Anonymous Rep

Zaidyn - And your point is? I wear prescription glasses, and have for years (decades, actually, but that's because I'm older than many of the posters here). However, I don't have a problem seeing things that are 2" from my face - it's the stuff that's 10' out that I can't see without my glasses. That's called nearsighted.

I do realize that there are people who can't wear contact lenses for whatever reason (mine is due to the strength of my prescription), but that IS an option for some people.

You know, those newfangled automobiles are going to be the ruin of us all - the human body just isn't designed to go faster than 30 mph. That's what some of these comments on here sound like.

I've seen the old style VR games in arcades before, and they were way too ahead of their time. Too much point and movement controls weren't quite right. Throw in some good Wii controllers type scheme, and let your head motion control some of the direction (the weight was one of the main issues before with old stuff) and I could see some really interesting games coming out of that.

@ #21 - Hahaha, I like how they describe it as seeing a '62 inch tv from 9 feet away' when from that distance it can be compared to a 15-inch tv from the normal 3-4 feet away.

Hmmm - I happen to have a 60" TV that I sit and game on from 9 feet. It's a 5 year old standard def projection - looks fine. Actually, the 17" LCD flat screen that I'm typing this on - from 3' away - hurts my eyes worse, and I have more issues gaming here on this screen than I do on my TV.

As for the glasses thing - if you're nearsighted, then it's not going to make much of a difference. 2" from your eyes is still 2" from your eyes. Someone who is farsighted would have issues, but I also suspect that there will be some corrective abilities of the screen itself, just as you can change the focus of binoculars so that you can see through them without glasses.

And Squeek - your problem #3 isn't a problem, it's a feature - these are PERSONAL gaming glasses. You could probably hook them up into something multi-player, just as you can play over multiple TV's using Xbox Live.

From a launch sales perspective, this probably won't mean much. Those gamers that are planning on buying a PS3 will do so. The rest of the European public that aren't hardcore or paying that much attention will do the same thing the general public here has done - "It's HOW MUCH? Are you nuts?"

From a retailer perspective, this may cause some issues, in that you may see some distribution or marketing issues as a couple of people change positions at Sony.

From an analyst and market perspective, you've got to be thinking - why did the head of sales bail out before the launch? He's the guy who KNOWS the marketing campaigns, KNOWS all the inside plans, and most importantly, KNOWS that if his job performance is linked with a failed launch similar to that in the U.S., then he's committing corporate suicide.

Yes, the launch for PS3 was a failure, as far as the general public was concerned. At 3 months after launch, there should still be hype about the product among NON-GAMERS. There's just not - it's still the Wii, just as last year it was still Xbox 360. The PS3 has finally sold most of the inventory that's been sitting on the shelf since mid-December - the point is that it shouldn't have been sitting there in the first place. (Jack, we KNOW that they were sitting there!)

So what's the net result? Analysts such as Bloomberg and others will probably not like this in the least, and THAT'S going to mean more corporate and shareholder negative publicity for Sony - which also means the general public will see more negative articles about Sony in the regular media.

Sony gets another stock downgrade or doesn't pull a financial miracle out of somewhere, and the financed money they owe WILL put them into bankruptcy. You can have tremendous sales - but if your profits don't meet your actual loan payments, you're going under. I would hate to be someone with a lot of Sony stock shares right now in my portfolio - it's nail-biting time.

This will probably just give a lot of people on here the chills. I had to work launch day and there were a LOT of customers coming in to either buy a new computer or to see about upgrades for their old one. (As in, selling 12 laptops and 5 desktops in the first hour the store was open!)

Anyway, I heard - from what I would consider the average consumer, not any kind of computer geek (aka people 40 plus years old that obviously DON'T have as strong of a computer background as I do) - that they TRUST Microsoft and its products.

I asked a couple of them why they said that. They said that XP always updated itself, and with the system restore feature, that they never had to worry about doing something that would really break their machine. That, I think, is one of the big worries older consumers have - that they're going to break something by hitting the wrong key.

By the same token, I had one guy come in who was 40 something that has built his own machine and HAS been for years. Given the stats of his machine - which would make Alienware jealous - and that he built it himself - I was suprised that he wanted Vista. But as he said, Linux is good, but the commercial software that he needs for his business runs on Microsoft products - so he's upgrading to Vista Ultimate.

Honestly, if your computer can only (or barely) run Vista Home Basic, then just stick with XP until you get your next system. But if you've got a couple gigs of RAM and a 256MB video card, then I think you'll find that the upgrade to Vista Home Premium is probably worth it. Stop in at your local Best Buy and play with any of their computers and see how you like the new search features and desktop. Sure, it may be something similar to what was out years ago for Mac - but remember, 95% of ALL PC's on the planet run a Microsoft OS. They've done SOMETHING right.

(And remember, too, that driver compatibility is NOT the responsibility of Microsoft. It's the responsibility of the manufacturer of your particular piece of hardware to make sure that it runs on Vista or XP.)

Ignore this comment - I'm trying out the password thing myself as well.

I think that we on this forum have to keep things in perspective. Some of us work in the industry, so we pay a LOT more attention to it than the general public. Some of us are heavy gamers, too - you just live this stuff.

But when you're dealing with a mass market culture, you've got to reach the mass market. You can make all the dollar comparisons on here you want (Grunge et. al.) between the 360 and PS3 - the general public doesn't really give a damn about that. If they want a PS3 for $599, they'll buy it. And if they think an Xbox 360 is overpriced at $399 for a game console, then they're NOT going to buy the PS3 for $100 or $200 more - they'll either get a PS2, Wii, or do without.

----

As for the FUD - lay it right on Sonys doorstep.
http://www.joystiq.com/2005/11/22/sony-ceo-ps3-to-launch-under-400/
I will grant you that the original article here had errors, which were corrected. But look at the comments from 2005:
"1. If the PS3 launches at $299, I'll be in line on launch day with my cash in hand. If it's $399, there will have to be some awesome games before I plunk down the cash."
"13. If it's $299 I'll get one too, and it will sit next to my xbox 360. If its $399, I'll pass. Blu-ray is overrated and easily damaged so t nearly $400 without the harddrive, no thanks"
"32. It's amazing that people in this thread still believe, even after this, that the PS3 will be more than $400. These are the same people who believed the brain dead analysts who were claiming the PSP would be $500.

The PS2 initially had manufacturing costs at about $450 and yet they released it for $300. Why would anyone expect they are suddenly going to change the formula that helped them sell 100 million consoles?!? Why would they raise the price by $200 from one generation to the next?

Answer: obviously they won't"

Rebuttal - obviously they did...
------
Hmmm - this was also when the launch was Spring 2006, too.

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/01/04/ps3-on-track-for-may-06-launch/

November - the new May...

-----

And then we have the quite amusing post of original Sony PS3 promises http://www.joystiq.com/2006/05/22/the-ps3-in-2005-and-now/

6 x USB ports
2 x HDMI ports
7 x wireless controllers
Coming Spring 2006

The checks in the mail, and objects in the rear view mirror may end up PASSING your butt, Kaz...

----

Is the PS3 dead? No - not by a long shot.

Will Sony maintain, with the PS3, the same amount of market share that they had with the PS2? Same answer - no, not by a long shot.

Based on product availability versus time since actual release - and as much as a lot of people would like to argue with it - you have to consider the PS3 launch to be a failure. There should have been no way for Sony to actually meet the demand with an appropriate supply at this point in time if this was a successful launch.

Basically, look at the 360 launch last year - more units actually available for the global launch (YES, there were - 400K/400K/200K vs 200K/0/100K) and then demand in Europe and the US still outstripped supply until March and into April - it was early April before you started seeing any regular amounts of 360 consoles in stores for more than a few hours.

Now the Wii is experiencing this as well - sold out, demand is still higher than supply even with huge amounts already sold - and this weekend you'll probably see everything sell out again that's in the ads.

In the meantime, there were 16 PS3 60GB units sitting on the shelf in the Best Buy I was in yesterday, and they had another 15 in the backroom. (These were NOT display boxes - I checked.) 31 units physically in inventory - and it's only two months after the product that could help cure cancer (hey, I'm not making that one up - http://www.joystiq.com/2006/08/24/help-cure-cancer-with-your-ps3/ ) has met the product demand. That blatantly spells out FAILED LAUNCH OF PRODUCT.

Will the actual launch in Europe help? Certainly - ANY positive publicity will help Sony at this point. But you're looking at U.S. sales of 688K by end of December - and January probably isn't going to match December in sale, so they may not break 1 million by the end of January. At this point, and given the way things usually go in console sales during the remainder of the year, you're looking at MAYBE 3 million total console sales by the end of the year.

Which ultimately puts the PS3 in 4th place among the consoles behind the 360, Wii, and PS2 - and that's market share Sony cannot afford to lose.

As was stated in the article, give them some games and things could turn around. But let's get real, people - Joe Wal-Mart is NOT going to buy the PS3 to run Linux on it, he's buying an eMachine or HP that runs XP or Vista for his computer stuff. Anectdotal, but I've phyisically listened to customers talk to sales staff in Wal-Mart (and this is NOT a hick town - redneck, yes, but NOT hicks) because they're amazed at the price. $600 for a gaming console - and that's how THEY see it - is too much.

The $8 figure came from the Joystiq forum member Epobirs, in a previous post discussing console profit. That was also where he squashed the comment that was going around that stated the 360 was making $75 in profit per console - it's considerably less than that. He has a lot more sources inside that company than I do.

(Hey, at that time he mentioned this (which was on here around November, IIRC) I thought they were making around $20 - $25 per console - and those were the figures I was using at that time. Unfortunately, apparently he's like me in some respects - we've signed NDA's and while we can post some stuff, there's a LOT we just can't cite because it's told to us in conference calls or in training documents that - if you as a member of the general publc could access it from the web, then me as an employee could lose my job.)

Okay, guys, why don't you all take a valium and calm down.

1.4M PS2 sales means an $11.2M profit for Sony.
953,200 PSP sales means a $7.6M profit for Sony.
490,700 PS3 consoles means a $98.1M LOSS for Sony from PS3 sales.

Thus, we're looking at a net loss to Sony of $77.5M on consle sales.

Now - can Sony afford to take those kind of losses on console gaming? That's going to depend on what happens with software. Regardless of your specific feelings one way or the other, the actual fact of the matter is that Sony Corporation as a whole is in financial difficulty - especially when the console market is 60% of their total profit. Thus, if their console market shows a loss, they're basically in deep crap.

Now - why did PS2 sell more than Xbox 360? It's $129, and has a huge library of games available. What's scary is looking at the volume of sales, and actual profits from each console.
$180.6M in PS2 sales, $11.2M in profit
$411.4M in 360 sales (75/25 split), $28M in profit

As was mentioned in a previous Joystiq post (http://www.joystiq.com/2007/01/11/analyst-in-stock-ps3s-are-troubling/) the PS3 appears to have a demand issue. The supply is there, in the supply and demand chain. However, the demand just - isn't.

I will illustrate with a case example from when I was in a store earlier this week, doing a minor repair to the 360 console.

A customer came up to the sales person that was chatting with me, with a PS2 game in his hand, and asked if the PS3 could play PS2 games. The sales person said, "Yes, the PS3 can play most of the PS2 games. There are some that it can't play at this time, just like the 360." I said, "Yes, that's right. The only difference is that we said from the get-go that we would try to make all games backwards compatible, and obviously EA won't let us, and we're gradually working on it, whereas Sony said originally that all games would work and now we find out that a few won't." (Hey, I wouldn't be a rep if I didn't get a dig in with a customer if I could.)

Anyway, the customer then asked if he could play the PS3 demo machine, and the sales person had to tell him, "Sorry, it broke a week after we got it and Sony hasn't ever sent anyone in to fix it, or sent us anything since we called them about it." (This is the way of the world in retail - if you're not in a large city, Sony does NOT care about the retail kiosks. Both Nintendo and Microsoft have people out in the field fixing them.)

Then the customer looked at the price tags. "Wait a minute! This is a mis-print, right? The PS3 is $599?" (Oh, and they had 4 60 GB systems in the case, along with 6 more in the back room.) "You've got to be kidding me - it's a damn game console, not a computer!"

That's when I had to say, "Well, not according to Sony. They've stated that they consider it an alternative to your home computer, and that it should be the center of media for your house. Granted, Microsoft thinks that the 360 should be combined WITH your computer for that means, but in the console side, we've always been about games first."

The customer said, "They're nuts if they think I'm going to spend $600 on a gaming console. Do you have any PS2's in stock?"

His PS2 had died, and that's why he was thinking of the PS3. I did NOT sell him a 360 - he had too many PS2 games at home.

Now - I'm going to throw my own analytical two cents worth in here, and I'm fully prepared to get slammed by the SDF. (Yes, I DO work for Microsoft - I've never hidden that, so stick that argument where the sun doesn't shine!) As the calendar year progresses, sales of PS3 consoles are going to lag FAR behind those of the Wii and the 360 - and HUGELY behind the PS2. Why? Because to the average consumer - NOT the rabid gamer that posts here - playing games isn't worth $600.

Now - Sony has irritated a lot of European consumers, and at the same time is pinning great hopes on that launch. It's possible that Sony could have huge success in Europe - but given the higher prices there due to assorted taxes, and other consumer issues, it's also possible and I think probably that within a month of launch, PS3 units will be sitting on the shelves in Europe in as great a numbers as are here in the U.S.

What that means is that retailers will be cutting orders for PS3 consoles - so all the production in the world won't help what doesn't sell. That's going to put FURTHER financial pressure on Sony Corporation and on their stocks AND on their investors. It's not going to do Sony any good if they can manufacture 6 million PS3 consoles by June of 2007 if they only have total worldwide sales of 3 million consoles - because retailers can't afford to have THAT much money tied up in inventory and have 3 million consoles just sitting on the shelves not being sold.

At this point, I consider the PS3 launch in the U.S. to be a failure due to the inventory of consoles - the demand just isn't there. Whether the PS3 as a console itself is viable or not will be determined later this year - but at this point, I'd say that Sony has a LARGE white (black, actually, but you know what I mean) elephant in this console. It's entirely possible, and not a good thing, that this could kill Sony as a corporation. (Yes, I know that games are only a small portion of the corporation - but they're the PROFITABLE portion. You can only stay in business for so long when you're taking these kind of losses without having deep pockets.)

I was talking to an EB manager yesterday and he said that they were told by their corporate office to put some kind of sign on the door about having the PS3 in stock. He said that they're getting sort of desperate to sell them due to the large inventory that they have as a chain. The Wii is, as others have mentioned, not in stock at all.

Now, some of you say that this is a regional thing, and that's possible. If so, that means that ALL of the companies have screwed up on their distributions - Target, Wal-Mart, Best Buy, and GameStop/EB, since ALL of those stores seem to have PS3's in stock.

I think a more likely scenario is that some small areas have sold out, and remain that way due to local economic conditions. The rest of the country has them in stock, and has an overabundance of them based upon demand.

Now, there are some who are trying to compare the 360 inventory at this moment to the PS3 launch - and that's wrong for the simple reason that the consoles are in two different periods of their life. The Wii is having a successful launch and remains sold out - which is what SHOULD be happening during a successful launch. The 360 during launch sold out and remained that way until late March, which is what we should expect from both the Wii and the PS3.

Now, you should have seen a decent inventory of 360 consoles in stores this holiday, which we did, and there should be some left in stores, which there are. You should NOT see any Wii on the shelf, which you don't, and you should not see any PS3 on the shelf, which you DO. You can scream, rant, and holler all you want - that doesn't change the fact that PS3 is on the shelf and available for purchase now if anyone wants it.

So instead of beating your breasts and tearing out your hair over something you can't change, how about looking at the reason WHY this has happened and what should change.

First off, let's look at base prices involved for the PS3 and it's competition.

The PS3 is $499 / $599.
The 360 comes in at $299 / $399.
The Wii comes in at $249.
The PS2 is $129.

That's right, the PS2 is MAJOR competition for the PS3, due to the game lineup on the PS2 and the price. Sonys biggest mistake for this launch is NOT killing the PS2 prior to launching the PS3. Why do I say this?

Simple - the PS2 outsold just about everything this holiday, and CONTINUES to outsell the PS3 because customers at this time don't see the value in upgrading to a PS3. Nintendo has given consumers something new and exciting so that, while the GameCube is still an option for budget conscious consumers, the Wii is worth an upgrade at this time. Microsoft just plain killed the Xbox, so it COULDN'T compete with their new system, effectively forcing people to buy the new system.

Certainly the hardcore gamers are going to buy the PS3 at some point. But with the PS2 AND its game lineup remaining on the market, the CASUAL gamer is going to look at price and just go - nope. Not with the GameCube, Wii (when it finally gets in stock) and 360 available for less. What will really hurt the PS3 is that when it finally starts to get some games, the 360 will be the phase of its life for a price drop AND for the launch of Halo 3. You cannot discount what effect that will have on the console sales - or what will happen when Guitar Hero 2 finally hits the 360.

Based on what we see in stores with our own eyes - the Wii has had a hugely successful launch. Last year the 360 had a successful launch. The PS3 - aborted on the pad and has had a failed launch. It's very hard to argue with the evidence right in front of you no matter how much you want it to be something else.

And yes, I have never hidden that I DO work for Microsoft. I'm in a large assortment of retailers over a large portion of my state, and I talk to many different retailers AND customers, so I hear a lot of comments.