Comments on: How Sony is killing the PlayStation 3

Sony has decided that reducing the price of the PS3 would be bad for business. But Don Reisinger argues that doing nothing is even worse.

[rucknrun]

Like usual I don't agree with you. With the wireless adapter and blu ray player included in the PS3 it is easily worth 100-150$ more then the XBOX. They still charge close to 100 for the wireless adapter.

[jyakimowich]

I've been considering picking up a PS3 to have as a second Blu-ray player for which I could also pick up a few cool games. The main appeal is not only is the PS3 a proven solid BD player, it also meets specification 2.0, a very appealing feature to me as I'm someone who actually gets into the bonus features on BD's and BD-Live. Now Sony and it's competitors have several Blu-ray players that meet spec. 2.0 and are considerably cheaper, making my choice to pick up a PS3 harder to justify. If Sony were to lower the price and maybe throw in the remote as standard fare then I may reconsider.

[redbarncoffee]

Don you are just unreadable at this point. You make the argument that PS3 isn't competing on price. Let's look at that briefly:

1) Wireless
PS3 - included on every model sold
XBox - a $100 upgrade on most models
2) Online play
PS3 - free
XBox - $50 per year
3) Blu-ray
PS3 - included on every model
XBox - not available, but they did sell an attachment for a failed format - negative points
4) Quality
PS3 - makes almost zero noise (none, now that I upgraded the hdd). Warm to the touch, but not hot.
Xbox - you can barely hear the movies you might watch. Console overheats. Red ring of death.
5) Games
PS3 - fewer exclusives, but quality is there and quite a bit in the pipeline.
XBox - doing a great job putting out good games (based on what I read everywhere)
6) Upgradeable?
PS3 - five minutes (tops) to upgrade hard disk. Inexpensive, and necessary when storing lots of movies, shows, etc.
XBox - its Microsoft, so you know its proprietary. Get ready to spend, and capacity won't match the PS3. You could upgrade to an HD-DVD player though, which the PS3 lacks, so I guess that counts for something.

That's what I came up with off the top of my head. And I would humbly encourage you to put aside your ego a moment and consider the possibility the execs at Sony have an idea what they're doing. Every one of them has more experience running one of the most successful corporations in the history of the planet, so cut them some respect. They're in this for the long haul, and whether or not you want to admit it, the PS3 will get far more mileage out of it than the 360 or the Wii.

[preacher1010]

right on brudder! im setting my sights on a holiday PS3....and i have lots of MKV format hi-def videos im DYING to playback!

[adamkantor]

I would like to see a cheaper PS3 simply so that I can afford to get one. I don't see anything in this article that specifically says that the PS3 is a bad product, or inferior to either the 360 or the Wii, just that it costs more than it's competition. Ironically, I'd bet that all the people who are arguing that the PS3 isn't overpriced already own one. What about me? I own a 360 and a Wii and I do want a PS3 but I just can't justify the cost until the price drops.

[aztec92154]

Your point: Sony forces you to buy what you dont want, and sells "potential".

1) I dont want wireless. Sony doesn't care, they force you to buy it.

2) Sony's online effort is not nearly as polished as XBOX Live. XBOX doesn't force you to buy their online component, but it comes out about $4 a month (which is three times less than I pay for unlimited text messages on my cell phone), so its totally worth it.

3) I dont want Blu-ray, were in a recession, I'll stick with cheap DVD's and 720p downloads. Sony doesn't care, they force you to buy it.

4) Both are good quality, XBOX has a warranty, and NetFlix is the way to go.

5) PS3 has fewer exclusives, but makes "promises" for games with potential. XBox delivers now, AND is American made.

6) Upgradable? Go for a better PS3 or XBOX 360 model. This is a moot point.

[BarnabeeJones]

CNET - YOU SUCK!!! Your site is a joke. I can not take anything on this site as a fact, based on how biased you are against Sony. You have zero credibility.

[22mojom22]

Often times I read the comments here and feel bad for Don. You folks really are not very nice to him when you disagree with what he has to say. I guess that is the internet though. Home of the troll.

I'm not really a fanboy of any next gen system, but I think that I understand the point that Don may have been trying to make. Obviously, since the price drop of the PS3 Sony has been making in roads in the market and the PS3 has increased it's install base. However, the PS3 has always been fighting an uphill battle against the 360. The 360 due to it's earlier release point had a head start in terms of numbers. When you couple that with the bonuses that Microsoft has such as the Xbox Live Service, and blockbuster games such as Halo and Gears of War it is easy to see why the 360 has the advantage at this point in the cycle.

Now you may read my previous statements and feel that I am not giving the PS3 it's due. I whole heartedly believe, that when you do stack the machines up side by side in terms of pure hardware the PS3 is the superior machine, and given a long enough run the PS3 could prove to be the superior console. My fear, (and I believe Don's) is that the system may not live to see that point. I think ultimately the goal of Sony should be to get the system into as many hands and homes as possible, and one sure way to encourage the growth of the install base is through a price drop. I think that the desire for PS3's exist, because there was a considerable boost in sales following the last price drop. Further price decreases could only increase the install base of the PS3. The advantages of the larger install base are easily apparent, as I can only imagine that it would encourage 3rd party developers to develop exclusive content for the system, and by doing so push the boundries of what the system is capable of. As I see it, this relationship is cyclic. If you increase the install base, you promote your console to developers of exclusive content, and that exclusive content is what ultimately differentiates your system from your competition and will further increase your install base. (If I were to buy one of the Next-Gen systems it most likely would be a PS3. However, it is ridiculous that at this point in it's life cycle there is not a single title out for PS3 that would make me want to make that sort of financial investment.) Also, since content is being designed exclusively for your platform it will be designed to use the particular hardware strengths of your system. The PS3 is a system that has quite a large bit of potential, but developers will be hesitant to explore that potential if they realize that their built in audience may not be able to support their development costs. I think the clearest example that can be looked at in this case is the "God of War" series on PS2. I would say that these two games are the titles that took the PS2 to the extremes of it's abilities. It is amazing when you think that GOW2 came out at a time when the PS2 was on it's last legs in terms of being Sony's main console. If gamers want to see content tax the PS3 to the same levels as GOW taxed the PS2, Sony should be pushing hard to ensure that there is an install base large enough to make such an effort viable for the developers of these titles. The quickest way to do that, will be through a price cut.

[xfvalveking]

@ravenstar76...what reliable source do you have that says the bluetooth disconnects a lot? I have a bluetooth headset, remote and the controllers and they are just as reliable or more so than the 2.4 ghz controllers ive used for ps2 (aftermarket controllers) and 360. I do agree with the majority, this article is stupid. And @ the first poster...where did you get those numbers? Everything I have seen said sony was 86% up in sales for Q2 for ps3.

[xfvalveking]

(i know you said forbes for the article but i cant find anything saying it lost profit on the ps3 for q2)

[xfvalveking]

oh and john howell, you are a giant idiot. 800 bucks for a ps3? 120 bucks for games? you do know that the new games start out at 60, the same as the xbox 360 righ?...And apparently you have no clue how to use linux. They dont block access to the blu-ray, you just don't know what you are doing. And it is slower than a mac? Give me benchmarks, bc If it is slower, it isnt much. last thing...DOESNT HAVE ACCELERATED VIDEO DRIVERS!!?!?!?!?!? its a gaming console you genius! they do have vga drivers for linux you again just don't know what you are doing. PEOPLE DO YOUR RESEARCH BEFORE POSTING, YOU SOUND LIKE IDIOTS.

[walsh84]

You do realize there are countries other than the United States, right? John clearly stated in his comment that he is from NZ.

Take your own advice, do your research and re-read the comments before you reply and look like a goon.

[xfvalveking]

you do realize that the cost of living in NZ and the distribution of wealth is much like that of canada, prices are higher but they make more...do your research before you reply and look like a goon. So in essence the pirces he experiences are that of what we do.

[d--keller]

Are you still on this Don? You're like a kid that won't stop eating his paste. You've inspired me to start my own blog. Here's my first entry:

Sony TVs are dumb. Westinghouse TVs are totally better. I think I read that Westinghouse 32" TVs outsold 42" Sonys last week. What the hell is 1080p anyhow? 480p is almost HD and also is the shiz. Also, I heard that Sony loses lots of money on laptops which brings me back around to my original point: The war is over unless Sony slashes TV prices cause that's the only way to make money. Paste=Tasty Goodness! Nert nert!

Blogging isn't hard. I think I've got a future in this!

[TheShadow52]

I have to laugh at all the Playstation fan boys who can't accept reality that Sony has fumbled the ball on the PS3. Face it, Playstation went from the number one console in America to struggling for it's share of the gaming pie. Why was that? Sheer arrogance on Sony's part that they assumed their fans would support a $600 machine at launch with a weak offering of launch games. Besides MGS4, there is nothing that makes me wish I had a PS3. If I wanted a Blu Ray disc player, I would buy one. Hi-Def gaming? I could care less.

Face facts: In today's economy? $400 to $600 is too much money to spend on a toy for mainstream America. The only people that will support this machine are the die hard enthusiasts and hobbyists and that's a niche core of people. Hardly enough to make the money Sony dreamt of when it released this failure of a console.

[d--keller]

PS3 has outsold 360 over the past year. War is over?

PS2 has been competative with the 360 over the last year. Face facts?

Fact is the war hasn't begun and the 360 has used up all the good amo. Next gen hasn't started as evidenced by the sales of the PS2 and the Wii which are decidedly last gen. Sony has said all along they're looking at a 10 year life for PS3. That's great news for gamers. Look at how long the PS2 has been supported. The new COD is even supporting the PS2 version with exclusive content.

I have a 360 and I play it about as often as my PS3 but it's not built to win any wars. It's a toy that will need replaced in a couple of years when MS drops support like a brick (like they did with the original xbox). My PS3 will be in my living room for a long long time. By the time PS2 and Wii owners are likely to upgrade to next gen, the PS3 will be priced appropriately for casual gamers who will decide who wins the war. By then it will be competing with the new $600 xbox 2010. That's just the way it is.

[strangest1ofall]

The PS3 doesn't have enough good exclusive titles to compete at the price it's offered. Why would average joe game player pay 150 extra for a console that holds fewer and fewer exclusive titles and is plagued by graphical issues for the titles it shares with other consoles? The PS3 has a real problem with anti aliasing that developers seem unwilling to try to fix. So why pay the same price (games are expensive these days) for a ******** looking game on the PS3 when you could by it for the 360 and have it look beautiful? And also, I really think that no one cares about having to use multiple DVDs for a game on the 360. The DVD is a dead format and as such it's a good move for Microsoft because that makes game production dirt cheap. Using the Bluray has backfired because when the new consoles launched most people did not have an HDTV and the way the HDTV makers are getting people to buy them and justify the price of them is by offering a Bluray player for free with most HDTVs these days. So the whole "PS3 has a bluray" is costing Sony way more money in the long run because it's doing nothing in terms of competition and in fact costing Sony more money to include a feature that no one really cares about and by exclusively offer its games on that format, which is more expensive production wise for game developers.

[strangest1ofall]

PS. The PS3 uses way more space per game on its hard drive than 360 because it has to install certain amounts of content, thus making the larger hard drive an absolute necessity unless you want the whole situation where you have to completely lose all data of some games in favour of others.

[d--keller]

****** looking game for the PS3? You can't be serious. The graphics in 99% of games are indistinguishable from 360 to PS3. You obviously have a tiny little TV anyhow. It's probably not even HD and if it is, I'm pretty confident that it's a 22" Emmerson you picked up at Walmart, otherwise you'd care about Bluray.

Seriously? You want to compare exclusives? I own/ use/ purchase games for both consoles so I'm pretty up to date. Quality exclusives is not a + for either console. You obviously know nothing about the PS3.

[strangest1ofall]

Jaggies galor on the PS3 on my 1080p monitor. Resolution is all that matters. My Xbox games look generally smoother compared to the PS3 ones in terms of fine lines and edges. I'm saying the exclusive titles look alright, but the port titles, that have been modified to play on the PS3 all have more graphical issues. And these titles make up most of the market. PS3 lacks a good amount of exclusive games that are finely attuned to it's hardware and not just ports off another console.

[strangest1ofall]

The PS3 has the hardware potential to crush the 360 and they are simply not using it. That is what I'm saying here. MGS4 is one of the only titles to exploit some of this potential. FFXIII will probably be the next one. But 2009? Why are there not more titles like this coming out on a regular basis?

[d--keller]

Resolution is all that matters? I'm not sure how to respond to that because it's wrong on so many levels.

Are you honestly telling me that you have both a PS3 and a 360 and regularly purchase/ rent games for both systems and compare jaggies? I don't beleive you. Even if it were true, riddle me this Batman: If you're so picky about jaggies and can make a claim like "PS3 ports look like ****", how can you possibly say that Bluray is a waste? It's all about resolution right? Blue Ray has 6 times the resolution of a DVD. BTW Halo 3 runs at 640p and looks pretty damn good even on a 56" 1080p.

[strangest1ofall]

You're talking about the resolution of a dvd or bluray VIDEO. Any resolution game can be stored on a bluray or DVD, it's just a matter of space. Hence potentially requiring multiple DVDs for a large game. And I'm saying now, when the majority of people are buying more and more HDTV televisions, bluray players are already included. So you get the bluray experience with an HDTV anyway without ever requiring to own a PS3 for anything other than games.

[strangest1ofall]

Also my point, the ps3 is generally just taking these low resolution games and upscaling them just like the 360 is and it's doing a worse job at it. It's not using the full potential of Bluray or the console's own processing power by not having a wider range of exclusive titles.

[d--keller]

So you're going to stick with your PS3 games look worse arguement? Despite your opposing viewpoint, you seem like a smart enough guy. I don't think you beleive that arguement. On one hand you say that all of this new fangled technology isn't work a $50 premium. You don't care about wireless connectivity, Bluray, free online play, or the need to buy batteries for your controller. That sounds very much last gen. On the other hand you demand photo realistic graphics undecernable to 99.9% of human eyes from a reasonable distance. That's the only next gen element you're worried about?

Just to clarify, most games are not low resolution that is upconverted to HD. That's why a big deal was made over Halo 3.

I get your point on the exclusives. There isn't much out there from an exclusive games standpoint to justify purchase of a PS3. There isn't much out there for the 360 either, but you never said that there was.

So I guess if you're not going to play online, you'd rather buy batteries for your controller than a charge and play, your router is right next to your console (or again you don't play online), you're really into graphics and sit less than two feet from your TV, you already have / have no interest in a Bluray player, and $50 is going to break the bank: the PS3 is a total rip-off.

[redmatrix06]

I believe the PS3 is a good machine in tech spec. But overall I do not like it. I am a gamer from the NES days. I have most of the consoles and games. But the PS3 is a unit I do not on planning on purchasing.

1. Blu-Ray is great but the movies are more expansive than regular dvds. Regular movies cost 5-15 bucks, while blu-ray are twice the price almost 30+ dollars. As long as I get to see the movie i dont care if its 720 or 1080p. A movie is a movie and its meant to be enjoyed.

2. No backwards compatibility. I know many hate to discuss this. But sony has only made it this far cause they made their old games still playable on their newer console. Like PS2 with PS1. Then Sony took out the PS2 chip to save 20 freakin bucks on their 1st gen PS3. Even nintendo learned this by implementing Gamecube to be played on Wii.

3. I've read nothing but bad reviews, regarding their online service.

4. I have to re-purchase old games, download them to a PS3 to load them on my PSP? When I already paid for the same game years ago? Does not seem right. Why can't I just play my old PS1 or ps2 games on a PS3? If i have the disk in mint condition.

5. Price. I have never paid more than 129.99 for any console. I do not plan on buy something that is 399.99 that its not worth it. Tech and software prices go down so fast. I rather wait it out a few years.

6.Games have been going up with every new gen console. Which makes me stay with online games And its cheaper to play online games on a month to month. Than it is to buy 1 PS3 title. I remember PS1 titles were 39.99 new. PS2 49.99 and PS3 59.99. I wonder what PS4 is gonna cost? I'll keep my warhammer account active and watch and laugh at you guys waste your money on overpriced consoles and games. Oh and complaining on these forums about why PS3 sucks or not sucks. Either way 15 bucks a month seems pretty good deal right now. I'll wait for the PS4 to come out and buy the PS3 @ 129.99 in a few years. Buy all of your used games at 10-15 bucks used. While you paid 60 bucks for them. Go ahead make them even richer.

[strangest1ofall]

PS3 games that are made for PS3 look great. But the ones that are made cross console look like garbage and PS3 is relying almost exclusively on those to drive sales. Xbox has a pretty good selection of exclusive content and a lot of them are "must own games" (or so say the reviewers), and they have more of them.

The mistake here is that Xbox is pretty much lying saying it's HD content when it's all upconverted low resolution in order to reach acceptible frame rates. They did it to Halo 3, Project Gotham Racing, as well as other titles. Xbox developers are compressing games in an almost variable bitrate fashion.

The thing is, Sony thought the Xbox was next gen, so they released a next gen system. Turns out, Xbox isn't even capable of raw 1080p resolution while the PS3 could do that in it's sleep. So why isn't PS3 offering more in terms of this content? They are using a next gen console that's jusifibly expensive given that there is a lot of next gen content, but there really isn't. PS3 needs to push developers into the next gen. Sony needs to invest more in exclusive PS3 titles or even titles made in high res in the first place and then down converted for other consoles. Not vice versa like is being done now. I'm not just talking exclusively resolution (although if you want to have the effect that can be seen by using a Bluray, like the videos, then this is very important). The PS3 is capable of complex, graphically and mechanically stunning games and we've seen but a handful of them. The Xbox is putting out hit after hit because they've made this mid gen type gaming into a science and PS3 is trying to compete on that basis which is a complete mistake to do given that it is a TRUE next gen console. They need to suck up any loss they think they'll take and actually start making real PS3 games. This will create a new market for the PS3. But it needs to be done soon. Sony just can't keep hiding the true potential of this console thinking it will gain back whatever market it's lost when they actually start putting out these games. Because by then, Microsoft already plans to release a new console that will probably be better because it will use technology that is current to that time.

In short, the PS3 is trying to compete when it doesn't even have to. It's capable of a gameplay experience the Xbox cannot and will not be able to offer. However, not enough support is going into developing that type of gameplay. The gameplay seen in MGS4 and that will be in FFXIII. I'm talking precision, thousands and thousands of on screen objects. Very complex textures. Beautful real time rendering. PS3 needs to control the next gen market now when there aren't any other real players in order to make gains in the future.

[strangest1ofall]

It's like this. Why would you buy a Bluray player to only watch DVDs on it? Why buy a PS3 if you're only going to play Xboxish games on it. The Xbox is very good at what it does. And given that things like RROD happen, it's obviously working hard at it. The PS3 is half asleep most of the time because it can't believe you're feeding it these **** games that aren't even a challenge to process. Why isn't the PS3 working harder? Why aren't there more games being released that push the PS3's capabilities? Answer... because it's complicated, expensive, and Sony isn't subsidizing it's developers nearly enough. Sony is CHOOSING not to compete by trying to pretend it's console is a POS like the 360.

This is like buying a sweet, leet, brand new computer that came with a fancy vid card and 1080p monitor that you're only going to use for MSN and Facebook. What the hell is the point? They're not offering the content that exploits the console's power. You might as well just buy an Xbox because now and for a decent amount longer the only games coming out will be pretty much on par with whatever Xbox sets as their standards for gameplay.

And also, online gaming = far better on the 360. The entire online community on the 360 is in fact very much worth the money paid for it. Wireless gaming is not as fast as wired gaming period, you're looking at more latency which is an issue in real time when you run behind a while but still get shot dead in games like COD4.

[strangest1ofall]

Just one more thing. The fact that the PS3 controller has a rechargable battery makes the life of the controller extremely shortened. Yes, rechargable batteries still have a battery life. By having battery packs for the 360 controller instead of an internal battery, the controller life is extended considerably. A battery pack dies, all you have to do is replace it without having to take the whole controller in for repair. Battery pack = about 15 dollars whereas the cost of sending a PS3 controller to a Sony licensed repair guy? Yeah...a lot more expensive. It's unfortunate that the battery packs aren't included with the Xbox but it doesn't limit the controller at all. In fact, the Xbox controller has three different sources of possible power (battery pack, breaks, oh ****...wait...I always have some AAs sitting around and even if I don't I have the plug for the controller!) whereas the PS3 controller has just the two. If the PS3 plans on lasting 10 years, I can bet your ass that controller is dying about half way through that.

[bradenisme]

The PS3 has many features that make it worth while but the consumer doesn't see it that way. The PS3 has built in browser with flash support. The PS3 has built in wifi while the xbox does not. The PS3 has a free network while the xbox requires a membership which adds more cost although from what I have read the xbox network is better. The PS3 also plays bluray discs as stated but that doesn't seem to be winning many consumers. The xbox will have streaming from netflix which is a great idea but another cost for a netflix membership in addition to need the xbox live gold membership. so maybe the problem is that the consumer doesn't see all the hidden costs that are still there.

[sergioJN]

Here are my 2 cents

On the article:
This is just another display of an idiot so-called journalist or another proof of MS dirty manoeuvrings
Remember all those fake news MS created about linux and open source? Nuff said.

This article has lots of biased and incorrect data. Explain me Don why you wont complain about XBL servers failures; why you wont complain about the XBOX failure rate.
It seems people keep forgetting that XBOX had a full year advantage over the PS3. If you take that into account and note that the PS3 is constantly outselling the XBOX now, you will see (again) that this article is full of it.

look here
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6200208.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=morenews&tag=morenews;title;3
and here
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssConsumerGoodsAndRetailNews/idUSTKB00310320081029

The PS3 isnt a cheap thing and SONY cant (i dont think it will) drop the price point. ITS SELLING as it is.
And if you are looking for a cheap useless console, simply go for the wii.

About games:
analyze the offerings of 2007 and analyze the offerings today and the games coming up in 2009. What do you see? quality is improving, hotter titles are coming to the PS3, PSN is getting stronger and better. Developers are getting used to the console and killer games are just bent to hit the ps3.

Multimedia features:

If you say wi-fi, bluetooth and blu-ray dont count, then congratulations: you are a member of the insignificant troll community who managed into the 21st century. We want more and better, thats why we are where we are. If youre a poor guy, then sorry. Dont get into gaming at all.


When the PS3 came out several sites such as this said it was a useless piece of junk. Now, lots of them praise the loads of features it has; wikipedia page o nPS3 has some news on this;

it doesnt look bright for SONY and the PS3 now, but the console is far from dead. It will triumph, when the limitations of the 360 start to emerge and developers start to tap into the power of the PS3.
for one such game google MAG.

The truth is, PS3 sales are actually going up. people like me will get tired of the back and forth with MS because of the RROD and will but the more reliable PS3. I know i did.

Wii has the new approach on gaming, xbox has live??? we will talk about this after Home is out.

[elitek7]

ITS THE GAMES STUPIDS!!!! ENOUGH OF THIS FANBOY CRAP!!! I was a die hard sony ps2 fan, and never liked the original xbox. I was gonna buy the ps3 when it came out but quickly realized that all the games that were exclusive to sony ps2, where no longer exclusive on ps3. What games made the ps2 so great? GTA, Gran Turismo, devil may cry, resident evil, ace combat just to name a few. Hmmm... where are the exclusives? games sell systems period. The only game that is exclusive from that list is gran turismo which wont be released till end of 2009. Why should I buy PS3 other than blue-ray and MGS4...the only exclusive worthy to buy the console for that comes out 2 years after the console is released? If sony had gta4, re5, dmc4 and others as exclusive, then they would be kicking ass and I would already have a ps3. But I will have to wait another year to buy ps3 for the one game i truly want..gran tourismo 5...and no the prologue does not count. That is why xbox 360 is the better system, ITS THE EXCLUSIVE GAMES!!!