Next-Gen: Stop Defending Sony
Via Kotaku (here: http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/sony/playstation-3-too-expensive-or-is-it-175201.php ), Next Generation posted an article defending Sony's pricing of the PS3 (story: http://next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3048&Itemid=2 ).
So here is my (probably will never be seen) response to the artcle. It split up two main arguments:
1. You're getting what you payed for
2. There will be a solid list of games
The problem with the PS3's price is that it is completely aimed at the hardcore, those who will buy the system no matter what. This is why the X-Box 360 sold for as high as $800 on Ebay, because there was a shortage between the amount of hardcore buyers and the very low supply. The only way Sony could get away with such pricing is a shortage, something that isn't too good for their business plan.
Let's face it, software sales a good. Microsoft paid alot since not a whole lot of software couldn't even be sold at the millions. Companies like EA complained that the shortages lessened their profits of their launch titles. If the same thing happens on the PS3 launch, third parties would more likely wait for the PS3's base to build rather then pointlessly release titles.
But really, that hardcore isn't the only customer of Sony's. they have plenty of gamers. For the most part, only fanboys (or the extremely poor) don't own a PS2. That won't happen at $500 minimum. I doubt most people would pay $500 for a DVD player, much less a videogame system.
Next-Gen said it best, "Consumers who want to enjoy a rare experience really ought to be expected to pay. It's not gouging; it's capitalism. Good luck to Sony."
I agree, it is capitalism. Under capitalism, almost everyone agrees that most people won't pay unless they do have enough of an incentive, one that hasn't appeared yet.
Which comes to the games. There were some great games for the PS3, notably Heavenly Sword and Assassin's Creed. But are they $500-600 worth of goodness, or even very different then what we would see on the 360? As of yet, no. Both Final Fantasy 13 and Metal Gear Solid 4 are high possibilities, but haven't shown anything playable yet; only cutscenes.
Sony is behind. The original X-Box had one (Halo), so did the Gamecube (Smash Bros. Melee). The generation before that, the Playstation had Ridge Racer while the N64 had Mario 64. The PS2 only had a reprieve because of its early launch, something the 360 has right now.
Going through some Best-of lists for E3, Gamespot, Gamespy, nor IGN (1up hasn't posted one yet) put a PS3 game as the top game. Let's put some Top 3 of each up, and the highest ranking PS3 game with them (if applicable).
IGN: Winner: Bioshock (X-Box 360); First place: Mass Effect (360), Mario Galaxy (Wii); Second: Spore (PC); Assassin's Creed was a runner-up on Best Console Game award
Gamespot: Winner: Bioshock (360), Assassin's Creed was the only PS3 game of the nine runner-ups
Gamespy: Winner: Gears of War (360); Second place: Bioshock (360); Third: Assassin's Creed
So as Wii see (sorry, I have to continue the puns), only Assassin's Creed (a game listed for a Q1 2007 release on IGN) has any footing to sell the PS3. Heavenly Sword (listed 7th on Gamespy overall) may also be a possibility, but that doesn't currently have a release date, at least according to IGN (it wasn't even listed).
So as it is, the only real justification to buy a $500-600 system is for Blu-ray, a format that consumers are unsure that will become dominate anyway. If anything, pricing the PS3 hurts Sony's attempt to make Blu-ray standard, since casual consumers won't buy something that costs more then an 360 and Wii (I'm still sticking with a $200 max price for it) combined.
When something costs more, people expect more. As it is, we have yet to see something that fits a meets a $500 expectation, less so at $600. Before E3, I was expecting the PS3 to be $400; expensive, but not mind-blowing. Sony certainly raised the bar, just not in the right way.
So here is my (probably will never be seen) response to the artcle. It split up two main arguments:
1. You're getting what you payed for
2. There will be a solid list of games
The problem with the PS3's price is that it is completely aimed at the hardcore, those who will buy the system no matter what. This is why the X-Box 360 sold for as high as $800 on Ebay, because there was a shortage between the amount of hardcore buyers and the very low supply. The only way Sony could get away with such pricing is a shortage, something that isn't too good for their business plan.
Let's face it, software sales a good. Microsoft paid alot since not a whole lot of software couldn't even be sold at the millions. Companies like EA complained that the shortages lessened their profits of their launch titles. If the same thing happens on the PS3 launch, third parties would more likely wait for the PS3's base to build rather then pointlessly release titles.
But really, that hardcore isn't the only customer of Sony's. they have plenty of gamers. For the most part, only fanboys (or the extremely poor) don't own a PS2. That won't happen at $500 minimum. I doubt most people would pay $500 for a DVD player, much less a videogame system.
Next-Gen said it best, "Consumers who want to enjoy a rare experience really ought to be expected to pay. It's not gouging; it's capitalism. Good luck to Sony."
I agree, it is capitalism. Under capitalism, almost everyone agrees that most people won't pay unless they do have enough of an incentive, one that hasn't appeared yet.
Which comes to the games. There were some great games for the PS3, notably Heavenly Sword and Assassin's Creed. But are they $500-600 worth of goodness, or even very different then what we would see on the 360? As of yet, no. Both Final Fantasy 13 and Metal Gear Solid 4 are high possibilities, but haven't shown anything playable yet; only cutscenes.
Sony is behind. The original X-Box had one (Halo), so did the Gamecube (Smash Bros. Melee). The generation before that, the Playstation had Ridge Racer while the N64 had Mario 64. The PS2 only had a reprieve because of its early launch, something the 360 has right now.
Going through some Best-of lists for E3, Gamespot, Gamespy, nor IGN (1up hasn't posted one yet) put a PS3 game as the top game. Let's put some Top 3 of each up, and the highest ranking PS3 game with them (if applicable).
IGN: Winner: Bioshock (X-Box 360); First place: Mass Effect (360), Mario Galaxy (Wii); Second: Spore (PC); Assassin's Creed was a runner-up on Best Console Game award
Gamespot: Winner: Bioshock (360), Assassin's Creed was the only PS3 game of the nine runner-ups
Gamespy: Winner: Gears of War (360); Second place: Bioshock (360); Third: Assassin's Creed
So as Wii see (sorry, I have to continue the puns), only Assassin's Creed (a game listed for a Q1 2007 release on IGN) has any footing to sell the PS3. Heavenly Sword (listed 7th on Gamespy overall) may also be a possibility, but that doesn't currently have a release date, at least according to IGN (it wasn't even listed).
So as it is, the only real justification to buy a $500-600 system is for Blu-ray, a format that consumers are unsure that will become dominate anyway. If anything, pricing the PS3 hurts Sony's attempt to make Blu-ray standard, since casual consumers won't buy something that costs more then an 360 and Wii (I'm still sticking with a $200 max price for it) combined.
When something costs more, people expect more. As it is, we have yet to see something that fits a meets a $500 expectation, less so at $600. Before E3, I was expecting the PS3 to be $400; expensive, but not mind-blowing. Sony certainly raised the bar, just not in the right way.
posted by SeanM at 7:44 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home