Poll: PS3 Release Sony Mistake Repeated

[Yopaz]

This is true. The PS4 will likely be obsolete compared to a PC before it's released.

Oh Jesus, another decade of PC gamers whining that consoles are holding them back, despite most people not wanting to sink the money into the hardware.

Yeah, you have judged me correctly there. I am an obnoxious PC elitist who hates consoles with a fiery passion. I'll let you in on a secret here. I have a gaming PC, a Wii, a PS3 an Xbox 360 and a Wii U. Thank you for judging me on insufficient information. That is what I have come to expect from your posts so I'm glad you're not out of character on this one either.

 

[ProtoChimp]

I remember the gameoverthinker (moviebob) made a video saying this exact thing. Basically all the success Sony has had so far in the console race since the PS1 has been luck and because of other game copmanies jumping ship to piss off Nintendo. Sony has learned nothing and refuse to learn, its a company that enjoys ignorance.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Sony's mistake wasnt just that they released 1 year later than Microsoft, They also came out at $600. I highly doubt they are going to go that route this time. Even if they do wait 1 year after Microsoft again, I highly doubt they are going to come out at a prohibitively expensive price again.

I think the price had a lot more to do with the slow adoption than the 1 year headstart of the 360.

yepp this, everyone and their grandma did not like that pricetag, especially with the weak game library it had at first (not saying xbox was better, but when it has huge hitters like halo 3 out and whatnot, that made quite the difference.)

Biggest flop they had for the PS3 on release was:

Overpriced
Lack of Games
After First-Gen: no support for PS2.

The BIGGEST kick, Sony can do, is if they make the PS4 and leave out PS1, PS2 and PS3 games, you can guarantee there will be an onslaught and IMMENSE disappointment.

yup hit the nail on the head there.

 

[Vivi22]

From the previous generation I am fair surprised by this move seeing how much the PS3 suffered due to releasing a year later than the 360.
In my opinion this is by far the worst thing the can do and is pretty much akin to shooting themselves in the foot before the race even starts.

The PS3 didn't suffer for releasing a year later than the 360. It suffered from a much higher price tag and a shocking amount of stupidity and hubris on the part of Sony executives at the time. They thought they couldn't be touched after the PS2, acted like arrogant pricks, then got smacked down a bit early on for it. None of which had to do with releasing second. Something, which it's worth noting, they did with both the Playstation and Playstation 2. The difference is, with those two consoles they didn't release massively overpriced hardware, and made smart business moves to not only secure good exclusives, but to be the guys who were easiest to work with and who did the best job of predicting future market trends.

In other words, that thing Microsoft beat them at this time around. They had too high a price, unnecessary features, weren't the easy guys to work with anymore, were a generation behind at launch in terms of their online infrastructure even if it was free, and they laughed in consumers faces when they dared complain because they're Sony and who the hell are we to complain. Now since then, they have dramatically closed the gap in all of those areas in many ways, but for much of the consoles life they got to feel the way everyone else felt for the previous two console generations. Hopefully they learned something.

 

[fix-the-spade]

From the previous generation I am fair surprised by this move seeing how much the PS3 suffered due to releasing a year later than the 360.

That year meant very little.

What stumped the PS3 was that it cost six hundred dollars for the base unit.

$600, versus $350 for the top Xbox 360 of the time and $250 for the Wii (and Nintendo were making $50 profit on that price too).

Whilst various people claim many reasons for the PS3's relative failure, that is all you need to see right there, most people who buy consoles are only really interested FIFA, Madden and CoD, why would they pay $600 when $350 gets them the same releases?

 

[ilexuki]

if sony is smart, they won't let dumb gamers and media who have no business sense, pressure them into releasing a new console for at least another three years. they just started turning a profit on the ps3 and it would be dumb to render it obsolete as soon as it starts making money. the 360 has hit it's limit and is at the end of it's cycle so it make sense to release a new xbox, but i think the ps3 still has a lot of life in it, and still has unfulfilled potential.

if i was in charge of sony, i'd continue focusing on the ps3 and let microsoft go to war with nintendo's wiiu, while quietly having developers work on ps4 games so when i'm ready to release the ps4, i have a strong system selling line up.
i'd then wait til after nintendo and microsoft have dropped their big exclusive, and are exhausted to release the ps4.

 

[CriticalMiss]

Are people actually going to buy either console at launch? It's better to save your money and wait a year or so, then there will actually be some games for those systems, bugs will be ironed out and they will be cheaper. I avoided the whole red ring fiasco by not getting a 360 until around September the year after launch and used the cash I saved to buy a few games. I intend to do the same this time around, provided there will actually be any decent exclusives that would otherwise be unavailable on PC, PS3 or 360 anyway. I don't really think waiting a year to sell the PS4 will topple Sony, provided they don't enter the market as the most expensive with the least exclusive launch titles again.

 

[DeadlyYellow]

The BIGGEST kick, Sony can do, is if they make the PS4 and leave out PS1, PS2 and PS3 games, you can guarantee there will be an onslaught and IMMENSE disappointment.

Forgetting the "Classics" on PSN? Sony will still allow you to play PSX and PS2 games, you'll just need to pay again to have the authorized digital copy from a vastly more limited library.

Honestly I don't see any point in getting another console, especially if Big Picture really takes off. The most I see happening here is Activision uses the generation as an excuse to raise the standard price of the next CoD to $80 or $100, and the rest of the industry soon follows suit.

 

[thiosk]

Argh the billion dollar corporate console battle is so irrelevant!

/ ties steam headband on and smears intel warpaint on the ether regions

 

[Something Amyss]

Yeah, you have judged me correctly there. I am an obnoxious PC elitist who hates consoles with a fiery passion.

Since I named you personally, this tirade is totally accurate. I could not have, as the English language allows, have been speaking in a general sense about an existing trend. No, clearly, I aimed it at you and you alone.

I remember the gameoverthinker (moviebob) made a video saying this exact thing. Basically all the success Sony has had so far in the console race since the PS1 has been luck and because of other game copmanies jumping ship to piss off Nintendo. Sony has learned nothing and refuse to learn, its a company that enjoys ignorance.

Except Bob actually had points and logic, whereas this relies on the notion that what killed Sony was solely a later release date. Considering the console race is now tied between XBox and PlayStation for SECOND place and the current winner is the other console that released after the XBox, I think that can be thoroughly debunked.

Bob's history of Sony and consoles doesn't change the fact that a late launch could still be viable for Sony. Let's wait and see if they make any REAL errors.

And also forgetting that this was the very thing that brought the infamous hardware requirement nightmares in the earlier days of PC gaming to heel. Some PC'ers apparently want to go back to the days when they had to re-outfit their rig everytime a new AAA title came out. I had enough of the days of being told my _________ wasn't compatable, thank you.

That said, I'm still not at all enthused about the way the console scene's shaped up, and may have to go back to PC gaming, as detestable as the community has become and as hard a slam on my bank account as the initial investment is.

Bah, that can't be true, people who never even lived through the 90s era of PC gaming have told me so!

 

[sanquin]

So you're a PC gamer wanting... what? That a console would get released with a faster CPU than current available CPUS, faster GPU than current available GPUs?

I'm not a 'PC gamer'. I don't want to be associated with that group in topics about consoles and PC's...

Anyway, no I don't want them to have better than available. I want them to have better than a currently average gaming PC. I mean imagine how out-dated the hardware will be once the consoles actually come out. Consoles, up until the Xbox360 and PS3 have always been pretty high-end in terms of hardware. It was one thing console gamers could pride themselves on. That consoles pushed the boundary with a new generation coming out. Not any more it seems, as if PS4's specs leak is true, it won't be more powerful than a current average gaming PC.

 

[aaronobst]

I don't care who comes first in this race that the fanboys oh so love. I just want a decent console with some killer exclusives that'll stand the test of time.

So far thats exactly what the PS3 has been.

 

[wrightguy0]

I think both consoles made missteps, Sony priced themselves too high, and Microsft released too early without making sure the consoles worked properly, a good chunk of 360 sales figures were from people who had to buy a replacement console because theirs got the RRoD.

Sony crammed too much new tech into the PS3, it made it hard for them to turn a profit in the first years of the current gen.

 

[sethisjimmy]

I agree with most other people here in that the PS3's slow launch was not due to being last to release but largely due to the massive pricetag and few defining launch titles.

 

[Yopaz]

Yeah, you have judged me correctly there. I am an obnoxious PC elitist who hates consoles with a fiery passion.

Since I named you personally, this tirade is totally accurate. I could not have, as the English language allows, have been speaking in a general sense about an existing trend. No, clearly, I aimed it at you and you alone.

Yup, you twist and turn your words, you wont get pinned down despite the fact that you are quite clearly wrong. I am thrilled to see that I am able to predict the gist of what your next post will say. You can say that your post wasn't directed at me, but then why would you quote me? Just to annoy me? I would accept that explanation because it's quite accurate.

 

[TheBestPieEver]

The big problem with the PS3 was not the day of launch, but rather the incredibly high price of the machine. Plus, when they started the PS3 didn't have a very robust catalogue of games.

 

[Something Amyss]

Yup, you twist and turn your words, you wont get pinned down despite the fact that you are quite clearly wrong. I am thrilled to see that I am able to predict the gist of what your next post will say. You can say that your post wasn't directed at me, but then why would you quote me? Just to annoy me? I would accept that explanation because it's quite accurate.

No, because it was related to the statement you made. Odd, as it's a valid explanation, and yet you jump to accusations before considering it.

Oddly enough, the only person twisting my words here is you.

 

[Yopaz]

Yup, you twist and turn your words, you wont get pinned down despite the fact that you are quite clearly wrong. I am thrilled to see that I am able to predict the gist of what your next post will say. You can say that your post wasn't directed at me, but then why would you quote me? Just to annoy me? I would accept that explanation because it's quite accurate.

No, because it was related to the statement you made. Odd, as it's a valid explanation, and yet you jump to accusations before considering it.

Oddly enough, the only person twisting my words here is you.

I can't disagree with you there. You based your reply on my statement. I said that you based it on insufficient information.
Now in your last post you said this wasn't directed at me, but more of a general statement. Now it was directed at me? Am I misunderstanding here?

Also I asked you why you would quote my post if you didn't direct your accusation at me. Please answer this. I am thrilled to know the answer and you seem reluctant to answer it. I look forward to ignoring your next reply in two days when you have had the time to think about how you're going to twist this discussion so you feel like you come out on top.

Edit: Also you don't really need to reply to this post. I know it's futile and you probably know you're in the wrong even if you don't feel like admitting it.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

For me, the Xbox satisfied my console needs by the time the PS3 came out so I never felt the need to ever buy one (still haven't to this day). Plus the PS3 being ludicrously expensive for my family at the time played a huge factor, but having a good console already persuaded me to never bother buying a PS3.

The same happened in regards the original Xbox, I already had a PS2, so why bother buying another console that wasn't much of an improvement over the PS2. The titles didn't interest me much, we didn't have internet, and again it was very expensive.

Disclaimer: Exclusive titles don't bother me, to the point where I want a £200 block with it.

 

[Jfswift]

I think Sony's pricing was its biggest mistake with the PS3. The PS2 was a hell of a bargain and outsold everything else even though it was underpowered. Personally I think a strong launch title makes or breaks alot of these consoles.