If the PS3 fails...

[jadedeath]

Originally Posted by Maxpower1987

Seriously, you try and sell something for $399 when a competing product does most of the same stuff for $199!

I remember Toshiba saying something similar.

Logan

[mikejet]

I guess I would define failure as the point when the total money lost outweighs any profit that would be seen by continuing to remain in the videogame market.

Of course by that definition then MS failed already.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by jadedeath

I remember Toshiba saying something similar.

Actually, the main problem is that the PS/3 doesn't (currently) do those same things better.

BD definitely did. Better PQ. Immensely better AQ. It's the movie equivalent of as if the PS/3 was kicking ass on the vast majority of games.

Gary

[jadedeath]

Originally Posted by mikejet

I guess I would define failure as the point when the total money lost outweighs any profit that would be seen by continuing to remain in the videogame market.

Of course by that definition then MS failed already.

Not just failed.

Epic Failed.

Logan

[mikejet]

Originally Posted by jadedeath

Not just failed.

Epic Failed.

Logan

Yeah which is true by my definition. The thing is they have such highly profitable other lines that it's in their best interest to keep moving forward in gaming.

So I'm wondering when it wouldn't be in Sony's best interest to keep trying.

[toef]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

Actually, the main problem is that the PS/3 doesn't (currently) do those same things better.

BD definitely did. Better PQ. Immensely better AQ. It's the movie equivalent of as if the PS/3 was kicking ass on the vast majority of games.

Gary

Not to mention BD started to snatch up studios.

With MS buying their way into former PS3-exclusives, it makes it that much harder for the PS3 to compete.

I think both the BD/DVD and 360/PS3 analogies show that it's not necessarily what's "best" for a "good" price, but what's "good enough" for the "best" price.

[jadedeath]

Originally Posted by mikejet

Yeah which is true by my definition. The thing is they have such highly profitable other lines that it's in their best interest to keep moving forward in gaming.

So I'm wondering when it wouldn't be in Sony's best interest to keep trying.

Probably when they're not able to turn it around in the end and eventually make money.

This Gen looks like they'll at LEAST be able to break even with the gaming aspect of it.

The fact that they get royalties for every Blu-Ray sold is just a rather massive chunk of icing on the cake.

Logan

[Anthony P]

but that is IF blu ray can hang on, and get more popluar outside of its current audience, becasue if Blu ray dies , or does not catch on, then ps3 has problems

and if I bought every lottery available today in the world and won the jackpot for each of them I would be riche. It is much more likely then BD not catching on but I am not dumb enough to believe that if I bought all those tickets that I have a good chance of winning to make it worth my while

Im sure HDDVD thought the same thing, and then blu ray came out. we never know whats around the corner etc.,

There where BD recorders in Japan long before HD DVD came out, actually BD recorders in Japan and the BDA (Blu-ray founders at t6he time) working on the player specs that got Toshiba to slap together HD DVD. And no, no one (except for some gullible fan boys) thought that HD DVD had any chance. Which is why Toshiba and MS needed to bribe studios to support that format.

[Anthony P]

This is not an anti-PS3 thread. This is a serious question. If the PS3 were to fail would it be in Sony's best interest to still go forward with the PS4?

Other companies have come and gone in the gaming industry and some have come out of it stronger.

Atari - Jaguar(Currently a penny stock)
SNK - Neo Geo(Still makes software)
Panasonic - 3D0(Left gaming)
NEC - Turbografx(Left gaming)
Sega - Multiple systems before changing to software only(Stronger than before)

I think they will, some companies have come and gone and more will, but a failure or not does not mean much. SEGA decided it was more profitable to make games (less risky) but Sony is a HW maker, look at Nintendo, Nintendo 64 and GC they where epic failures but NIntendo bounced back with the DS and Wii.

[ThePhantomOak]

I think it should be pointed out that Microsoft and Sony and Nintendo all have VERY different meanings to a consol failing.

1. Microsoft
Microsoft does not need to make any money on any consol it sells. They have said many times that the goal is to dominate the video game market for future gains at the expense of current loss. This is why they are making millions on 360 while the gaming SBU has lost well over 10 billion.

Success for them is gaining market share at any cost. They dont have to be the #1 consol, make money or anything. They just need to see their share number grow.

2. Nintendo
Nintendo does one thing. Sells games and game systems. Success, (and for sony and Nintendo I am just guessing) would likely be regaining maret share and staying in business. Nintendo is doing both.

3. Sony
Sony, it seems, is willing to drop a lot of money into the latest in computing because it can use it across most of the SBU's. This means that the development cost does not ever have to be recouped from gaming, and the consoles and game ryolaties just have to be profitable at some point, as an SBU, not as a consol.

Sony has the PS3, PS2 and PSP all out in the market working to bring profit to the SBU, and it is likely that as a whole, Sony will not be in the hole for long, or are already doing alright.

SO, success for them would likely be building a very powerful computer for use in many SBUs, and having the games section make some profit.








I would say that all three are hitting their goals, and likely they are seeing a small ratchet effect that increases goals every quarter that might make them seem like they are not doing well.

PS4 is a no brianer. PS5 might never happen if Sony does not take back some maket share over the next several years with PS3/PS4

[Clark Kent]

The PS3 has too much going for it to fail. There is already enough momentum behind the console to ensure a comfortable, but third place existence in the marketplace. Globally it will probably be neck and neck with the Xbox 360 for this generation. If the PS4 performs as poorly is when I would start worrying about the future of Sony in the videogame sector.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Forrestandjen07

but that is IF blu ray can hang on, and get more popluar outside of its current audience, becasue if Blu ray dies , or does not catch on, then ps3 has problems

To be replaced by what?

Can we all agree current owners won't drop BD for DVD?

The infrastructure currently couldn't even handle BD type adoption (you know, the sad and pathetic adoption some seem to want to label it) for HD-lite downloads, let alone be the next great thing for the masses.

It seems too many people have the idea that Blu-ray has to take over from DVD soon, or its dead. I really don't know where people get this notion.

Gary

[Anthony P]

Can we all agree current owners won't drop BD for DVD?

HD DVD, don't you know it is comming back?

The infrastructure currently couldn't even handle BD type adoption (you know, the sad and pathetic adoption some seem to want to label it) for [correction]DVD[/correction]-lite downloads, let alone be the next great thing for the masses.

a few weeks ago BD-live for Ironman was an issue. Imagine if it was the whole movie and not just some useless extras.

[dialog_gvf]

At 2.5Mbps (AVC of SD quality + lossy audio), the current infrastructure could possibly handle that (for BD adoption levels).

But, again, the "fail" argument requires current and adopting BD users switch to something else. And that won't be SD. Hence my use of HD-lite.

There is no way we'll see BD quality for downloads for 5-8 years. So, it demands a "good enough" acceptance of something less (HD-lite + lossy audio) for BD to be replaced with downloads.

Gary

[Anthony P]

At 2.5Mbps (AVC of SD quality + lossy audio), the current infrastructure could possibly handle that (for BD adoption levels).

2.5mbps is more then most people have at home, it is also not DVD quality. The issue is also not only at home, but BD of TDK sold 600,000 copies the first day even if we say 5GB for the movie, = 3,000,000 GB or 3PB per day. and that does not inlude what other BDs where sold that day. It would be the equivalent for what one title on BD did this week on one day.


the issue is not can it be done when one takes a large view, but does it make sense when one takes a narrow view. Tue, sat/sun are the big days, a big title comes and it is a big week.... all these affect what can be done. it is not enough to say well people watch X titles a month and it can be done, but can it do it at peek times. Will XYZ be able to do 1M copies (assuming that TDK was not more then 50% of the BDs sold that day) in one day and then the next one only 100k? will it be able to do that Tuesday evening (let's face it, demand won't be even all day long. and 5 PM-10 PM will most likely be the killer with more thenb 1/2 the sales)

But, again, the "fail" argument requires current and adopting BD users switch to something else. And that won't be SD. Hence my use of HD-lite.

agree

[Sussudio]

Originally Posted by Forrestandjen07

but my original point is the biggest thing keeping the PS3 alive is Blu ray. But if something happens and Blu ray dies, then Ps3 well be in trouble

incorrect. ps3 is a game machine first, a bluray player second. it is defined as a video game console capable of playing blurays, just like the ps2 was a video game console capable of playing dvds. i do agree that bluray is a huge perk, especially since the ps3 was at one point one of the cheapest bluray players available and also considered a great player (reason I bought one). but if bluray fails, ps3 will still succeed. xbox 360 is living proof of that, as it doesn't play any future movie format but still functions as a video game system and is gaining sales momentum every day. bluray "failing" ( ) wouldnt mean ps3 fails, there isn't any reason games can't still come out on bluray, unless people just stop buying ps3 games.

[Forrestandjen07]

Originally Posted by DoYouBlu

incorrect. ps3 is a game machine first, a bluray player second. it is defined as a video game console capable of playing blurays, just like the ps2 was a video game console capable of playing dvds. i do agree that bluray is a huge perk, especially since the ps3 was at one point one of the cheapest bluray players available and also considered a great player (reason I bought one). but if bluray fails, ps3 will still succeed. xbox 360 is living proof of that, as it doesn't play any future movie format but still functions as a video game system and is gaining sales momentum every day. bluray "failing" ( ) wouldnt mean ps3 fails, there isn't any reason games can't still come out on bluray, unless people just stop buying ps3 games.

But arent all of PS3's games on Blu ray discs? if that format dies out , wouldnt that affect the ps3? or would sony just keep rolling out the blu ray discs to put there games on

and i didnt say it would fail i just said it would be in trouble

becuase i know people (myself included) where there first reason and originaly only reason for getting a ps3, was its great value of a blu ray player and capible of getting any future updates for the player

[Sussudio]

Originally Posted by Forrestandjen07

But arent all of PS3's games on Blu ray discs? if that format dies out , wouldnt that affect the ps3? or would sony just keep rolling out the blu ray discs to put there games on

and i didnt say it would fail i just said it would be in trouble

becuase i know people (myself included) where there first reason and originaly only reason for getting a ps3, was its great value of a blu ray player and capible of getting any future updates for the player

bluray movies and bluray games are 2 different things imo. bluray games cost consumers anywhere from $20-$40 more than bluray movies, and are presumably very successful as it was sonys decision (and continued decision) in the first place to produce games on them instead of normal dvds. also, there are other consoles that have used proprietary formats to play games if you recall (nintendo with cartridges, sega dreamcast with gd-roms). the gaming world and the movie world are 2 completely different things imo, and if for any reason bluray did not take off with movies (which it will anyways), i believe it would still serve sony well for games.

and again, i agree that having the ps3 play bluray movies is a huge perk. like i said its one of the main reasons i bought one in the first place.

[Jim L]

• Blu-ray won
• PS3 is on par with Xbox 360 at this point in its lifespan
• PS3 has a lot of technical potential

This is just an anecdotal acccount: I am a 52 year-old gamer. I was formerly a PC gamer and HATED consoles. I learned about the PS3 through Blu-ray and my interest in movies. After exploring the PS3 I learned about gaming and was "hooked." I now have 6 PS3 games. I have other, even older colleagues who are avid gamers but "hate' consoles. I think I will win them over to PS3 soon.

[mikejet]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

But, again, the "fail" argument requires current and adopting BD users switch to something else. And that won't be SD. Hence my use of HD-lite.

But what if those adopting users simply go with a stand alone player? Which is a very possible outcome in the long run. Yes Blu-ray won and will be around for a long time generating profit for Sony, but at what point might they rethink the gaming aspect of their company?