"Do you need help, little man?"
This post is a response to kira_'s reply to my comment on this entry.
I don't understand how you can be so sure the PS3 is going to go down after its launch. Putting aside the price for a moment for the sake of argument, how do you explain the diversion of two million units from the UK to bolster the North American launch? They won't get any across the pond for a while now, and the three million units total that will be coming in are still expected to fail to meet the estimated initial demand for five million units.
During the time both the PS3 and Xbox 360 were in development, Blu-Ray and HD-DVD were untested formats, and back then it was completely in the air over which disk would end up on top. Now, it's definitely looking more like Blu-Ray is the 21st century's BetaMax (a fitting comparison, given that they were both developed by Sony in an attempt to one-up the current media standard, but I know Dan already knows this - this is for anyone else who might read this that doesn't know about it), but it's still too early to know for sure. Mostly, it's the higher initial cost of production and the hardware shortage that's dampening the outlook for the format, not to mention that HD-DVD has now been on the market for a while. If future PS3 units are shipped with the ability to burn to Blu-Ray, as has been hinted at, there is a very high chance that HD-DVD will end up getting the oust.
As far as "Sony's cockiness" is concerned, um, I believe it's called marketing. Yeah, I could be wrong, but I think they're going to attempt to sell these things. "Um, like, the new PlayStation will be, like, new and stuff? And it'll play games that people, you know, like to play. I guess it'll be fun. We think it's okay, and at least it's better than poking a puppy with a stick." Wow. That would be a brilliant marketing plan. I should so totally go to SCEA HQ and pimp out my mad advertising panache. I admit I didn't jump on the PS2 bandwagon when it first rolled around. Not because I didn't think it would do well, or because I knew it wouldn't be around for the next 10 years (I must have missed that proclamation), but because I didn't feel like paying the initial $300 price tag, and I knew I could somehow live without playing PS2 games at that very instant. I thought that was a crazy amount to put out for a video game system. I knew that the price at launch would be high, just like every single other system that has ever come out in the history of computers, and likewise, would eventually go down as the hardware tech became more common and/or cheaper to produce; also, prices are dropped as the initial crazy-high demand is met/interest in it goes down, as well as when the revenue from software meets the cost of the hardware.
Speaking of the hardware/software correlation, the same sales plan is used by Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo: it's okay to sell the hardware for less than its cost (that's right, technically, Sony is losing money for every PS3 they'll sell,) knowing that consumers will then spend money on the software that goes along with it, a portion of which will eventually find its way to Sony's pocket, regardless of their involvement or lack thereof in the development of said software. And really, the software is the entire reason video games even exist. The system is simply a means to an end. I wanted to play Final Fantasy X, and I knew that the only way to do that would be to purchase the PlayStation 2 console. There are a number of games, some of which are launch games, other that will be released soon after, and some that are still only in the early development stages, that I am already considering buying. I don't even want to think about games that won't even reach the drawing board for a while coming; who could have expected Guitar Hero when the second PlayStation was first announced?
The number of people who are willing to buy the system because the games have managed to catch their attention, and are willing to go through the madness and possible bankruptcy associated with its release, will ensure that the system will at least last longer than the Dreamcast. Sega's problem stemmed from lack of general interest (as far as interest is concerned, the PS3 doesn't need to worry), less support from third-party developers than what Sony and Microsoft were getting (which still isn't a problem for Sony), and just a general lack of good games (we'll see what comes about). There were a number of gems on the Dreamcast, but not enough to keep it going.
Moving my attention back to the price of the system itself, I agree that $600 is an insane amount to spend on a video game consol. Not because I don't think the system itself is worth that. I can't imagine myself spending that much money on a console simply because I really can't afford it. Remember that entry I made about the minimum wage in California? It's now official. Starting next year, the minimum wage is set at $7.75, one dollar more than it is currently, and is to be increased by 25 cents the following year to make it $8.00 an hour in 2008. By contrast, I'm currently earning $11 and hour. Even considering that, I still can't sanely consider buying a PS3 at launch. You know what, though? I know someone else who's been working at the same job for as long as I've held mine, and he's getting somewhere near $17 and hour. We live and work in the exact same city, and both are in retail/customer service. His job simply brings in more revenue than my work does, and thus is able to pay their employees more. The point of this is that some people earn more than others. Sometimes it's a lot more. As hard as it is to believe, there are indeed people out there that are willing and able to take all those hot-off-the-press boxes away from the stores' paws at launch. Besides, if you read the previous paragraphs, or hell, have followed the video game industry at all over the past twenty some years, you'd know that the price WILL GO DOWN GIVEN TIME. Plus, you can't count out parents and other family members who spoil kids rotton. I even have cousins that were like that. A brand new toy came out, and later that day, a week at the latest, there was one for both of the brothers.
Remember all those problems Microsoft had with bugs and overheating of their 360's when they were first released? Yeah, that happens every single launch, too. And, like everything else, are addressed in due time. People either don't know, or don't care, and thus take the "bad" apples, leaving space on shelves for the manufactures to put the "good" ones that I myself will eventually purchase.
I know that all things are relative (compare the $600 PS3 with a $3500 dedicated gaming computer rig - similar function with a few small yet important differences), but taking things literally, how could you have purchased a PSP "far before Me & My Katamari was announced," when the game was actually released three days short of a full year from the PSP launch? Even now, the PSP hasn't been on the market for a full 18 months. If I had assumed you had purchased a PS2 when it came out in anticipation of Kingdom Hearts (again, not a realistic comparison, but you understand my point), that would either be lunacy on my part, or a sharp third-eye on your behalf. Thinking back, the only portable systems that couldn't comfortably fit in a pocket were the Sega Genesis and Atari Lynx. Even the first-generation, gray brick Game Boy that I still have is pocketable. I think that's kinda the point of having a "portable" system. Granted, they didn't really play video (the Game Gear had an optional TV turner, but that made it even more bulky, and really only picked up UHF,) like the PSP does, but iPod's and many other portable media systems do. Yours just happens to be designed to also play games, which is probably why you decided to get that, and not some Rio crap. I do know people who bought it almost exclusively to play videos on, with the games as a mediocre afterthought. (Tetris on an iPod, anyone?) Well, UMD's did well, didn't they? Costing more than most DVDs and with a much more limited library of titles, the UMD was a format that I admit to believing would not last long. Sure there are other ways to get video on the handheld, but to be honest, the thing has to be "hacked" for its potential to be realized.
This is why I feel your doubt in Sony's future is misguided. Although hard for anyone to ignore, you mostly base your judgment on your own situation. "If I can't afford a PS3, I doubt many others can." "I may enjoy games, but I don't eat-breath-dream them, so I don't think people will attempt to wait in line DAYS before its release." "Blu-Ray hasn't yet come out, while people are already playing Xbox 360 games on HD-DVD, ergo the technology is going to fail." While you may not say these exact same words, I have heard them from others, and it at least sounds like you lie within the same camp. Who knows how the "format war" will end this time around, since that is the one legitimate argument that you can put up, (does it really matter? What else could you play cartridge-based games on besides their intended console, or vice versa?) but that shouldn't affect the actual sales of PS3's and its following software. Really, the only person jumping up and down Tom-Cruise-fashion yelling that the PS3 "isn't a video game console, it's a computer entertainment system" is Sony's president; pretty much everyone else in the world knows 99% of the people who will buy it will do so primarily for the games. You being smug about the PS3's impending doom is, really, just you being smug.
I don't understand how you can be so sure the PS3 is going to go down after its launch. Putting aside the price for a moment for the sake of argument, how do you explain the diversion of two million units from the UK to bolster the North American launch? They won't get any across the pond for a while now, and the three million units total that will be coming in are still expected to fail to meet the estimated initial demand for five million units.
During the time both the PS3 and Xbox 360 were in development, Blu-Ray and HD-DVD were untested formats, and back then it was completely in the air over which disk would end up on top. Now, it's definitely looking more like Blu-Ray is the 21st century's BetaMax (a fitting comparison, given that they were both developed by Sony in an attempt to one-up the current media standard, but I know Dan already knows this - this is for anyone else who might read this that doesn't know about it), but it's still too early to know for sure. Mostly, it's the higher initial cost of production and the hardware shortage that's dampening the outlook for the format, not to mention that HD-DVD has now been on the market for a while. If future PS3 units are shipped with the ability to burn to Blu-Ray, as has been hinted at, there is a very high chance that HD-DVD will end up getting the oust.
As far as "Sony's cockiness" is concerned, um, I believe it's called marketing. Yeah, I could be wrong, but I think they're going to attempt to sell these things. "Um, like, the new PlayStation will be, like, new and stuff? And it'll play games that people, you know, like to play. I guess it'll be fun. We think it's okay, and at least it's better than poking a puppy with a stick." Wow. That would be a brilliant marketing plan. I should so totally go to SCEA HQ and pimp out my mad advertising panache. I admit I didn't jump on the PS2 bandwagon when it first rolled around. Not because I didn't think it would do well, or because I knew it wouldn't be around for the next 10 years (I must have missed that proclamation), but because I didn't feel like paying the initial $300 price tag, and I knew I could somehow live without playing PS2 games at that very instant. I thought that was a crazy amount to put out for a video game system. I knew that the price at launch would be high, just like every single other system that has ever come out in the history of computers, and likewise, would eventually go down as the hardware tech became more common and/or cheaper to produce; also, prices are dropped as the initial crazy-high demand is met/interest in it goes down, as well as when the revenue from software meets the cost of the hardware.
Speaking of the hardware/software correlation, the same sales plan is used by Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo: it's okay to sell the hardware for less than its cost (that's right, technically, Sony is losing money for every PS3 they'll sell,) knowing that consumers will then spend money on the software that goes along with it, a portion of which will eventually find its way to Sony's pocket, regardless of their involvement or lack thereof in the development of said software. And really, the software is the entire reason video games even exist. The system is simply a means to an end. I wanted to play Final Fantasy X, and I knew that the only way to do that would be to purchase the PlayStation 2 console. There are a number of games, some of which are launch games, other that will be released soon after, and some that are still only in the early development stages, that I am already considering buying. I don't even want to think about games that won't even reach the drawing board for a while coming; who could have expected Guitar Hero when the second PlayStation was first announced?
The number of people who are willing to buy the system because the games have managed to catch their attention, and are willing to go through the madness and possible bankruptcy associated with its release, will ensure that the system will at least last longer than the Dreamcast. Sega's problem stemmed from lack of general interest (as far as interest is concerned, the PS3 doesn't need to worry), less support from third-party developers than what Sony and Microsoft were getting (which still isn't a problem for Sony), and just a general lack of good games (we'll see what comes about). There were a number of gems on the Dreamcast, but not enough to keep it going.
Moving my attention back to the price of the system itself, I agree that $600 is an insane amount to spend on a video game consol. Not because I don't think the system itself is worth that. I can't imagine myself spending that much money on a console simply because I really can't afford it. Remember that entry I made about the minimum wage in California? It's now official. Starting next year, the minimum wage is set at $7.75, one dollar more than it is currently, and is to be increased by 25 cents the following year to make it $8.00 an hour in 2008. By contrast, I'm currently earning $11 and hour. Even considering that, I still can't sanely consider buying a PS3 at launch. You know what, though? I know someone else who's been working at the same job for as long as I've held mine, and he's getting somewhere near $17 and hour. We live and work in the exact same city, and both are in retail/customer service. His job simply brings in more revenue than my work does, and thus is able to pay their employees more. The point of this is that some people earn more than others. Sometimes it's a lot more. As hard as it is to believe, there are indeed people out there that are willing and able to take all those hot-off-the-press boxes away from the stores' paws at launch. Besides, if you read the previous paragraphs, or hell, have followed the video game industry at all over the past twenty some years, you'd know that the price WILL GO DOWN GIVEN TIME. Plus, you can't count out parents and other family members who spoil kids rotton. I even have cousins that were like that. A brand new toy came out, and later that day, a week at the latest, there was one for both of the brothers.
Remember all those problems Microsoft had with bugs and overheating of their 360's when they were first released? Yeah, that happens every single launch, too. And, like everything else, are addressed in due time. People either don't know, or don't care, and thus take the "bad" apples, leaving space on shelves for the manufactures to put the "good" ones that I myself will eventually purchase.
I know that all things are relative (compare the $600 PS3 with a $3500 dedicated gaming computer rig - similar function with a few small yet important differences), but taking things literally, how could you have purchased a PSP "far before Me & My Katamari was announced," when the game was actually released three days short of a full year from the PSP launch? Even now, the PSP hasn't been on the market for a full 18 months. If I had assumed you had purchased a PS2 when it came out in anticipation of Kingdom Hearts (again, not a realistic comparison, but you understand my point), that would either be lunacy on my part, or a sharp third-eye on your behalf. Thinking back, the only portable systems that couldn't comfortably fit in a pocket were the Sega Genesis and Atari Lynx. Even the first-generation, gray brick Game Boy that I still have is pocketable. I think that's kinda the point of having a "portable" system. Granted, they didn't really play video (the Game Gear had an optional TV turner, but that made it even more bulky, and really only picked up UHF,) like the PSP does, but iPod's and many other portable media systems do. Yours just happens to be designed to also play games, which is probably why you decided to get that, and not some Rio crap. I do know people who bought it almost exclusively to play videos on, with the games as a mediocre afterthought. (Tetris on an iPod, anyone?) Well, UMD's did well, didn't they? Costing more than most DVDs and with a much more limited library of titles, the UMD was a format that I admit to believing would not last long. Sure there are other ways to get video on the handheld, but to be honest, the thing has to be "hacked" for its potential to be realized.
This is why I feel your doubt in Sony's future is misguided. Although hard for anyone to ignore, you mostly base your judgment on your own situation. "If I can't afford a PS3, I doubt many others can." "I may enjoy games, but I don't eat-breath-dream them, so I don't think people will attempt to wait in line DAYS before its release." "Blu-Ray hasn't yet come out, while people are already playing Xbox 360 games on HD-DVD, ergo the technology is going to fail." While you may not say these exact same words, I have heard them from others, and it at least sounds like you lie within the same camp. Who knows how the "format war" will end this time around, since that is the one legitimate argument that you can put up, (does it really matter? What else could you play cartridge-based games on besides their intended console, or vice versa?) but that shouldn't affect the actual sales of PS3's and its following software. Really, the only person jumping up and down Tom-Cruise-fashion yelling that the PS3 "isn't a video game console, it's a computer entertainment system" is Sony's president; pretty much everyone else in the world knows 99% of the people who will buy it will do so primarily for the games. You being smug about the PS3's impending doom is, really, just you being smug.