Tretton financial math: New PS3 + PS2 < Old PS3

"If you remember only one thing from my post, remember... NEVER forget what you were promised, and above all, hold corporations accountable when they renig on a promise."

Not to be an ass or anything, but everyone here has already done that part, and it's extremely annoying to be reminded about a "promise" that was made because of legal issues a year and a half ago.

As to the holding corporations accountable for anything, they, and people in general, don't have to keep promises unless they did so in a legally binding written contract. It's something you can hate and preach about endlessly, but it's going to happen until society crumbles.

lessbiased, you sure seem sony-biased

What can I say to that?

My greatest bias is that I absolutely hate crappily implemented motion controls, of which I've seen too many examples of on the Wii to want one. Not to be bashing on the Wii, it's got some good games that I'd play if I had one, but I don't.

And I'd go out of my way to defend the 360 if people said that it had no games, no standard hardware, or if it went back on promises, but people don't make the same claims.

With my previous two posts it's just simply picking apart CB4D's comment as he invited people to do, and reminding people that corporations don't give a shit about what they've said or their fans.

"My greatest bias is that I absolutely hate crappily implemented motion controls"

It's a good thing Lair and that shitty bowling game for PS3 don't exist.

Oh, wait.

you beat me to it wing

CB4D and Wings - 1/lessbiasedthanmost - 0

You should really think about changing your screen name. Maybe 'slightlylessbiasedthanmostPS3ownerswhofeeljipped'?

hi sony adbot, welcome to joystiq

Welcome new xbot... wait, joystiq is already crawling with you so... Go away xbot!!

"I conjecture that most people that buy a PS3 will already have one"

You might wanna re-think that statement. You basically just said that Sony has already sold atleast 51% of the total number of PS3s they'll EVER sell. I hope you're wrong about that.

"Backwards compatibility has been a promised and highly touted feature of the PS3 since the beginning. If it means I'd be paying the extra dollar per for them to slap a chip on the board and make PS2 games work, I'd be all for paying that extra dollar."

O rly? Then why don't you buy the 60GB ps3? They're still available!

If money wasn't a factor, don't you think people would've bought a 60G already? Simply put, we want a cheap reasonable price as it pertains to a videogame console, and we want BC. If BC is ultimately removed from all the PS3 lines, then the whole situation is time sensitive for people who want both. The only way these people will be comforted is if Sony says they will always have an SKU with BC support and that current software-based BC will be improved to work as well as the 60G made it work.

--"Chips are VERY cheap in bulk, nowhere near 100 dollars per, and I doubt the figure would exceed 10 dollars per chip, if that"--

I would agree with you if these were intel chips, but GS chips are proprietary chips made by Sony, so they are more expensive to produce. I believe I saw somewhere that the cost of the GS chip was $27. Doing the math on this, excluding the cutting of the 2 USB ports and the card reader, Sony saves $27 million per million consoles produced; that's nothing to scoff at. The saved cost can be transfered to 1st party dev titles and possibly(hopefully) to educating 3rd party devs on how to get the most out of the hardware. Remember, the PS2 had the same Dev hurdles in the beginning of it's cycle.

Also, even though the GS chip doesn't not cost $100, there are other factors that contribute to the price such as advertising, shipping, printing, and etc.

Sony's back was to the wall. Other than the components/features cut for the 40GB model, the only components/features left to cut would be wireless.


--"I don't have a 60GB PS3 because they are still 500, and not the 399 I'm willing to pay"--

I said what I said in the previous post because no pay cap was given. Probably to get the console you want with the features you want, you'll have to wait another 2 years. Right now, Sony simply can't afford it(kind of ironic isn't it). It's imperative that they get the units off the shelves so that they can get 3rd parties to produce games for the system.

Also, I think a lot of people are being unfair to the PS3 for it's first year. I think for the 360's first year, the best game was Geometry Wars, which was not a boxed game (Please correct me if I'm wrong). If we compare first year's, I believe that the PS3 and 360 are on par with each other. Although I'll concede that currently 360 has more high quality titles.

I think Sony is doing their damnedest to get the system down to a price the Average Consumer can afford. They knew it was a gamble coming out with a $600 system, and for the most part that gamble failed. So right now, they're doing the best they can to rectify the problem and get the consoles into consumers' homes. As I've stated before, this Christmas will be the true test.


--"My PS2 has been going since launch day, and it's in pretty bad shape. If it lasts another year, I'd be astonished. If the PS3 drops BC, I won't buy it, and I believe alot of other people feel that way. We'll see"--

I'll concede on the launch day PS2. I got mine a year after launch and had to get a PSTwo last year after the DRE's became too much.

I don't think Sony is trying to expand the market; I think they're trying to capitalize on the share they had during the PSX/PS2 generations which made the name Playstation synonymous with gaming for that generation of kids/people who bought one and had never played an NES.

If they sold 120 million / 1.5 consoles per person (trying to be conservative) that's 80 million potential sales over a ten year span, or about 8 million a year. They fell short this year, but should pick up in subsequent years.

I don't think it would be sound business for Sony to drop BC entirely. I think they'll keep the two SKUs and have one with BC and one without.

If you look at the last generation, after a year or two, when the games started coming in, I conjecture that not that many people played PSX games on the PS2. Plus, I conjecture that the Average Consumer didn't buy the PS2 for BC, they bought it for the new Madden/Spongebob game and the nice DVD player on the side.

I think that for right now this was the best option Sony could take without losing too much more money. Because at the end of the day Sony has to answer to the shareholders, and they want Sony to turn a profit even more than Sony does.

hahaha, that was great man

did you copy that from the SDF page or something? man those guys are crazy

oh well, back to halo and skate until gh3 releases, then mass effect