I have a theory of why the PS3 really failed...

Dennis Toy · Post by **Dennis Toy** » 2007-03-27 12:16am

It came out TOO early.

It came out only a mere 5 years after the PS2 came out. The PS2 I believe hasn't been tapped to it's full potential. It hasn't seen it's full power tapped yet. I think that it's still possible to have some of the games that are on PS3 could have been made for PS2. I think that the PS3's release was to promote Blu-Ray capacity on the PS3.

If you think that this is kinda silly. Think back to the 16-Bit era. The Sega Genesis lasted 8 years and the SNES lasted 6. The NES lasted into the 16-bit era about a decade after it was released.

Executor32 · Post by **Executor32** » 2007-03-27 12:29am

The PS2 came out a mere 5 years after the PS1, too, and the XBox360 came out only 4 years after the original XBox. I don't think timing has much to do with it, at least not as much as the price and the dearth of decent launch titles.

Hotfoot · Post by **Hotfoot** » 2007-03-27 12:33am

Going by that logic, the 360 should be doing worse. Clearly, that is not the case.

Look, it's not a single factor here. Yes, it came out too early, largely because Sony wasn't ready for this generation. It's not like there's some sort of magic number that consoles follow. Microsoft made a calculated move to force Sony's hand. Sony had most likely planned to release the PS3 around 2008 or 2009. When Microsoft got its head start, they were faced with a choice, keep to the plan and possibly let Microsoft gain more ground as legitimate competition, or rush to nip that in the bud as fast as they could. Throw in the legal battles over various things, the desperate bid for Blu-Ray to succeed, the realization that Nintendo was doing something new too, and Sony is left playing catch up, scrambling to rush out their console, their moronic PR department (it's in-game footage! REALLY!), and the fact that killer PS2 games are still coming out while all the good PS3 games are rather in limbo, and, well, you have something of a clusterfuck.

Add to that you have the fact that the price is way too high. Most people see the PS3 pricetag and ask "Gosh, what can that do that makes it worth $200 more than the X-Box?". The answer is, invariably, not that it can play better or more exclusive games, but rather that it can play movies. Movies you can't fully appreciate unless you buy an HD cable that's not included in the $600 box.

The continued lack of killer games is further hurting the PS3, and now the press coverage has gone from "ZOMG NEW THING!" to "ZOMG IT SUX!" People pick up on that, and as the idea that the PS3 isn't worth buying, even fewer people will buy it.

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2007-03-27 12:44am

$600.

$600.

$600!

Dennis Toy · Post by **Dennis Toy** » 2007-03-27 12:49am

They should have waited until they were truly complete or when blu-ray became widespread.

Hotfoot · Post by **Hotfoot** » 2007-03-27 12:52am

Well, the thing is, it did help with Blu-Ray, just a bit, though really it was the massive library of films Sony has access to that did the bulk of the work.

And yes, I agree, they should have waited until they were ready, but Microsoft said "Boo!" and they jumped. Had they waited a year, they might have had a reasonable pricetag, better hardware and software, and a more stable system. However, like I said, there is no magic number. They had a plan, and then they threw it to the wind. That was a mistake.

Post by **Vympel** » 2007-03-27 01:01am

The PS3 failed? It just came out. Were people decrying the failure of the Gamecube when it just came out, or did that happen, more logically, when the torrent of observations came in (and continue to come in) about how pitiful it's game library was further down the track?

(as to the Gamecube turning a profit therefore it was a success, blow me. That's bullshit. The XBox and PS2 kicked its ass. Period.)

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2007-03-27 01:05am

Hotfoot wrote:Well, the thing is, it did help with Blu-Ray, just a bit, though really it was the massive library of films Sony has access to that did the bulk of the work.

That and the widespread adoption of the format by studios, either as an exclusive or alongside HD-DVD.

Anarchist Bunny · Post by **Anarchist Bunny** » 2007-03-27 01:39am

Vympel wrote:The PS3 failed? It just came out. Were people decrying the failure of the Gamecube when it just came out, or did that happen, more logically, when the torrent of observations came in (and continue to come in) about how pitiful it's game library was further down the track?

(as to the Gamecube turning a profit therefore it was a success, blow me. That's bullshit. The XBox and PS2 kicked its ass. Period.)

More along the lines of the PS2 kicked everybodies ass. But yeah, I mean profits don't mean shit. The X-Box sunk 4 billion dollars to tie with the Gamecube in the world market. Clearly X-Box was the winner there.

Medic · Post by **Medic** » 2007-03-27 01:52am

The PS3 failed? It just came out. Were people decrying the failure of the Gamecube when it just came out, or did that happen, more logically, when the torrent of observations came in (and continue to come in) about how pitiful it's game library was further down the track?

Yes, the OP is a bit presumptuous. The PS3 has not yet failed and Microsoft has not yet won, or did we not all catch Ace's article on the worrisomely high (for Microsoft) attach rates for the X360? Unless AC6, DMC4 and Halo 3 create a renewed DEMAND for the X360 itself, then Microsoft is at risk of losing what installed base edge it already has. Though the fact that any number of former PS3 exclusives are jumping ship bodes well for the HaloBox.

edit: excised sloppy grammar

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2007-03-27 02:10am

In addition to what Vympel said (really, we're not going to know what platforms 'fail' for a year or so), I think the idea that Sony could have got away with waiting is dubious. Being so late (the last in) is a bad thing, particularly since their entry is hugely expensive and mishandled. Living with the PS2 for another year would just be another few million 360s sold. If significantly cheaper it may have been worth waiting (frankly, the absurd things Sony has said about people paying through the ass for it are telling) but to do the same launch in six months from now may have been disasterous.

The idea you can somehow determine how long a console 'should' last is fucking stupid. It's about the market, not some regular seasonal bullshit. Things like the NES lasted for ages because there was nowhere to go: the PS2 has been shit hardware-wise for most of it's life.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2007-03-27 03:38am

Stark wrote:In addition to what Vympel said (really, we're not going to know what platforms 'fail' for a year or so), I think the idea that Sony could have got away with waiting is dubious. Being so late (the last in) is a bad thing, particularly since their entry is hugely expensive and mishandled. Living with the PS2 for another year would just be another few million 360s sold. If significantly cheaper it may have been worth waiting (frankly, the absurd things Sony has said about people paying through the ass for it are telling) but to do the same launch in six months from now may have been disasterous.

The idea you can somehow determine how long a console 'should' last is fucking stupid. It's about the market, not some regular seasonal bullshit. Things like the NES lasted for ages because there was nowhere to go: the PS2 has been shit hardware-wise for most of it's life.

I sort of agree with the OP, and sort of with this one.

I think that if Sony had ignored the 360 for another year, they would've lost little business but could've made a much better product, or even the same one at a much lower price and with an immediate game library that could've shown actual improvements over the 360 in terms of graphics and gameplay immediately. As it is, the PS3 is clearly a rushed system (so much so that they actually had to change the system itself for the European release), that clearly isn't doing as well in the marketplace after launch as Sony expected. With another year, or even six months, they could've easily turned it into an instant success. It's also possible that Microsoft wouldn't have realized its own mistakes with the 360 as quickly (eg., small hard drive).

I don't think it's too early because the PS2 hadn't lasted long enough. It was too early because with more time they would've launched with a better, more competitive, and much more compelling product.

I should note, though, that delays are much more costly than just losing console buyers to the 360 (many early adopters will buy both systems, anyway), but in terms of the format war. The PS3 was Blu-Ray's ace-in-the-hole, and if they had waited another year before releasing it then studios would've been much more reluctant to support Blu-Ray exclusively over HD-DVD. I think that Sony's hand was forced not by MS's 360, but by Sony Corporation's need to promote its own format.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2007-03-27 03:42am

I agree with Hotfoot: I think Sony rushed to market to try and get some share back off the 360 before it became too established. However, I think their huge arrogance has cost them, and they didn't do themselves any favours.

I still think 'the PS2 is okay' in a world full of 360s and Wii's is crazy talk.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2007-03-27 04:00am

Vympel wrote: (as to the Gamecube turning a profit therefore it was a success, blow me. That's bullshit. The XBox and PS2 kicked its ass. Period.)

The XBox that barely outshipped it and took a four billion dollar loss compared to a massive profit?

No. PS2 kicked everyone around. Frankly, I'd rather have Nintendo's numbers than Microsoft's Games division.

Edward Yee · Post by **Edward Yee** » 2007-03-27 11:47am

Hotfoot wrote:Most people see the PS3 pricetag and ask "Gosh, what can that do that makes it worth $200 more than the X-Box?". The answer is, invariably, not that it can play better or more exclusive games, but rather that it can play movies. Movies you can't fully appreciate unless you buy an HD cable that's not included in the $600 box.

Comparatively speaking, I think that the price tag is even worse (about $800) in Europe, or at least the UK, and I think that even worse, the PS3 doesn't answer satisfactorily "What can it do that makes it over $400 more than the PS2?"

Post by **Vympel** » 2007-03-27 12:04pm

Praxis wrote: The XBox that barely outshipped it and took a four billion dollar loss compared to a massive profit?

I could put out any piece of shit and turn a profit and then claim I had a successful system, it wouldn't make it true. Gamecube lost market share compared to it's preceding systems, had abysmal third party gaming support and no online functionality was ever implemented for the Gamecube because no one was interested. This is not a successful system, it got it's ass kicked.

Conversely, it doesn't matter if the XBox lost money, it fulfilled its purpose.

Hotfoot · Post by **Hotfoot** » 2007-03-27 12:13pm

Vympel wrote:The PS3 failed? It just came out. Were people decrying the failure of the Gamecube when it just came out, or did that happen, more logically, when the torrent of observations came in (and continue to come in) about how pitiful it's game library was further down the track?

(as to the Gamecube turning a profit therefore it was a success, blow me. That's bullshit. The XBox and PS2 kicked its ass. Period.)

First impressions mean a hell of a lot, and the fact that people were returning PS3's after the Christmas rush says a lot. It's true that we won't know for sure if the console will fail until about a year or two in, but Sony most definately dropped the ball on launch. It's been about six months since launch already, and the game library still looks rather bleak. In fact, it looks that way for the next 3-4 months. Unless there's something in the wings that they've been keeping secret, it doesn't look very promising for the critical Q4 area.

For reference, by this time last year, the 360 had the following games out:

Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter
Burnout: Revenge
The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion
The Outfit
Fight Night Round 3
Dead or Alive 4
Need for Speed Most Wanted

Plus all the launch titles, and a few others I neglected to mention because I felt they weren't noteworthy.

Meanwhile, here are this month's releases for the PS3.

The Godfather: The Don's Edition (Game that came out earlier on other platforms, with some added content)
MotorStorm
Major League Baseball 2K7
Def Jam: Icon
Formula One Championship Edition

The continued loss of "exclusive" games continues to hurt, because the minor upgrade in graphics isn't something most people want to pay an additional $200-300 for.

The fact of the matter is that Sony was resting on its PS2 laurels. It figured that since it had such a tremendous lead in that generation, it could dictate the terms of the next generation, like they did when it was PS1 -> PS2. Microsoft and Nintendo saw that and went right for the jugular. Sony's pride forced them into their decision and now they're paying for it more than if they had simply let the hype machine say "2008. It will be worth it."

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2007-03-27 09:02pm

Another thing that the PS3's abysmal launch and pre-launch have done is obscure Microsoft's own mistakes. The 360 costs $400, its games cost $60, and its peripheral prices are ridiculous. $70 for a fucking controller with the play and charge kit is insane, no matter if it's wireless and how good it is, to say nothing of a $100 wireless network dongle. They make you pay monthly to play online, the game selection is still pretty weak after a year, the failure rate is astronomical and coupled with a 90 day warranty and $140 repair cost. The hard drive is 20 GB in an era where 300-400 GB drives can be had for under one hundred dollars at retail. There's no HDMI and no 1080P support, and backwards compatibility is still lacking.

All of this looks positively spectacular compared to Sony's experiment in finding the limits of human stupidity, but it's still pretty dismal compared to previous successful consoles. Is it really all that surprising that the PS2 is still selling so well?

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2007-03-27 09:57pm

Vympel wrote:
Praxis wrote: The XBox that barely outshipped it and took a four billion dollar loss compared to a massive profit?
I could put out any piece of shit and turn a profit and then claim I had a successful system, it wouldn't make it true. Gamecube lost market share compared to it's preceding systems, had abysmal third party gaming support and no online functionality was ever implemented for the Gamecube because no one was interested. This is not a successful system, it got it's ass kicked.

Conversely, it doesn't matter if the XBox lost money, it fulfilled its purpose.

Wasn't the Gamecube the system they started to make Phantasy Star Online games for after the Dreamcast gave up the ghost? How could they do that if the system had no online functionality?

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2007-03-27 10:09pm

This is why Nitram and I have a Wii. Reasonably priced, one excellent launch title (Zelda), several really fun mini-game collections (ie: Wii Sports, which we have started using for the daily exercise option), and a generally fun, simple GUI.

Add in the online functionality, the availablity of classic titles from NES, SNES, TurboGraffix, and Sega Genesis, and the Wii proves why it's been outselling everything but the DualScreen handheld.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2007-03-27 10:21pm

Drooling Iguana wrote:
Vympel wrote:
Praxis wrote: The XBox that barely outshipped it and took a four billion dollar loss compared to a massive profit?
I could put out any piece of shit and turn a profit and then claim I had a successful system, it wouldn't make it true. Gamecube lost market share compared to it's preceding systems, had abysmal third party gaming support and no online functionality was ever implemented for the Gamecube because no one was interested. This is not a successful system, it got it's ass kicked.

Conversely, it doesn't matter if the XBox lost money, it fulfilled its purpose.
Wasn't the Gamecube the system they started to make Phantasy Star Online games for after the Dreamcast gave up the ghost? How could they do that if the system had no online functionality?

Nintendo released a broadband adapter but never created any kind of network and only Phantasy Star, Mario Kart, and Kirby's Air Ride used it (and the latter two were LAN-only).

On top of that they discontinued the adapter a year later.

Vympel wrote:
Praxis wrote: The XBox that barely outshipped it and took a four billion dollar loss compared to a massive profit?
I could put out any piece of shit and turn a profit and then claim I had a successful system, it wouldn't make it true. Gamecube lost market share compared to it's preceding systems, had abysmal third party gaming support and no online functionality was ever implemented for the Gamecube because no one was interested. This is not a successful system, it got it's ass kicked.

Conversely, it doesn't matter if the XBox lost money, it fulfilled its purpose.

Oh I'm sorry, silly me. I thought companies did business to make money. Thank you for correcting this view.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2007-03-27 10:23pm

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:Another thing that the PS3's abysmal launch and pre-launch have done is obscure Microsoft's own mistakes. The 360 costs $400, its games cost $60, and its peripheral prices are ridiculous. $70 for a fucking controller with the play and charge kit is insane, no matter if it's wireless and how good it is, to say nothing of a $100 wireless network dongle. They make you pay monthly to play online, the game selection is still pretty weak after a year, the failure rate is astronomical and coupled with a 90 day warranty and $140 repair cost. The hard drive is 20 GB in an era where 300-400 GB drives can be had for under one hundred dollars at retail. There's no HDMI and no 1080P support, and backwards compatibility is still lacking.

All of this looks positively spectacular compared to Sony's experiment in finding the limits of human stupidity, but it's still pretty dismal compared to previous successful consoles. Is it really all that surprising that the PS2 is still selling so well?

Wow.

Can I quote you in an article? That was pure awesome.

Darth Mordius · Post by **Darth Mordius** » 2007-03-27 11:32pm

Praxis wrote:Oh I'm sorry, silly me. I thought companies did business to make money. Thank you for correcting this view.

See, there's a lot of money to be made in video game consoles. Microsoft needed market share: they bought it. 4 billion dollars? Microsoft can throw that kind of money around. It's an investment: they went from nobodies to the top player in 2 generations.

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2007-03-27 11:32pm

Praxis wrote:
Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:Another thing that the PS3's abysmal launch and pre-launch have done is obscure Microsoft's own mistakes. The 360 costs $400, its games cost $60, and its peripheral prices are ridiculous. $70 for a fucking controller with the play and charge kit is insane, no matter if it's wireless and how good it is, to say nothing of a $100 wireless network dongle. They make you pay monthly to play online, the game selection is still pretty weak after a year, the failure rate is astronomical and coupled with a 90 day warranty and $140 repair cost. The hard drive is 20 GB in an era where 300-400 GB drives can be had for under one hundred dollars at retail. There's no HDMI and no 1080P support, and backwards compatibility is still lacking.

All of this looks positively spectacular compared to Sony's experiment in finding the limits of human stupidity, but it's still pretty dismal compared to previous successful consoles. Is it really all that surprising that the PS2 is still selling so well?
Wow.

Can I quote you in an article? That was pure awesome.

You'd make my day.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2007-03-27 11:42pm

Darth Mordius wrote:See, there's a lot of money to be made in video game consoles. Microsoft needed market share: they bought it. 4 billion dollars? Microsoft can throw that kind of money around. It's an investment: they went from nobodies to the top player in 2 generations.

What's the point of dominating the market if they don't make money out of it? Has the 360 made up for the loss on the Xbox yet?