Top
320°

Peter Moore Recalls Sony Announcing PS3 Price Point of $599: We Were All Partying Backstage

The last gen console cycle was a complete opposite of the current gen. Sony literally struggled with the PlayStation 3 for the first few years with some terrible PR decisions and lack of quality games.

Read Full Story >>
gamingbolt.com
The story is too old to be commented.
gameseveryday872d ago

Not really. It was a horrible decision by Sony. But somehow they turned it around.

Rimeskeem872d ago

Yes really, spent thousands upon thousands of hours on my PS3 playing games like Uncharted, God of War, Infamous, Killzone, Heavenly Sword, MAG, R and C, LBP, Jak, etc....

Games I could not find anywhere else.

breakpad872d ago (Edited 872d ago )

PS3 was an excellent beast.....count the PS3games now ?? it was worth it...and if the lazy japanese devs (like Wada from Square) didnt sabotage PS3 switching sides with the Xbox1.5..(aka X360) ..the current gen of consoles wouldnt have started so early and PS3 could have numerous more quality games

attilayavuzer872d ago

@rimeskeem those games all played great on my $199 slim

Aloren872d ago

It was still a horrible decision from a video game business perspective. They struggled to impose a new format that the competition didn't support, it was simply too early.

Think about it this way: if they PS3 had come out when it did but with a dvd player and a $400 price point, it would have absolutely crushed the 360 with its name alone, and I'm willing to bet the gen would have ended like the PS2 gen (and probably like this gen will) with a huge PS domination.

Now I'm glad they did push the bluray and we got great games, but it sure didn't help their market share...

872d ago
TWB872d ago

@attilayavuzer

Or if you couldnt wait so long for the super slim (must be with that price?) you could have just picked the regular slim for 299 in 2009. Even after the PS3 release everything was fine in PS2 land for a couple of years and with the massive backlog PS2 had, Im sure those 2-3 years waiting for PS3 to drop price went like a breeze.

moldybread872d ago

599 and sony still lost money on each system sold. they basically lost all profits from the ps2 era with the ps3. even now after 9 years sony can't get the price below $200.

but now we can reflect on this generation where it's sony who were dancing when the xbox one was revealed for $499. sony has done a remarkable turnaround.

rashada07872d ago

Sony needed to win the format wars and *had to put a bluray player in it thus high cost (one reason at least).

uptownsoul872d ago (Edited 872d ago )

"“I also remember E3 [2006] when Jack Tretton and Kaz Hirai announced $599 and we were all back stage, partying…hooo hoo! We knew then that we had the opportunity to get ahead, drive ahead and get our games ahead and get the lead. And I said the first to get to 10 million wins.” -- Peter Moore (5th paragraph) --

"…first to get to 10 million wins." If we use Peter Moore's metric today, does that mean PS4 has already won?

Sevir872d ago

The only reason why Sony's PS3 is stuck at $199, is because of Nvidia... They want to keep collecting the same price for the RSX, even though the cost of manufacturing has dropped, they are still charging the production assembly of the chip as off it were $300... So is breaking even on the slim but that's by virtue of Damn near everything shrinking while the RSX has largely stayed at 65nm process... Everything else is down to 45nm.. this is the reason why Sony, MS and Minty have all gone with AMD, and why MS dropped support of the original XB, they went with NVidia and they refused to drop production and manufacturing costs of the XB gpu... Sony and MS learned their lesson with Nvidia, that's why Nvidia is salty and has zero business with console gaming.

We will have sub $200 8th gen consoles because manufacturing costs for AMD cpu and gpu have significantly cheaper manufacturing process, and AMD aren't dicks about profit margins because they are ready profit from their partnership with the big three.

SnakeCQC872d ago

The ps3 came with a blu ray player and had a vastly lower break down level......

xHeavYx872d ago

You'd think that MS would have learnt from Sony's mistake. Instead, they made the same mistake with the One.

morganfell872d ago

Does Peter Moore recall people like myself paid $599...and that was it?

Or does he recall how they danced for joy knowing they had the Rent America crowd locked up.

Launch 360. Did you want multiplayer with that? Add 7 years of Live. Want HDMI? Well there is a trade in and you lose money. What about WiFi? Ooops. Forbid you should want a larger HDD. I remember standing in Best Buy with a 1TB drive for my PS3 in hand and the guy in front of me was paying almost twice for the 360 HDD and nowhere near the space.

In the long run that $599 worked out to be far cheaper. So many people are short range gratification types. I am not knocking those that bought a 360 at launch. I did. I am looking at those persons that think the 360 was a cheaper machine.

Of course we aren't even talking about downtime due to RROD. I wonder if Peter Moore was celebrating when they shelled out a billion for that? Or the play and charge batteries that died constantly. Nor are we mentioning the HD DVD player...

Loktai872d ago

@attilayavuzer

Years later, without backward compatibility and honestly who cares?

moldybread872d ago (Edited 872d ago )

@morganfell

the ps3 came out later which explains things like the lack of hdmi on earlier models of the xbox 360. the same thing occurred during the ps2 when the first xbox came out. that system was far more advanced, had a built in hard drive, broadband support, 4 player controller support and a better audio chip. all for the same price as the ps2 and the ps2 also went through hardware design errors like the dreaded disk read error . the ps3 by comparison was more advanced as well along with bluray support but the system was also $600 or $500 compared to the xbox 360 which at the time cost $300 and $400.

also because the xbox 360 was doing well it forced sony to redesign the ps3 and come out with a cheaper model. now we see the ps4 doing better and forcing microsoft to drop their price.

the moral of the story? competition is a good thing.

ShinMaster872d ago (Edited 872d ago )

People forget that you could also get a PS3 for $499 at launch. You didn't have to get the Premium version.

PS3 was still cheaper in the long run, considering that you had to pay for XBL, WiFi adapter, Play and Charge kit and proprietary HDD for 360. You could have a 1TB HDD on your PS3 and it would still be cheaper.
They had everyone fooled. But eventually, the PS3 outsold the 360 anyway.

Moral of the story? PlayStation is a bigger brand than Xbox worldwide. Always was. Even when it was at a disadvantage with the PS3. And yes, competition is good.

No Way872d ago (Edited 872d ago )

Rimeskeem - Here's the issuse. You could have STILL played all those games on the same platform but waited till it was $399. Save $200. $600 was pretty ridiculous, it's the same exact games on a $100 PS3. But, to each their own, I suppose. :P

WelkinCole872d ago (Edited 872d ago )

Business wise it was bad for them but personally it was the best dam purchase I made ever. Better than my PS4 purchase even. Love my 60giger fatty. Still kicking and alive right next to my PS4

The thing was I also bought a 1080p TV back then and oh boy did I love Blu-Ray. Loved storing my digital collection and or streaming them on my PS3. Love not having to use wired connection for internet. Loved having free online play. Loved having BC back then early on when there were still many PS2 games I wanted to play.

Personally factoring in everything the PS3 sofar is still the better console than the PS4 for me. In the same time span I would have bought Heavenly Sword and Uncharted 1 by now.

Yes it was horrible for Sony but oh boy was it great for me.

@attilayavuzer. Yes but late adopters like you missed out on the getting games fresh and enjoying them when their value was at their highest against previous gen games.

Nothing beats playing a 64 match Resistance or Warhawk on the PS3 in its early days.

_-EDMIX-_872d ago (Edited 872d ago )

@Aloren- "It was still a horrible decision from a video game business perspective"

Nope. It was a good call. It was a risky, but worthy investment in the companies and gaming's future.

Its like saying putting CD in PS1 was a bad idea because of the cost, soooooo to save cost lets just not have CD in PS1 and not have FFVII and many of the games that were ONLY possible with more space?

"Now I'm glad they did push the bluray and we got great games, but it sure didn't help their market share"

Yet that is why PS4 is exactly doing well right now, its due to that price and that price is only because PS3 helped get the price down for Bluray to begin with.

XONE and PS4's great prices are due to PS3's very high price, again, it was an investment and its very much paying off, for both consoles actually.

"They struggled to impose a new format that the competition didn't support" Its because they couldn't, many developers spoke against MS's dated format with DVD, from Kojima, to Dan and Sam Houser, even stating they wouldn't make another GTA on MS platform UNLESS they fixed their space situation (which MS actually did allowing GTAV to be installed and with 2 disk)

Also John Carmack spoke against it too.

Your going from a gen that used DVD9 many times, to a gen that is using DVD9 AGAIN yet expecting a huge leap, its just not going to happen and developer's very much knew that.

Bluray last gen was 100% the right call. Your not just seeing more open world games accidentally, this because many of them have been WAITING for this for years now.

" if they PS3 had come out when it did but with a dvd player and a $400 price point, it would have absolutely crushed the 360"

No doubt, but would they have "crushed" Nintendo with out CD during PS1 vs N64? FFVII exist because of that 1 move...

PS4 would have had that high cost due to Bluray selling LESS due to PS3 not having it. ie 80 million drives where sold JUST from PS3 alone that drove down that price for PS4 and XONE. Sony needed to start somewhere and they invested early and it was the right call, for ALL of gaming.

XONE has bluray, PS4 has blury. All gamers get to get large, huge open world games at no extra cost that the early PS3 gamers had to pay. The fact of the matter is, someone had to pay that cost for progress and to lower the price for the next gen.

PS3 still outsold 360, lowered its price, got bluray down in cost and got PS4 outselling both consoles. I would say it was the right call for gamers, business even for XONE gamers.

Next time a system comes out with a new radical format at a high cost, questions what "FFVII via PS1" can we likely see that we would not have seen otherwise.

You want the $300 dated, or the $600 future? TRUE next gen progress comes at a high cost.

b1nary_B0SS872d ago (Edited 872d ago )

@ Rashid Sayed:

PS3's initial price was a reflection of its core technologies; namely, CELL, RSX, and Blu-ray in addition to its built-in Wi-Fi, Bluetooth connectivity, HDMI etc. What you, and the large majority of others that constantly harp on PS3’s price at launch fail to gather when strolling down memory lane, is that PS3’s cost of production was ~$1060.00. The asking price of $499.99 or $599.99 for a console with the world’s first C/GPU and APU, Blu-ray drive and all of the other features fore mentioned was fair; and the quality of its games at launch and after improved significantly, as developers began to use PlayStation Edge and PhyreEngine to become more familiar with CELL’s SPUs. Is it your opinion that Ken Kutaragi should not have engineered the PS3 in the manner he did? If so, then the PS4’s GPU customizations would not have been the beneficiary of CELL’s SPU Runtime System (SPURS), thus it would not be any different to that of a PC’s GPU, nor would it have a Blu-ray drive. Is it your opinion that SCE should have sold PS3 for less? If so, then doing so would have pushed SCE beyond the brink and into bankruptcy, because a general rule of thumb in the retail business is to never sell a product at a loss greater than 50% of what it costs the business to produce said product; as the losses incurred over time will prohibit the business from breaking even or generating a profit. Kutaragi’s PS3 was what it was, so that PS4 could be what it is.

4/15/2013 - Dominic Mallinson: https://www.youtube.com/wat...
@~8:36 - … CELL was the precursor to today’s APUs, very much a heterogeneous architecture.

3/30/2013 - Part 1 - Mark Cerny: http://www.neogaf.com/forum...
And of course, the existence of an APU gives us the ability to come close to the results obtained from the SPU.

5/30/2005 - Ken Kutaragi - http://www.eetimes.com/docu...
From the beginning, I wanted multiple operating systems to run on the processor simultaneously. The Cell processor has a kernel called … Level 2, which we call the guest OS layer, … for the Playstation.
We are real-time game developers, so all necessary schemes… in a multithread environment — have been taken into consideration.

9/27/2005 - Page 13 - Mark Cerny, Atilla Vass, … - http://pdfaiw.uspto.gov/.ai...
[0010]… Operating systems that support multithreading enable programmers to design programs whose threaded parts can execute concurrently. SPU Threads operates by regarding the SPUs in a cell as processors for threads.
[0011] Unfortunately, interoperating with SPU Threads is not an option for high-performance applications.
[0012] To overcome these problems a system referred to as SPU Runtime System (SPURS) was developed.

6/28/2013 - Mark Cerny: https://www.youtube.com/wat...
@~21:47 - CELL was Ken Kutaragi’s brainchild…
@~37:19 - We did think from time to time about what Ken would do if he were designing the PlayStation 4.

Go to #1.1.24

DarkSniper872d ago

As time has revealed, Peter Moore spent too much time partying, and not enough time conducting business. In 2006, Dark Sniper was in line with his $599 US dollars in hand to buy the illustrious PlayStation®3 Home Entertainment Terminal. Enjoying what the Cell Processor had to offer since day 1.

When the PS3 was released, there were worldwide shortages that made news articles for the past several months. From the beginning, Sony has preached about taking a long term approach to the PS3 and implementing the 10 year product life cycle plan. With only one year left until the PlayStation®3's 10th year anniversary, Dark Sniper would like to say job well done.

PlayStation®3 completed the first three-peat of console generation victories. With the ass whooping that Sony is giving Microsoft and Nintendo this generation, it looks as if Sony will continue to break their own records once again.

Sony PlayStation, more powerful than God.

$niper

morganfell872d ago

No moldy, just no.

Oh the Xbox released years and years ahead of the PS3 when people were still writing in the dirt with a stick. "Hey Bobby, you can go back to school now because we've deiscovered paper!"

Just stop.

Sony forced to redesin the PS3? Ahahahahaha. Is that why they redesigned the PS1? Is that why they redesigned the PS2? Ahahahaha you never think before you post.

Everyone saw HDMI coming and MS made public statements about how it wasn't necessary...which they then recanted.

Sony forced MS to redesign the Xbox 360. HDMI, Wifi.

And the ulitmate move -Bluray in the X1

Flawless victory.

Do you realize from the day the PS3 launched it began to gain ground on the 360? Unlike the current situation with the PS4 and the X1 where the gap keeps growing, it began to close from day 1. Look at the yearly figures. It closed every year. Not always by much but it closed.

Moral of the story? Facts matter. Stop making up crap that has more holes than a truckload of swiss cheese. The next thing we know you will come up with some analogy about buying a car that will leave you in flames.

One_Eyed_Wizard872d ago (Edited 872d ago )

I bought it in its second year before the price was cut (like two weeks before) and I never once regretted it. Not even 4 years later when it died.

So yes. 599$ well spent.

I'll agree with you that, looking back, they made a lot of bad calls at Sony but that's only because they didn't have their ways.

Edit: Meanwhile, my 360 didn't last one year even though I barely used it at all.

b1nary_B0SS872d ago (Edited 872d ago )

Continued...

11/14/2013 - Shuhei Yoshida: http://www.gamesindustry.bi...
There are a lot of hidden powers in our system. You may be familiar with GPGPU and PS4 has a lot more GPGPU processing in it, which is difficult to learn and master, similar to a Cell processor.

3/30/2013 - Part 2 - Mark Cerny: http://www.neogaf.com/forum...
The GPGPU for us is a feature that is of utmost importance… We’re trying to replicate the SPU Runtime System (SPURS) of the PS3 by heavily customizing the cache and bus.

4/24/2013 - Mark Cerny: http://www.gamasutra.com/vi...
Next, to support the case where you want to use the GPU L2 cache simultaneously for both graphics processing and asynchronous compute, we have added a bit in the tags of the cache lines, we call it the 'volatile' bit… For PS4, we’ve worked with AMD to increase the limit to 64 sources of compute commands -- the idea is if you have some asynchronous compute you want to perform… alongside the graphics that's in the system… This concept grew out of the software Sony created, called SPURS, to help programmers juggle tasks on the CELL's SPUs -- but on the PS4, it's being accomplished in hardware.

4/27/2007 – EETimes: http://www.eetimes.com/docu...
Kutaragi said he previously turned over to Sony’s PS3 design team his vision for reducing costs along with design models extending about two years into the future.

7/31/2009 – Nobuyuki Oneda: http://www.gamesindustry.bi...
The cost reduction since we introduced the PS3 is very substantial and this is on schedule… We don’t disclose how much of the PS3, specifically the cost deduction was achieved during the past two years. But that is on schedule… About 70%, roughly speaking.

b1nary_B0SS872d ago (Edited 872d ago )

comment deleted

b1nary_B0SS872d ago (Edited 872d ago )

Continued...

2/5/2010 - http://www.cnet.com/news/so...
According to The Wall Street Journal, which examined Sony's fiscal third-quarter financial performance, the company loses 6 cents on "every dollar of PS3 hardware sales." Considering the PlayStation 3 current retails for $300, we can safely assume then, that the company loses about $18 per unit.

$1060.00 X .70 = $742.00
$1060.00 – $742.00 = $318.00
$318.00 – $299.99 = $18.01
Launch PS3 cost of production: $1060.00 USD
Revised PS3 cost of production: $318.00 USD
120 GB model CECH-2101A retail price: $299.99 USD
Loss: ~$18.01

2/5/2010 - wsj: http://www.wsj.com/articles...
Mr. Oneda said Sony expects to lower production costs of its PlayStation 3 videogame console by 15% in the fiscal year ending March 2011, resulting in a benefit of “tens of billions” of yen.

6/28/2010 - Shuhei Yoshida: http://www.ign.com/articles...
This year is the first time that we are able to cover the cost of the PlayStation 3… We aren’t making huge money from hardware, but we aren’t bleeding like we used to.

$318.00 X .15 = $47.70
$318.00 – $47.70 = $270.30
$299.99 – $270.30 = $29.69
Revised PS3 cost of production: $270.30 USD
160 GB model CECH-30xxA retail price: $299.99 USD
Profit: ~ $29.69

_-EDMIX-_872d ago

@B1nary- bubbles for you intelligence.

"Kutaragi’s PS3 was what it was, so that PS4 could be what it is"

Agreed and agreed.

Aloren872d ago

@_-EDMIX-_ "Nope. It was a good call. It was a risky, but worthy investment in the companies and gaming's future.
Its like saying putting CD in PS1 was a bad idea because of the cost, soooooo to save cost lets just not have CD in PS1 and not have FFVII and many of the games that were ONLY possible with more space? "

That's completely different. First of all, PS1 didn't come out at 500 and 600 bucks, it also wasn't the only console bringing CDs to the table.The 3DO, the Amiga Cd32, The saturn, and PCs had CD drives. The tech was already "old".

Same goes with the DVD on the PS2. it was nice, but it was also on xbox, and it was also not 500 bucks.

"Yet that is why PS4 is exactly doing well right now, its due to that price and that price is only because PS3 helped get the price down for Bluray to begin with. "

No it's not. The PS4 is doing great because of excellent communication from sony, not because they but a BD in the PS3... Bluray has been cheap for years now. PS3 helped to get the price down in the 1st 2 years, but it would have come down eventually long before the PS4 came out, just like every other tech. You really think they'd need 8 years to make it "affordable" if they managed to sell them for 500 back then ?

"Its because they couldn't, many developers spoke against MS's dated format with DVD, from Kojima, to Dan and Sam Houser, even stating they wouldn't make another GTA on MS platform UNLESS they fixed their space situation (which MS actually did allowing GTAV to be installed and with 2 disk)"

That's precisely my point. Maybe they spoke about it, or cried about it, but that's irrelevent. At the end of the day, xbox had a 50% market share because of the headstart and cheaper price (core 360 came out at 299 a year before PS3s) and consequently 90% of the games were multiplat and didn't take advantage of the BD.

In the end, it cost sony a shitload of money for almost no reason except maybe help kickstar the BD format a bit earlier. But that's great for their TV business, not their video game business.
Once again, if they had used a DVD drive, the console would have been much cheaper, they'd make money on every single console sold, and their market share would have been much higher.

So yeah, we got games like MGS4 and some other great exclusives thanks to Bluray, and that's awesome from a gamer point of view, and I'm glad I got my first BD drive on a PS3 and the great games that came with it, but it still wasn't a good call for thei VG business imo. Maybe there wouldn't even be a XboxOne today if PS3 had used a DVD...

Dasteru872d ago (Edited 872d ago )

Yeah, horrible decision to price it $200 below manufacturing cost. They could have released a cheaper system but it would have been half as powerful and wouldn't have had a blu-ray drive.

The cheapest standalone blu-ray player at the time was $1200 and it wasn't as good as the one in the PS3.

@Aloren:

Cutting out the Blu-ray drive wouldn't have reduced the cost to $400. They would have needed to cut the Cell CPU also.

Bobby Kotex872d ago

It's so ridiculous how you're downvoted by speaking the truth. The PS fanboyism here amazes me.

moldybread872d ago (Edited 872d ago )

morganfell,
"Oh the Xbox released years and years ahead of the PS3 when people were still writing in the dirt with a stick."

sony is an electronics company more than a game company. hdmi did not really become commercially viable until 2006 when the ps3 came out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

"According to In-Stat, the number of HDMI devices sold was 5 million in 2004, 17.4 million in 2005, 63 million in 2006, and 143 million in 2007."

why did you conveniently ignore how the ps2 was behind the xbox in terms of advancements? why did you conveniently leave out how the ps3 was $200 more in price?

"Sony forced to redesin the PS3? Ahahahahaha. Is that why they redesigned the PS1? "

the ps1 took out super audio cd support? the ps1 took out backwards compatibility to cut cost? interesting how you refute things without actually refuting anything.

"Everyone saw HDMI coming and MS made public statements about how it wasn't necessary...which they then recanted."

it's called cutting costs down at the time of release. that's why they never built in hd dvd support either. the same theory explains why sony never thought broadband support was important on the ps2 right? or a 4 way controller port add-on right? or a hard drive right?

"Sony forced MS to redesign the Xbox 360. HDMI, Wifi."

yes they did, no argument there. they were able to redesign the system while still supporting 720p playback with component support on older units too. sony also had a ps3 that did not have wi-fi. did you not know the original ps3 20gb model didn't have wi-fi? i'm sorry, i guess you're not used to arguing with people who actually know what they are talking about.

"And the ulitmate move -Bluray in the X1
Flawless victory."

it became the standard format, and? their number one goal was to make sure bluray became the next format and they used the playstation brand to help push bluray into homes even if it meant gamers were going to be put off by the huge price tag. they even sold units below costs which in the end erased previous profits from the ps2 era. quite a large price to pay but in the end it paid off but sony is no longer the same company they once were financially. sony also failed to convert people to betamax and umd, so? once again you fail to put things into context, costs at the time the ps3 came out and how bluray added a lot to those costs. of course microsoft did not want to wager on hd dvd and bluray. how much do you think the xbox 360 would have cost in 2005 a year before the ps3 with a built in bluray? nintendo didn't use it either.

"Do you realize from the day the PS3 launched it began to gain ground on the 360? Unlike the current situation with the PS4 and the X1 where the gap keeps growing, it began to close from day 1. Look at the yearly figures. It closed every year. Not always by much but it closed."

not every year and not in the first year either, get your facts please. it wasn't until sony introduced the 40gb model without backwards compatibility for $400 that got them going. you see, they had to redesign the hardware in order to achieve a cheaper unit to compete with the xbox 360.

Nitrowolf2872d ago

sorry, but who made you in charge of dictating whether something was worth the price to someone else or not?

I know I feel the same as Rimeskeen. Cheapest Bluray on the market at the time, great games, PS2 backwards capatibility. And this consoles lasted me till the very end of this gen, I say it paid for itself

morganfell872d ago

Your comments are rife with errors saltybread.

First you think revisions that may remove features to produce a less expensive console is somehow a sign of deseration on the part of the manufacurer. Wrong. One does not indicate the other. There are instances where this may be tru but it is not a hard and fast rule.

And you completely changed the subject since you could not back up a reason for design changes when the hardware manufacturer is the sales leader. The PS2 was the lord of the realm and Sony still revised it. How is that desperation on Sony's part? See, you fail again.

As regards HDMI, this is what MS misunderstood. And you do to this day. Sony was able to read the tea leaves and MS was not.

Looking at current figures when making design choices for a future proof electronic device is not only suicidal but it is idiocy. It is also a disservice to your customers. S

Sony future proofed their console and MS did not but here you are trying to defend a company that unnecessarily forced customers that wanted HDMI to have to rebuy. Sounds more like a hardware manufacturer out for themselves. The same with that proprietary HDD.

Cost cutting at the time of release for MS by leaving out an industry standard device needed for the future, but not cost cutting for the customer that didn't get a future built console.

Shame.

As I said, I paid $599. That was it. People that wanted HDMI on their console didn't. People that wanted multiplayer for the life of their console didn't.

Flawless victory.

Bluray became the standard format. Yes it did it most certainly did. Thanks for reinforcing one of my points about Sony making better long range choices.

Flawless victory.

You have managed to show your initial arguments erred and mostly without my assistance.

Flawless victory.

Knushwood Butt872d ago

Someone mentioned Warhawk.

I noticed someone on my friends list playing that last night.

Are the servers still up?

moldybread872d ago

@morganfell,

"First you think revisions that may remove features to produce a less expensive console is somehow a sign of deseration on the part of the manufacurer."

no i didn't. i simply provided you with the information needed to show how sony was able to make the ps3 more successful, you argued sony was not forced to redesign the hardware. stop moving ther goal posts.

"One does not indicate the other. There are instances where this may be tru but it is not a hard and fast rule."

in this case it is, no need to get upset just because you were not correct in your summary.

"And you completely changed the subject since you could not back up a reason for design changes when the hardware manufacturer is the sales leader. The PS2 was the lord of the realm and Sony still revised it. How is that desperation on Sony's part? See, you fail again."

once again you think by putting words in my mouth somehow corrects your errors. i never said the ps2 was a mistake, far from it. i put things into context, something you don't seem to want to do. the ps2 was missing features from the later released xbox and you somehow want to suggest the xbox 360 should have added features that the ps3 had when it too launched later only this time was much more expensive in relation to the two comparisons. your summary was incorrect, next.

"As regards HDMI, this is what MS misunderstood. And you do to this day. Sony was able to read the tea leaves and MS was not."

and microsoft was able to see the advancements in broadband, sony was not with the ps2. same with hard drives. so why do you insist on painting one as worse than the other aside from your displeasure of microsoft. this is why you fail time and again at rebuttals because you are way too biased to have reasonable debates with. you are more interested in painting the xbox as bad than getting your facts straight.

"Looking at current figures when making design choices for a future proof electronic device is not only suicidal but it is idiocy. It is also a disservice to your customers."

what does that have to do with what we are discussing? moving the goal posts again?

con't below

moldybread872d ago

con't,

@morganfell"Sony future proofed their console and MS did not but here you are trying to defend a company that unnecessarily forced customers that wanted HDMI to have to rebuy. Sounds more like a hardware manufacturer out for themselves. The same with that proprietary HDD."

and once again you fail to give the same summary to that of the ps2 compared to the xbox because it was so popular. try not to move the argument around just to suit you, ok?

"Cost cutting at the time of release for MS by leaving out an industry standard device needed for the future, but not cost cutting for the customer that didn't get a future built console."

hdmi was not industry standard in 2005. is any of this ever going to get through to you?

"As I said, I paid $599. That was it. People that wanted HDMI on their console didn't. People that wanted multiplayer for the life of their console didn't."

you did not need hdmi to get 720p playback. the xbox 360 also did not have bluray so what was the dire need for hdmi back in 2005?

"Flawless victory."

sony stocks prior to 2006 to that of today do not support your claims. bluray getting into homes was indeed a victory but what you ignored was the cost to get there.

once again i will add how competition is good for the industry. it forced sony to create the ps4 in such a way that it is, easy to work with, scaled to be profitable early on and affordable. it also forced sony to redesign the ps3 and get the price down very quickly. competition also forced microsoft to rethink the launch of the xbox one, remove kinect from being standard and lowering the costs.

i'm sorry but your views are way too one-sided to be taken seriously.

dkp23872d ago

It wasn't worth it because they cut the prize 6 month later.

Raf1k1872d ago

Blu-ray wouldn't have become the standard high def format if not for the PS3.

The console was half the price of standalone blu-ray players upon it's release and even cost less than Sony paid to produce it.

It paid off for them pretty well. Not a horrible decision in any way for either Sony or those that coughed up the money for it.

rainslacker871d ago

$599 was fine for me. Spent it on launch day, and last played it just yesterday and expect quite a bit more time out of it. It amounts to about $60 a year so far, so it works out since I didn't have to pay a yearly sub for online.

morganfell871d ago (Edited 871d ago )

No one is putting words in your mouth. You said MS forced Sony to redesign the PS3. I gave you two cases where Sony redesigned previous consoles and it had nothing to do with being under pressure.

You then admit it was MS that had to redesign their console - and not just because of RROD either - but because of Sony. You can't have it both ways and you fail miserably in this act where you insist on following me around N4G.

You do think a console is redesigned because of pressure. What else would you call it? (If you backpeddle any faster you are going to fall worse than you already have.)

You said the PS3 redesign was because the 360 was doing so well. What would you call that if not pressure. And in that remark you ignore the PS3 was doing better, outselling the 360 worldwide. You are one of those people that thinks there is only one country.

I keep laying out examples of Sony's history of redesigned models and you keep wanting to ignore it.

BTW, Sony had a broadband adapter for the PS2. You should also be aware that SOCOM 2, which required the BB adapter, had more people online than all the people on Xbox Live combined. Even with the BB adapter the PS2 + BB Adapter was cheaper than the Xbox and 5 years of Live. Hurts I know, but facts are stubborn things. I would say Sony did it right. They also completely buried the Xbox in sales.

You put things into context? No you try to remove them from the factual situation so you can see them in the light you want. Future proofing has everthing to do with being the cheaper console. It means you do not have to rebuy as soon. And the PS3 as a future proofed device was cheaper. Did you even look at the headline of the article or did you just follow me here again and start typing?

HDMI became a standard in 2003. Tough pal. Sony was right and MS was late. Next.

Stocks have nothing to do with this. Stick to the discussion. The Xbox 360 and 7 years of Live - Multiplayer, the big 360 draw, HALO and all, was more expensive than a launch PS3. There are plenty of other cost additives to the 360 and nothing you say can refute those facts. Squirm jump, and scream, but only short sighted people with zero long range views think otherwise. I am not debating if you enjoyed the 360. I am staying on subject and stating the undeniable truth that if you wanted a full experience for the life of the console it was far more expensive than a PS3.

@Raf1k1,

The PS3 was also one of the best Bluray players on the market for quite some time. It was used by a lot of companies and sites to test movies and other player's quality.

ChrisW871d ago

If the console were under any other name, it would have failed. Sony banked on that and it obviously paid off.

moldybread871d ago

@morganfell,
"No one is putting words in your mouth. You said MS forced Sony to redesign the PS3. I gave you two cases where Sony redesigned previous consoles and it had nothing to do with being under pressure."

the price of the ps3 dropped faster than the xbox and gamecube, that is called being under pressure to remain competitive. in order to do so they had to remove key features like backwards compatibility and cut other things like super audio cd support. your examples of previous redesigns are more to do with making the system more efficient with slim models, not remove features to have a competitive price. do you not know the difference? the ps3 was not selling as well like the ps1 and ps2 did and the high price point is a reflection of that. it wasn't until sony got the system down to $399 is when sales started to compete against the xbox 360. in order to get that price point they had to remove backwards compatibility and other features. why is it so hard to grasp that?

"You then admit it was MS that had to redesign their console - and not just because of RROD either - but because of Sony. You can't have it both ways"

of course you can have it both ways, it's called trying to remain competitive.

"and you fail miserably in this act where you insist on following me around N4G."

i posted in this topic before you, not sure what your point is other than to try and deflect and go off-topic.

"You said the PS3 redesign was because the 360 was doing so well. What would you call that if not pressure. And in that remark you ignore the PS3 was doing better, outselling the 360 worldwide. You are one of those people that thinks there is only one country."

the redesigned model that got the system under $400 is when it started doing better. one day you will understand but for now you're too absorbed in trying to make the ps3 seem infallible even when sony themselves admitted the ps3 had design mistakes and cost overload.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/new...

"I keep laying out examples of Sony's history of redesigned models and you keep wanting to ignore it."

and you keep ignoring how it's not the same thing. the ps3 had to remove key features and the price had to come down quickly to gain back marketshare.

"BTW, Sony had a broadband adapter for the PS2. You should also be aware that SOCOM 2, which required the BB adapter, had more people online than all the people on Xbox Live combined. Even with the BB adapter the PS2 + BB Adapter was cheaper than the Xbox and 5 years of Live. Hurts I know, but facts are stubborn things. I would say Sony did it right. They also completely buried the Xbox in sales."

you still insist on excusing the ps2 for its lack of features that ended up costing the consumer more than it would by buying an xbox and then want to instead only focus on the xbox 360 missing features that the ps3 had. then you try and validate it because it sold better. keep moving those goal posts. didn't you just say you can't have it both ways?

moldybread871d ago

con't,

"You put things into context? No you try to remove them from the factual situation so you can see them in the light you want. Future proofing has everthing to do with being the cheaper console. It means you do not have to rebuy as soon. And the PS3 as a future proofed device was cheaper."

cheaper for who? i never had to buy a wi-fi adapter because mine was hard wired. why did everyone have to upgrade to have hdmi? you have no answer for that either. the only added costs are for xbox live and that is a whole other debate.

"Did you even look at the headline of the article or did you just follow me here again and start typing?"

you're right, i followed you here by posting before you got here because i knew you would post. makes a lot of sense. quit going off-topic because you having nothing further to add.

"HDMI became a standard in 2003. Tough pal. Sony was right and MS was late. Next."

prove it. hdmi was not standard on televisions in 2003. you provide nothing once again to back up your claims.

"Stocks have nothing to do with this. Stick to the discussion."

then why mention ps2 sales to justify added costs to the consumer for features found on the xbox? moving those goal posts i see.

"The Xbox 360 and 7 years of Live - Multiplayer, the big 360 draw, HALO and all, was more expensive than a launch PS3."

yes, xbox live does have fees. nowhere did i deny that. the thing is not everyone used it just like how not everyone needed wi-fi and not everyone needed hdmi. ironically not everyone needed the ps3 to play ps2 games either. so instead of adding these features like microsoft did on the xbox 360, sony decided to take them away and not offer them once the stock dried up.

"The PS3 was also one of the best Bluray players on the market for quite some time. It was used by a lot of companies and sites to test movies and other player's quality."

but not everyone wanted a bluray player for movies, they just wanted a game console. sony could not remove bluray to drive prices down so instead they removed other things. i feel like i'm repeating myself because you still don't get it.

WelkinCole871d ago

@moldybread

The PS3 was outselling the X360 from the get go. It is why in the end Sony sold more PS3.

Sony strategy with the PS has been the same from the start. They actually don't really look at competition and instead set their own plan and march to their own drum. It worked for them in the PS1 and PS2. They tried it again with the PS3 but it didn't come off as well as they hoped hence the tweak in their approach this gen.

Sony always have their own plan and they execute them regardless of competition.

The reason why MS didn't have HDIM and standard hard drive and other features in the x360 was because they wanted to be first to market and be cheaper. They learned from the previous gen that being late is suicide and advance features like standard HD really didn't matter. Their strategy paid off somewhat last gen.

andibandit871d ago (Edited 871d ago )

@BinaryBoss

"What you, and the large majority of others that constantly harp on PS3’s price at launch fail to gather when strolling down memory lane, is that PS3’s cost of production was ~$1060.00. The asking price of $499.99 or $599.99 for a console with the world’s first C/GPU and APU, Blu-ray drive and all of the other features fore mentioned was fair;"

Noone's failing to gather that...but theres an upper limit of what people are willing to spend on what is primarily a console.
If NASA were to sell off rockets at 1/10 the price, I still doubt people would rush out and pay millions of $, even tho it's a good deal....

UKmilitia871d ago

the thing is sony was pushing new tech,MS wasnt.
if it was down to MS we would still be using cds over 12 discs

RumbleFish871d ago

"Sony literally struggled with the PlayStation 3 for the first few years with some terrible PR decisions and lack of quality games."

This is simply not true.

Benchm4rk871d ago

@DarkSniper

"PlayStation®3 completed the first three-peat of console generation victories"

Hate to break it to you but Nintendo won last gen.

Last_Boss871d ago

If people are taking about how expensive the PS3 was, just point them towards the NEO-GEO's way. It was in a war with 3 other systems as well.

FIN

Khajiit86871d ago

PS3 had BluRay.. Please check the prices at the time PS3 was released for Blu Ray players....... PS3 was a steal.

moldybread871d ago

@WelkinCole
"The PS3 was outselling the X360 from the get go. It is why in the end Sony sold more PS3."

in 2008 the xbox 360 outsold the ps3 by a small margin but you are correct aside from that year and 2006 as well which the ps3 was only available for a few months.

"Sony strategy with the PS has been the same from the start. They actually don't really look at competition and instead set their own plan and march to their own drum. It worked for them in the PS1 and PS2. They tried it again with the PS3 but it didn't come off as well as they hoped hence the tweak in their approach this gen. Sony always have their own plan and they execute them regardless of competition."

that is not true in the case of the ps4. sony dropped the whole proprietary thing and finally got onboard to make hardware everyone can easily create games on in a language they understand. xbox live also pushed sony to vastly improve it's own network and the ps4 now charges fees like xbox live does.

"The reason why MS didn't have HDIM and standard hard drive and other features in the x360 was because they wanted to be first to market and be cheaper. They learned from the previous gen that being late is suicide and advance features like standard HD really didn't matter. Their strategy paid off somewhat last gen."

correct aside from your hd comment. microsoft decided to offer two variants in hardware as did sony with the ps3. the xbox 360 could output 720p gaming which is classified as hd. most games on both the ps3 and xbox 360 were in this resolution. microsoft was able to offer systems with built in hdmi and vga support that could output at 1080p and also adapters for older units but very few games were in 1080p. hence why it wasn't really a necessity. even this generation not all games are in 1080p on the ps4 and xbox one and wii u. the wii came out the same year as the ps3 and it never did offer hdmi output.

morganfell871d ago (Edited 871d ago )

Burn those last two bubbles in a wall of text I didn't read. Here is it is in a nutshell.

PS3 full experience $599

360 full experience $399 + 7 years of Xbox Live.

The truth is simple. If you really wanted to game the 360 cost far more.

You can toss in trade ins for HDMI, Wifi, proprietary play and charge cable, HDD if you like. Go ahead and deny it.

Shortsighted people buying on price alone were had. You can call them victims of marketing if it makes you feel better. They wanted it cheap now but in the long run they paid far more. You can say some people didn't want the Bluray player. That is a moot point. This article is about the PS3 price and MS laughing. They should have been laughing at people that can't add. And you insist on defending them.

I spent $599 one time and had the full experience. As a 360 supporter you cannot say that. Tough, but those are facts.

zeee871d ago

I hate this website. Way too many ads and not even mobile friendly. I mean come on. Responsive sites are a must now.

moldybread871d ago

@morganfell,
"The truth is simple. If you really wanted to game the 360 cost far more."

yes if you include xbox live but the reality is less than 50% of xbox 360 owners had xbox live gold. you tailored the argument to suit yourself.

"You can toss in trade ins for HDMI, Wifi, proprietary play and charge cable, HDD if you like. Go ahead and deny it."

all those things cost money, no denying that. the trouble is once again you are tailoring the conversation to suit your own needs since not everyone bought those accessories or needed them.

"Shortsighted people buying on price alone were had. You can call them victims of marketing if it makes you feel better. They wanted it cheap now but in the long run they paid far more. You can say some people didn't want the Bluray player. That is a moot point."

how is it a moot point when sony lost major marketshare because of it? they dominted the ps1 and ps2 ers, the ps3 stumbled but you want to defend them and then accuse me of defending microsoft just because i put things into context and how your summary does not reflect all xbox 360 owners and their needs and expenses. you constantly want to pad things because you've made it personal out of spite for your distaste for microsoft. your views are lopsided and you know it.

"This article is about the PS3 price and MS laughing. They should have been laughing at people that can't add. And you insist on defending them."

yes they were laughing. they managed to put a dent in sony's armor and made the xbox 360 the preferred platform for developers and forced sony's hand to quickly lower the price of the ps3 while sony bled money for many years. if you call defending the xbox 360 by putting things into context and how the extras were not a necessity for all xbox 360 owners then so be it. that's your views and yours do not speak on behalf of everyone.

"I spent $599 one time and had the full experience. As a 360 supporter you cannot say that. Tough, but those are facts."

why not when i enjoyed both my ps3 and xbox 360? you seem bent out of shape over the popularity of the xbox 360 and the troubles sony faced with the ps3. not once did i say the xbox 360 was a better system. the difference is i am not on a smear campaign like you, who then accuses others of defending something when that is exactly what you've been doing all along.

morganfell871d ago (Edited 871d ago )

Once again it is up to me to keep the discussion on track. I let you pull me off once. It will never happen again. The article is about Peter Moore and the execs at Xbox laughing. The title shopuld have read:

Peter Moore Recalls Sony Announcing PS3 Price Point of $599: We Were All Yucking It Up Backstage Because We Knew We would Be Getting More From 360 Owners Than $599 And They WOuld Not Realize It Until It WQas Too Late

The full experience on the 360 cost more. Those that didn't have Live were in the far far minority vocally. All we heard from 360 owners was about Xbox Live. Thats what mattered. HALO Multiplayer, Gears Multiplayer, 360 COD MP timed exclusivity.

The reality is to get the vision that vocal 360 owners claimed was what mattered you had to pay a great deal more than that $599. If someone can't acknowledge that then they were played. It is that simple.

You can kick, you can scream, you can squirm like you are now but you can't change the facts one iota. Not one. Put out a console and say it's the very best and then announce there is no Multiplayer available. You couldn't do it this gen and you couldn't so it last gen but that is what you aree saying mattered more - a 360 with no MP. You are wrong. Just wrong.

MS managed to put a dent in Sony's armor and look what happened. First of all dent or not they dumped billions into a game they haven't made a profit on yet and they still lost. Second, they abandoned gamers for the casual crowd last generation. Third they tried in one day to rob gamers of more rights than any company in history. They even said they were building an entertainment machine not a gaming machine. They deserted gamers again. They still lost and have lost every generation. Now its over because Xbox is over as we know it will disappear. It will be a service with licensed PCs like Steam Machines.

Go ahead and be proud of that dent. It's like poking the bear and then laughing right before the bear wakes up. Now the bear is having his way as the gap between the two new systems gets wider every single hour of every single day.

I am not sure who was being fooled the most. The Xbox execs laughing or the people that thought the full console experience on the 360 was cheaper. It's a race to see who was getting fooled the most. Of course your comments show you might be in the lead.

WelkinCole871d ago

@moldybread. Yes they abandon that when let go of ken.

What I am referring to is their strategy for the console generation.

They plan things from the start to then end and they keep to their plan regardless of competition.

They always plan for a 10 year cycle which within they plan specific targets and milestones they want to reach regardless of comp.

It is how they managed to get 100 million back to back with the PS1 and PS2 and eventually the PS3 will be close to in the end.

The only reason why they have not been able to reach 100 million sofar with the PS3 is because they didn't anticipate how much the Wii would disrupt the market. Again, they didn't focused on competition.

Same way they planned to launched the PS3 and PS4 when they are ready even though MS launched the X360 first as well Nin with the Wii U. They don't react to competition. They have their own plan for the console generation and they stick to it.

+ Show (53) more repliesLast reply 871d ago
joab777872d ago

And actually, when all said and done, I spent way more on my 360, even though I bought it 2 yrs later. Had to buy 3 of them, pay for Gold, pay for a bigger hard drive, pay for a transfer cable, pay for wireless, and still had no blue ray.

The initial price point for the 360 was very deceiving.

Loktai872d ago

Def true.... 499/599, free online, easier hard drive upgrade options, bluray player, Wifi, HDMI and bluetooth.

Does nobody remember the initial XBOX 360 wired controllers, lack of Wifi, lack of blutooth, shitty HD-DVD addon they ripped people off with later and so on? 499/599 was a great pricepoint considering what you got... now XBone aficionados are touting backward compatibility of a couple dozen games as some kin dof game changer... PS3 Had backward compatibiltiy with the ps1 and ps2 full library and at that time it was brushed off.

Aloren872d ago

@Loktai The same can be said today when you compare an 800 bucks pc to a 400 bucks console.
People just like to buy what's cheaper most of the time, and not what's gonna be cheaper after 2 years.

ChrisW871d ago

Aloren,

By the mere mention of "PC," your logic instantly means nothing to console fans... Regardless of how favorable your comment actually is towards PS3.

iceman06871d ago

I know I'm late to the party, but I can recall a simple graphic comparison that a Sony rep. at GameStop was mounting to the checkout desk where it simply outlined the benefits of the $600 console. By the time you matched the functionality of the PS3 with the 360, you were upwards of $800. (I think that included external HD movie drive on Xbox 360) Either way, it was a compelling argument for spending the money. In the end, MS offered their gaming experience A la carte. Whereas, Sony just included everything into the package.
The only thing that kept Sony from out and out domination from day one wasn't price as much as MS beating them to launch and people not wanting to jump ship after being entrenched in the Xbox Live ecosystem for the better part of a year.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 871d ago
Bathyj872d ago (Edited 872d ago )

It was AU$1000 in Australia but I never regretted it. Had my Phat PS3 all the way up until The Last of Us came out which proved to be too much for the olds girl.

In the end it wasn't the price the X360 owed it's success to as PS3 outsold it every year it was on the market, it always sold at a quicker pace. Xbox enjoyed the market lead and got to dictated terms to publishers because they rushed an untested product out just to be first. It was probably the most faulty piece of electronics in history and if it had been in an industry like automotive or almost and other field it would have been a total recall.

It still didn't really make much money for MS but they got their foot in the door of the industry in a big way and insured MS would have a 3rd console.

Incidentally, $1000 is the same price I saw my very first DVD player for, and that was years earlier. New technology cost money. And I remember all the FUD being spread that bluray wasn't needed. I wonder what those people would say about that now given that it's the undisputed standard and a lot of this that is because of the wide adoption of the PS3. Had they not, would DVD still be the standard? Yuck. That's like rubbing Vaseline in your eyes.

sprinterboy872d ago

@rime

Well said, I bought my first home 1 week before ps3 release and bought a LG 32" Hdtv, got it home to realise I had no way to watch hd content as skytv was 1 yr away from broadcasting hd content plus no streaming sites then.

I bought a ps3 1 week later (£425) and watched in amazement casino royal (bluray) plus had a blast with rfom, motorstorm and drunken party's with friends with the duck game lol. One of my best purchases ever

Knushwood Butt872d ago

My kids still play the duck game.

OCEANGROWNKUSH872d ago (Edited 872d ago )

Microsoft just nickel and dimed their customers instead. The base 360 came with nothing and required proprietary peripherals to even match up with what Sony already had in the box.

Wanted a wireless controller? $50. Want to charge that controller? $20. Wanted wifi? Adapter was $99. Wanted a hard drive? another $99. Want hi definition disc playback? that'll be $150. HDMI converter? $90. True HDMI? Buy another console.

What started out as a $299 console quickly becomes an $800 console if you wanted all the features of the PS3... not to mention on top of all the cutting edge tech included in the box, the PS3 essentially had a hardware ps2 inside enabling TRUE backwards compatibility.

The original PS3 is the greatest console ever made, and at $599 it was a steal. Literally.

deadpoolio316872d ago

Some of those prices are the later prices in the 360s life...The Wifi adapter originally started out at $169, The hard drive was like $170 for the 60gb and $140 for the 20gb...

The 360 literally had the WORST rechargeable battery packs, those damn things weren't made to last more than like 2 months max before you had to constantly keep it plugged in or the battery lasted 30 minutes IF you were lucky. The plug and play kit was like $60 when it first came out also

And don't forget the $60 wireless headset that was pretty cheaply made and broke pretty easily unless you wanted to buy the $30 junk wired headset