Ken Kutaragi's fingerprints have nearly faded completely. His farcically ambitious PlayStation 3 hardware design, finalised six years ago, left Sony with the preposterous task of pitching a high-end console at £425 and yet still make a loss on each sale.
Fortunately, or not, the loss-making system didn't exactly sell spectacularly at first. Sony's curse of cost had repelled consumers. The company could huff and puff all it wanted; even the most fanatical PS3 fan couldn't part with £500 for a new console and game.
40°
40°
20°
20°
Ad 
30°
If I recall, it is Sony that set the price on the system not Kutaragi. Meaning that sony took the initiative of proclaiming that their system was worth the price they were asking.
Sony was expecting things to be similar to their success in launching the PS2. They were banking on the new blu format to be (one of if not THE) selling points to the platform. And most importantly, they were relying on the brand recognition. Something pretty much all companies with a successful product tries to use an an angle for justifying price increase.
The boom that was PS2 was at a time when consumers were also being presented with the advent of DVD for movies. So it became quite clear that PS2 sold not only to gamers but movie watchers as well. It was cheaper than most DVD players and the revolutionary quality upgrade from VHS to DVD was a huge factor.
Fast forward to 2006 and sony tried to do the same thing. Only this time they didnt realize that the jump from DVD to blu wasnt a noticeable difference on consumers existing TV's. So while the games gave the appearence of better quality when compared to PS2, movies did not (as much).
That really hurt them. Yet consumers also began to question the games when compared to the 360. Similar to when PS2 launched and the games were essentially CD games and not that much better than DC. So as a consumer you begin to ask yourself, what am I really paying all this extra $$ for?
The answer to that is simply...potential. If you bought into the system you felt the need to defend the purchase by knowing Sony would eventually deliver the goods (and they have). Another hit to them was not taking competition seriously.
Nintendo felt that back in the 90's with Sega taking market share away from them in almost all territories. Marketing is key and what I wasnt seeing is the amount of in your face PS advertising like i remember from the PS1 and (to some extent) PS2.
Why? Was there no $$ left in the budget to advertise? Was sony sitting back waiting for the name to sell itself? It could be any number of things. i do know that we as consumers/gamers like to speculate to the point of if the truth presented itself we would still not believe it and come up with our own conclusions.
If there is a curse that sony is under then it is actually one that pretty much all companies have felt when they release a 3rd console to a successful 2nd. I like to refer to it as the 3rd Console curse (pretty convenient).
Atari, Nintendo, Sega have all been in a position where they have had a 2nd system be the one that is the most popular and have tried to capitalize on that popularity with a even more robust 3rd. And every one has had that 3rd system sell to a fraction of what their previous units did.
Not sure if its a stigma of the "3rd time the charm" when it really isnt or people feel the urge to try something different. in any case, MS will likely release their 3rd system soon enough and could possibly feel the pain as well.
no price wasn't the only source for their curse but a major one. Darth was right on alot of points including that poor marketing added to the PS3's initial problems. I would add that the Launch Lineup of games was severely lacking.
That is the console business strategy. Sell the console at a loss and make the money back on the games. To use your own example on cell phones, The cell phone is worth $700 (there is a LOT of high end tech in a phone including a screen and it is a mobile device to boot) but the carriers sell it at the $200-$300 mark with the same business strategy. Sell the phone at a loss and make it back on the service. How much would a console cost when launched if it didn't sell at a loss to begin with? The Wii was $300 at launch and it made money out of the gates but look how poor the tech was.
It's not the selling hardware at a profit, they've been doing that since 2009 and have said so. If it's the cell architecture, that's not done either until PS4 is announced.
Is Kutaragi the curse?
I'm confused.
He seems to think that the new model is the first to make profit per unit. I was under the impression that the slim was doing that.
Not only don't I understand what the author considers a curse, I don't understand what the author considers the solution.
(In Oz)
I see no curse either. However the Cell technology most likely will not be used in the PS4. Cell Technology never took off in the way Sony and it's other contributors hoped it would.
We have games like Uncharted 2/3, God of War 3/ Killzone 2/3 which graphically destroys every other games on any Console this gen.
Sony clearly achieved the purpose of the Cell this Gen.
Look at 360 with more conventional architecture, its been stuck for years with nothing worthwhile compared to what the PS3's architecture is producing!
"The last of us"
"Beyond two souls"
"GOW : Ascension" are all still coming.
IMO PS4 should use the CELL
To be honest, the games you mentioned were not awesome because of The Cell - they were the products of excellent first-party developers with great vision and art direction. I'm fairly confident that Naughty Dog, Santa Monica, and Guerilla could have produced just as impressive titles on the 360 because of their talent. Graphics are STILL getting better on each console. The technology hasn't changed - the ingenuity and skill of the developers has.
Im sorry mate, i do hate actually asking you this question but??...... How old are you? No seriously my friend. Im 36 (old i know laugh all you want), but the 'curse' of Sega, Nin & Atari that he was refering to strechs back to the 80's and 90's era of Gaming.
For example, Nin realsed the NES - Sucess, then SNES - Sucess then the N64 - Great System but not great sales due to PS1 released and that they stuck to Carts for games.
Sega had the Master System - Sucess, Mega Drive(Genesis) - sucess, then the Dreamcast - Not great sadly. To ahead of its time tech wise.
Now Sony have suffered the same fate as others before them...... in a way you could say.
The same fate may or may not befall MS, i cant predict the future nor can anyone else really.
But you have to admit that there does appear to be a 'Curse' of sorts to all pervious consoles.
You actually think the graphical differences between the games you mentioned and Xbox360 top tier games are that vast?
Really?
The only games I witness that have drastic differences in graphic fidelity are PC games running on capable hardware.
The differences between these console games are minimal.
@Phoneix
I am actually older than you and had all those systems. I have been gaming since the 1970's. I had a Coleco Telestar...(Don't laugh ;-)
The curse of these companies boils down to ARROGANCE and COMPLACENCY. Especially Nintendo in the 1990's and Sony with the PS3 and Atari when they released the Atari 5200 (I still have that system with its bigger brother the 7800) That's their curse.
Edit last quarter of 2009? Can we haz a link?
was rumored that Sony was still losing around $18 per console, so this is
definitely welcome news." - sir, please don't lie to me.
We are talking selling hardware at a profit here and not about making a profit as a whole.
That link reads like it still hasn't been confirmed that Sony is making a profit on the PS3.
As of late Sept 2009, 4 years into the 360's life, it was being reported that MS was losing money on every 360 unit sold (see link below). I don't know if it was true as MS never confirmed or denied it, yet there was never any discussion of the Xbox curse, or hand wringing about slow sales or profitability. And here we are, more than a year after Sony confirmed the PS3 hardware was profitable (not even 4 years into it's life) and yet we're still subjected to articles about the poor PS3 and Sony's sorry state.
No one is saying Sony isn't facing an uphill battle, but enough with the revisionist history already. Everyone has access to the internet, it's easy to fact check and see the problems with these articles, and yet they keep coming and no one ever holds these game "journalists" to account for their misinformed rants. It's called google. Check your facts before you spout off. Is that too much to ask?
The only curse I see here is the curse of game journalists who can't be bothered to do any research. Can someone talk to a gypsy or something to see what we have to do to stop this nonsense?
http://gamesthirstarticles....
when viewed against itself, many were probably expecting the PS3 to be the run away seller like the PS2 was. Even though we know it took a little time for the PS2 to hit its stride. But then it was priced at $299 and had lots of pro's to its name.
Im sure even sony was expecting it to print money because of past success. So when it didnt then it makes all the more sense that the public view was somewhat tarnished.
As for MS, look at the sales of the original and compare them with 360. We have the opposite situation there. NOBODY was expecting it to go that route. So much public animosity towards the evil company MS that when it surpassed all expectations, what else is there to do but throw flowers at its feet.
I know I'm old but I remember the Nintendo vs Sega days and how there was the public adoration for the NES until something came along to shake up Nintendo's dominance. I guess it was convenient that the name Genesis means new beginning. Sega had their new beginning and had something that caught the eye of consumers.
MS had something too and shook up the dominance that is Sony. Its hard to not look at the two situations and not see how similar things turned out. Im not saying it is history repeating itself as we all know the real run away hit this gen was the wii. But in the battle for 2nd place is very much like the battle for 1st back in the 90's.
We all know how that turned out. Nintendo won in case anyone didnt know, but it took some serious strategy and marketing to turn things around. Same thing can happen for sony.
Even the most diehard sony fan should give a nod of respect to MS for taking things more serious this gen.
MS made more money than Nintendo and Sony!
http://spong.com/article/13...
It's true because I have a link that says so! ;)
I dont ever remember MS saying that the 360 was loosing money in fact I think they were making a profit in 2009, just like Sony was doing according to everyone here. Here's some more links to make this post look important.
http://news.teamxbox.com/xb...
http://www.engadget.com/200...
http://www.joystiq.com/2008...
I love how you downplay MS and over dramatize this "World vs Sony".
The 360 had its fair share of hate articles and bashing. Especially when the RRoD issue was hot, folks was handing out cocktails and loving every minute of it. ANd when Natal was announced and the rumor that investors were pulling out of Xbox....whoooo boy. Parade in the streets here!
You see darkride everything I said in that last paragraph is me over exaggerating just like some folks (you) do here with the "media" vs. Sony.
lol, the hate articles towards ps3 are like 100 to 1. Its never ending, and why "gaming journalism" is a damn joke cause every joe blow posts his opinions and they end up being viewed on popular websites that really should have better standards.
so what if the ps3 has been selling more than the xbox. last gen the ps2 sold 6x more ps2s than microsoft sold xboxs.
sony just like everyone else thought they were going to wipe nintendo and microsoft out this gen, even with a high priced ps3... and it bite them in the arse.
the thing is, sony lost huge market share, whilst nintendo and microsoft made massive gains. sony are for sure this gens biggest losers financially. hurts i suppose to hear and read that.
I think it goes something more like this (this isnt perfect but here goes)
Atari's 1st was Pong and their 2nd was the 2600. The 3rd was the 5200 and it paled in comparison to the 2600. The 7800 was a significant improvement and then many years after it was the Jaguar.
Sega started off with the master system but the Genesis was their 2nd and all the add-ons still count as part of that particular generation (cd, 32x). The saturn was their 3rd "official" console and it didnt fare too well but of course Sega tried their best with the DC. A great follow-up but one that only after it was canned did people look at and say, yeah this is a great system.
Nintendo and the NES and SNES are much like Sony and the PS1 and PS2. Both were beloved platforms with impressive sales to their credit. The N64 (their 3rd) was decent but it also wasnt as huge as we would like to believe. The of course they did the Cube (4th) and the Wii (5th) and now the wii-u (6th). Honestly, the wii was a surprise being that it was their 5th and sort of brought them back into that position of adoration so now the wii-u being the follow-up is technically superior but it will have a tough time selling to the same crowd that bought into the wii.
Sony hit the big leagues with both the PS1 and PS2 mainly because they were new. They were different. PS1 was their 1st at a time when both Sega and nintendo were releasing their 3rd. So it is because of that new kid on the block (sorry for the reference) that helped them establish the brand but it was their 2nd (PS2) that pushed them into the mainstream (and gaming as well) making it acceptable in society to enjoy games. Their ps3 is a fantastic system but the eyes were turned on both nintendo wii (5th) and the 360 (MS's 2nd).
The original xbox flopped but their 360 follow-up is following the same pattern for sequel systems. Is it likely that MS will get caught up in the same loop? Sure it is. Its not an exact science but it is as if by that 3rd time around consumers are looking for something different.
It could be like buying a car (strange analogy, I know) but if someone has bought a ford twice in their life and they are on the time to get another car the thought of trying something different certainly crosses their mind. It just comes down to what does this other brand offer that is different or more appealing than what you are familiar with.
i dont feel the ps3 is a failure in any way that is important to ME. That being quality of the system and games and overall appeal.
I wouldnt even go as far as to say their sales are a "failure" either but i will say they havent broken the curse. I guess it is just how we see it.
To be a member of that exclusive club your only initiation is to have your 3rd system sell below the 2nd or even the 1st. it isnt about quality of software. It isnt even about falling into obscurity. Its about the 3rd time around and consumers looking for something else.
Believe it or not, we as gamers/consumers ARE share holders in these companies. We buy shares via the platforms and games. If we are not satisfied we take our $$$ somewhere else that appeals.
So when I see something I invest my $$ into not exceeding or even equaling their previous effort, yeah i get a bit miffed. Thankfully though, i am not one of those single company only investors. i like to spread it around.
Sony can be proud of selling close to 70mil systems but you know they are just saving face in public. behind doors the heads of the different divisions are scratching their heads thinking how do we come out of this.
If they were to lick their wound and bring out something new (not just a remodel) it would get the attention of the consumer. Be it good or bad it would still get their attention. unfortunately, Nintendo is the ones in the light with something new not just improved.
Sure, the market is growing, but still, there are more PS3s in existence than the NES or SNES.
Not making a statement, just putting things into perspective.
Perhaps if you read, you wouldn't be quite so condescending. You clearly missed the point, but I'll bite.
The truth is, just last generation, Nintendo and Microsoft only sold around 25 million consoles. The PS3 has outsold both of those consoles by ~40 million. Tell me, is that proper perspective?
Regardless of market growth, the PS3 is still far from a failure. Relative to the PS2, perhaps, but not in it's own right. Unless you think the Xbox 360 is a failure, but that's silly.
It's been more like 7-8 years since it was finalized. Part of the delay it saw was due to blu ray diode shortages. Sony had to know in 2005 the final specs in order to start manufacturing the system for their 2006 release.
The console was too dear, it did take too long to have a good collection of games, PSN (I mean the store, not the network play) offering was crap for a while and although I like the XMB UI, it's features and functionality even to this day aren't that good as icons take too long to load and in game XMB is still dreadful.
They learned along the way though, the PSN store now has an awesome back catalogue of games and it keeps adding new great games, both exclusive and multi plat. The price has got better over time too which is great.
They also learned UI lessons, this to me is evidenced by the UI of the Vita which is a lot better in both look and performance, at least to my taste. They also went with easier hardware architecture for the Vita and will probably do so with the PS4, I'd imagine they'll make it so porting between PS4 and Vita would be pretty easy in order to encourage cross play/cross buy initiatives.
They lost their mojo for a bit and took a while to learn their lessons and get it back but I think they have. I think they would do more too but are perhaps held back a little by the PS3 right now. Sony as a company are probably really looking forward to being able to launch the PS4 as they will be certain to make it a much more financially viable proposition for themselves as a company while still trying to give us a powerful console that incorporates their learnings over the time with the PS3.
The one constant throughout all of the ups and downs though have been the games, they've consistently put out amazing first party exclusives which has always been the main reason I've been a PS3 fan and indeed a Playstation fan since the first game, it's why I paid for a PS3 when it was £425 and I don't regret it at all because the use and entertainment I've got out of it not only as a gaming machine has been ridiculous and it's why I'll buy a PS4 when it comes out too.
Actually in general I'm pretty psyched for the next gen of consoles (Wii U excluded, it holds no interest for me) including the next Xbox, there's Xbox exclusives I really love and given their success with the 360 I think MS will also have some awesome things to bring to the table with their next console too.
Great time to be a gamer indeed :)
I do have to ask though. Your last part about the Wii-u holds no interest. Now many who say that actually mean they have no interest in Nintendo directly instead of the Wii-u.
Because quite simply, regardless of the parent company, the product itself has many things that would be appealing to pretty much anybody.
We live in a society where we feel we must shun something out of spite for the company that produced it. To each their own but to openly state the wii-u has no interest is very quick to judge. Especially considering it isnt out yet.
No disrespect but even I would hold off making such a bold proclamation until after I have experienced it for myself.
And yes, it is a great time to be a gamer. It has always been a great time since the first home console was released 30+ years ago.
In future the Wii U may interest me but at the moment it just doesn't. All the big 3rd party games I'll choose to play on PC when available and mainly use both my PS3 and Xbox for their exclusives which I greatly enjoy.
It's just that the Nintendo exclusives aren't as compelling enough for me these days in order to drop money on the console is all. Same went for the Wii, there was just nothing that inspired that urge to buy one for me.
If Nintendo manage to come up with something amazing that makes me want their console I'll have no issue buying it but at the moment there's certainly nothing bold about saying the Wii U holds no interest for me, I mean obviously all I have to go on is what has been shown so far and so far there's been nothing to interest me in it but as I said that could change. I used to hold the same opinion of the Xbox 360 and ended up buying that console because one day I felt it had enough to make me want to buy one. The Wii never did it and the Wii U hasn't done it either, at least not yet.