Sony, Sony, Sony. What are we going to do with you? Word through the grapevine is you've shafted our European friends once again. First, they have to wait longer for the release of the PS3, but then they have to pay more, and now their consoles won't have any backwards compatibility (except for a few games).
What?
Or even a better question, "What the hell is happening over at Sony?" I'm under the impression the company has gotten too big for its britches and needs to be taken down a notch or two. They aren't the only people making game consoles. Sure they've got all this cool stuff, but in my experience their game consoles are hardly top of the line. They break easily, and for the price of a PS3, I'll have to say I'm leery of dropping that much cash on a product that might last a year (I've had three PS3--4 if you count the one I bought for my son). Durability and longevity certainly aren't their strong suits.
Yeah, they've got the game library. Well, they did in Europe's case. Now these people will have PS2 games but no way to play them after their old console gives up the ghost. X-box was off to a slow start in this department, offering up games for sports fans and shooters mostly, but now they've actually acquired some games that appeal to other genres of gamers--and they don't look all that bad. Plus, the X-box is way cheaper. Sure, it doesn't have blu-ray but it does have an available HD DVD player if you're into that (which I am). And don't discount the Wii. Nintendo got lost in the tide of 360 vs PS3, but came back with a vengeance with their newest console. It's cheaper than the other consoles, but I've always been impressed with the durability of Nintendo products. Never have I had to replace anything. I've had my Game Cube for years, and not one problem. My DS gets dropped and kicked around and it runs like a champ. I only gave up the gameboy for newer stuff. That says something about the workmanship Nintendo puts into their stuff. And Nintendo seems to remember that gaming is about fun. The more fun they make their stuff, the more they're going to sell. T fun factor went through the roof with the Wii. Instead of just mashing buttons, gamers are throwing their controllers through TVs. Sweet.
So Sony, you've led the pack for awhile, but all these bad business decisions are going to come back and bite you in the ass. This time around, your competition has a bead on you and your public is watching closely.
Posted by Zoso at March 1, 2007 06:43 AMAs much as I hate to defend Sony, I think I have to do so on this one...
Technology is largely a matter of making decisions about trade-offs, either for technical reasons or business ones. Often, these are based on customer feedback.
Sony isn't trying to be dick-ish because they hate Europeans, but because the PS3s they are shipping over there are slightly newer versions which lack some of the components found in Japanese and North American versions. Why? To shave off some of the extra cost involved in producing the console, they've opted to do most of their backward compatibility in software rather than hardware.
According to Sony, ~1000 of the 'old' PS2 games will work out of the box on a PS3 in Europe when it's released over there - odds are, just about every game on your shelf and mine will work. 95% of the people out there, I imagine, will have the majority of their old games work just fine. It's a non-issue to most people.
What isn't a non-issue, though, is the price of the PS3 itself - which, as you mention, is astronomical. By cutting some non-essential hardware they are paving the road to future price cuts, and that's something ALL of us can benefit from. Once the pipeline clears you can expect some of these newer revision PS3s to make their way over here.
Anyhow, if enough people complain that a given game doesn't work, odds are good that Sony will release an update for the PS3 to add support for it - another benefit of doing emulation via software.
- Jeff
Oh yeah, and another thing -
The Xbox 360 isn't really much a better a deal than the PS3.
For example, that HD-DVD feature you mention is $200 on top of the price of the console. That puts the Xbox 360 at a minimum of $500 (making an entry-level Xbox 360 cost the same as a entry-level PS3, which comes with Blu-Ray built-in). So, that alone makes them about equal...
...except that the Xbox 360 doesn't come with wireless networking built-in - and the adapter for that costs an insane $100. The higher-end PS3 comes with this built-in, so apples-to-apples you can actually save with the PS3.
So, really, they're both wildly overpriced consoles at this point, though the Xbox 360 gives you more options on the low end of you don't care about HD-DVD or joining a wireless network. Truth be told, I don't hold much hope for HD-DVD surviving against Blu-Ray, and really wouldn't recommend making a huge investment on that technology for movies until the market decides on a clear winner.
The big difference: Unlike their software division (or Sony), Microsoft's gaming division doesn't hold its customers in blatant contempt. High priced or not, I feel that Microsoft is actually doing a good job catering to the hardcore gaming market, and their online gaming efforts in particular are way more well developed than either Sony's or Nintendo's.
Probably not a huge deal for the types of games you play - and the lack of Japanese-style RPGs is probably a deal-killer for you - but at least they're not complete raving assholes like Sony has been lately.
- Jeff
It's a very difficult sale to say that you are saving money with a PS3. If sony were really interested in making price cuts to pave the way for future price-reductions, they would make them where it counts. For instance, removing blutooth and offering a wired controller version with a flash-based HD in the 8-10gb range. Backwards compatability is a huge consideration when you are talking about making this system compatible with one of the best-selling game consoles of all time. 1000 games is a drop in the bucket compared to the full-on range of titles available for the PS2. Also, the gamine industry chose the PS2 to release quirky titles because it had the user-base for them to succeed. Several people bought a PS2 for those quircky titles that couldn't be had anywhere else. In addition... we make the assumption that Sony will base backwards compatability on popularity. The Xbox 360 team; however, basically ran into a wall with titles that were older than a certain date. If that is the case, and we are talking about compatability with popular titles from the last 3 years... a lot will be missing.
Not that it matters, because if you have PS2 games, chances are that you have a PS2 to play them on. It does; however, steal one of the features away from the PS3. Also, it's obvious that Sony has mistaken the value of their brand and reputation. Everybody called me crazy when I said the PS3 would cost over $500 and it did... and now everybody is calling Sony crazy. It's cost-inhibitive, and about the only benefit to the console right now for the moderate to average gamer is the PS2 lineup... which won't be as much a value to the European market. I'd be amazed if they didn't pass on the PS3 while Nintendo won another market with the Wii.
Sony once again shines as an technology engineering firm and little else. That's why people love their TVs and hate the Connect Music store.
Posted by: J at March 1, 2007 06:45 PM> For instance, removing blutooth and offering
> a wired controller version with a flash-based
> HD in the 8-10gb range. Backwards compatability
Neither of these would help much, I'm afraid.
The Bluetooth chipset is of negligible cost, and using flash-based memory (versus a hard drive) of that size is pretty expensive. Flash costs significantly more per GB than traditional drive-based technology, and is of dubious extra value unless you expect people to be jogging with the things or have space considerations.
(The latter reason - and cost - is why the Wii has such miniscule flash storage, BTW)
The real cost of the PS3 is Blu-Ray, but that ship has already sailed. Developers are depending on the existence of a Blu-Ray drive, and Sony can't back out of that now. That's why they're going with nickel and dime component savings. They have to.
> is a huge consideration when you are talking
> about making this system compatible with one of
> the best-selling game consoles of all time. 1000
> games is a drop in the bucket compared to the
> full-on range of titles available for the PS2.
I'm guessing it's more than half of the titles, and when considering total units sold that's what really makes an impact. If they support the Grand Theft Autos, Final Fantasies, Metal Gears and Gran Turismos of the world they've already done what 99% of their user base wants.
Fact is, much like novels, most games released barely sell at all. The top ten games at any time result in the lion's share of sales.
> Also, the gamine industry chose the PS2 to
> release quirky titles because it had the
> user-base for them to succeed. Several people
True, but in the grand scheme of things the several people who imported "Poko Yoko Super Pop!" or whatever from Japan are facing off against the several hundred thousand who bought the latest Grand Theft Auto. Sony is going to pour their resources into the latter, and when you think about it that makes the most sense.
I can understand some people being disappointed, but when weighing those people versus all of the people who could benefit from the PS3 being $50-100 cheaper, the latter will likely win out.
> that were older than a certain date. If that is
> the case, and we are talking about compatability
> with popular titles from the last 3 years... a
> lot will be missing.
I doubt any 'popular' titles from the last 3 years will be a major problem. I'd be very, very surprised if any of the A-list titles I mentioned above don't work (or won't work within a few months after a patch or two).
> them on. It does; however, steal one of the
> features away from the PS3. Also, it's obvious
> that Sony has mistaken the value of their brand
> and reputation.
There's the rub. I'm willing to bet that if Microsoft or Nintendo made this announcement, people would shrug and live with it as part of the cost of technology.
Sony has dug its ass a huge hole over the last year or so with their mistakes, PR blunders, arrogance and blatantly illegal/unethical activity and has earned little patience from the public. Left and right (still! even after the lack-luster PS3 launch) they are putting their foot in their mouth, and very few people are willing to cut them any slack.
Viewed on its own, though, I don't think this is a huge deal. My guess is that few are going to be playing PS2 games regularly on their PS3 in a year's time as those titles are replaced by newer iterations.
Seriously: How long did you play PS1 games on your PS2? I had only a single game I played - "Hogs of War", which was a quirky game if there ever was one - and it had compatibility problems on the PS2. Suffice to say, lack of perfect Hogs of War emulation did not sink the PS2. :)
Really, if Sony is depending on old games at all to make the PS3 a worthy purchase then they're already screwed, as it's new games they're going to make their licensing money off of. Those other games are already dollars in the bank.
- Jeff
Posted by: Jeff at March 1, 2007 08:43 PM