but I swear now that you're only paying for the Sony brand name now when you buy half their stuff.
However, I still respect the PS3. It's a very good console. A bit fat, and I don't like the controllers, but the console itself, if price and games are no object, is better than the Xbox 360 and the Wii.