If Sony had to do it all over again...

[Steelmaker]

Do you think they would have designed the PS3 a little differently? Now obviously we are all fans of the PS3 and love it exactly the way it is. However let's face it, Sony decision to make the PS3 such a high end gaming console has cost them this generation. It has cost them market share, it has cost them a lot of money (despite the high price tag), etc. My question is, if Sony had to do it all over again, would they change anything and if so what do you think those changes would have been?

[bandit29]

Looking back... the PS3 really didn't need a memory card reader. It is nice to have but I've barely used mine. That would have cut the price there. Sony shouldn't have launched with two models. I thought that was a mistake from the start.

[OG Pooh]

What made the PS3 so expensive at first was the BD drive. They could have went with a standard DVD drive and been successful (just look at the 360). I honestly think Sony thought they were untouchable in the game market, and used that to further BD as a format. It's really a catch-22... If the PS3 hadn't been BD, BD may not have won the format war, or at least not as quickly. On the other hand, had Sony went with a less expensive DVD drive, the PS3 may have done better initially.

By the way, I wouldn't call myself a "fan" of the PS3 or say I love it exactly the way it is. Gamewise, the Playstation brand has (IMHO) gone downhill since the PSone. In saying that I'm not intending to single out Sony, I think game developemnent has been extremely stagnant across the board for a couple of generations now. I like all te current machines equally, for different reasons. That said, I like all of today's consoles only a fraction as much as the original Playstation, the Sega Dreamcast or even the Genesis/Sega CD.

I would have liked a new standard controller. For me, that is the Playstation's biggest weakness. The controller is too small, the buttons have no feel to them and the analog sticks are in completely the wrong positions.

[Denoku]

Originally Posted by OG Pooh

What made the PS3 so expensive at first was the BD drive. They could have went with a standard DVD drive and been successful (just look at the 360). I honestly think Sony thought they were untouchable in the game market, and used that to further BD as a format. It's really a catch-22... If the PS3 hadn't been BD, BD may not have won the format war, or at least not as quickly. On the other hand, had Sony went with a less expensive DVD drive, the PS3 may have done better initially.

By the way, I wouldn't call myself a "fan" of the PS3 or say I love it exactly the way it is. Gamewise, the Playstation brand has (IMHO) gone downhill since the PSone. In saying that I'm not intending to single out Sony, I think game developemnent has been extremely stagnant across the board for a couple of generations now. I like all te current machines equally, for different reasons. That said, I like all of today's consoles only a fraction as much as the original Playstation, the Sega Dreamcast or even the Genesis/Sega CD.


I would have liked a new standard controller. For me, that is the Playstation's biggest weakness. The controller is too small, the buttons have no feel to them and the analog sticks are in completely the wrong positions.

I personally think the BD drive was a great idea. Considering games are on BD. It holds way much more data compared to DVD as I'm sure you may know.
Whereas Final Fantasy XIII was on 3 discs compared to the one disc we have for PS3. Even Dead Space 2 on Xbox is on 2 discs. I'm not countering anything you're saying I just think the BD Drive was a good idea. Sure it may of hurt sales in the beginning since it was so expensive but considering where were at now, I think it was good move.

Everyone has their own preferences, I don't have a problem with the controller. It has never once bothered me or felt awkward to hold. Maybe it's just after playing Xbox the PS3 controller seems weird. I don't think the Analog sticks are too close and I have never bumped my fingers together because of it.

[OG Pooh]

Originally Posted by Denoku

I personally think the BD drive was a great idea. Considering games are on BD. It holds way much more data compared to DVD as I'm sure you may know.
Whereas Final Fantasy XIII was on 3 discs compared to the one disc we have for PS3. Even Dead Space 2 on Xbox is on 2 discs. I'm not countering anything you're saying I just think the BD Drive was a good idea. Sure it may of hurt sales in the beginning since it was so expensive but considering where were at now, I think it was good move.

Everyone has their own preferences, I don't have a problem with the controller. It has never once bothered me or felt awkward to hold. Maybe it's just after playing Xbox the PS3 controller seems weird. I don't think the Analog sticks are too close and I have never bumped my fingers together because of it.

I do agree, I too think in the long run, the BD drive was a good idea. I'm just wondering how much it hurt them initially. It probably would have a larger installed user base today, had the price been closer to the 360 at the time of it's release. It just launched at an akward time as far as formats go.

Yes, the controller thing in a personal opinion. I do think that the general preference leans toward the 360 type controller nowadays. If you browse the web at all, you'll find lots of discussion regarding this preference, but hardly any the other way around. Also, quite a few converters have poped up to allow 360 controllers to be used on the PS3, but I haven't seen any (that I remember) that let a PS3 controller be used on a 360. There's just no demand for it.

As for jsteinhauer's comments... I agree completely. I have always wished that game consoles looked more like regualr A/V components & less like toys. If manufatureres want them to be taken seriously, they have to stop making them the red-headed stepchildren of the component world.

[Denoku]

Originally Posted by OG Pooh

I do agree, I too think in the long run, the BD drive was a good idea. I'm just wondering how much it hurt them initially. It probably would have a larger installed user base today, had the price been closer to the 360 at the time of it's release. It just launched at an akward time as far as formats go.

Yes, the controller thing in a personal opinion. I do think that the general preference leans toward the 360 type controller nowadays. If you browse the web at all, you'll find lots of discussion regarding this preference, but hardly any the other way around. Also, quite a few converters have poped up to allow 360 controllers to be used on the PS3, but I haven't seen any (that I remember) that let a PS3 controller be used on a 360. There's just no demand for it.

As for jsteinhauer's comments... I agree completely. I have always wished that game consoles looked more like regualr A/V components & less like toys. If manufatureres want them to be taken seriously, they have to stop making them the red-headed stepchildren of the component world.

Plus Xbox was already out a year before the release of the PS3. So I'm sure it hurt a lot in the beginning. From my understanding, even at the initial price of the PS3 when it came out Sony was still losing money. Price ranging from $450-$500 I believe when it released. As you said it did release at an awkward time, it was just too damn expensive. Especially when the Xbox and Wii were already out and at a reasonable price.

[jsteinhauer]

Actually, I always thought that during the HD optical media wars, Sony could have swung things in BD's favor much earlier, if they had put some PS3 guts into a component that looked like a DVD player, included an AV style remote control, and marketed it as a Blu-ray disc player that you could ALSO play games on, rather than a gaming console that looked like a console and also played movies. I think the price point of the PS3 was very competetive among BD and HDDVD players, but many simply did not want a game console, for a variety of different reasons. Those who were reluctant because they worried about obsolescence would have had those fears allayed. Seriously, the PS3 was a first generation BD movie player, and it has been able to remain up to date into the 3D era. Nothing else can come close.

Furthermore, the PS3, especially the fat PS3, looks more like a toy than an AV component, which certainly turned some off.

[Steelmaker]

Originally Posted by OG Pooh

What made the PS3 so expensive at first was the BD drive. They could have went with a standard DVD drive and been successful (just look at the 360). I honestly think Sony thought they were untouchable in the game market, and used that to further BD as a format.

I agree with this. Don't get me wrong. I love blu ray and I am glad that it won the format war. However was it worth it to Sony to lose SO much market share from one generation to another? Remember, the PS2 is the all time highest selling console. It had a userbase of 140 million! Was winning the HD format war worth losing nearly 2/3 of your market share this gen? Yes I realize this gen is not over yet and Sony will continue to grow their current userbase. However it's highly unlikely the PS3 will ever approach PS2 numbers, nor is it likely they will ever completely re-gain the financial losses they sustained from the cost of developing PS3. I know hindsight is 20/20 but I believe that if Sony had launched the PS3 at 399.99 with a dvd drive and put a little more R&D in their online infastructure from the beginning instead of investing so much in blu ray, the gaming landscape might look a lot different today.

[Musashi]

Originally Posted by OG Pooh

What made the PS3 so expensive at first was the BD drive. They could have went with a standard DVD drive and been successful (just look at the 360)

Pretty big asterisk on that one tho. The 360 has lost about as much money for Microsoft as the PS3 has for Sony, and their worldwide userbases are now nearly equal.

Were I to change history, I'd go with the wisdom quoted in Mavrick's post: Keep the blu-ray drive but go with the less expensive CPU, and emphasize easier work for devs. I would also not include in-box backwards compatibility, but include a hi-speed PCI-E-like port on the system for an optional, separately sold 'retro card'. The retro card would have a compacted PS2 chip board on it as well as controller/memory card ports for old accessories. Given these things, I think the launch price could have been lower.

[jamclaur]

I paid over $500 for my PS3... And when it was that expensive it was the best machine on the market. I LOATHE all the immature jerks that can now afford a PS3.

I realize that Sony needs money, but I see nothing wrong with their beginnings. The first 3 years of PS3 gaming were it's best as far as player quality goes.

And if they had it to do all over again I'd hope they'd do it the same way...

[Maximus]

I laugh at all of you! My strategy was the best and I will make PS4 with 10 Cell processors and no GPU! RAWR!

[Mavrick]

Originally Posted by Musashi

Pretty big asterisk on that one tho. The 360 has lost about as much money for Microsoft as the PS3 has for Sony, and their worldwide userbases are now nearly equal.

Were I to change history, I'd go with the wisdom quoted in Mavrick's post: Keep the blu-ray drive but go with the less expensive CPU, and emphasize easier work for devs. I would also not include in-box backwards compatibility, but include a hi-speed PCI-E-like port on the system for an optional, separately sold 'retro card'. The retro card would have a compacted PS2 chip board on it as well as controller/memory card ports for old accessories. Given these things, I think the launch price could have been lower.

I definately think Ken took his eye of the game. He forgot what made the PSX such a success, sailed the ps2 on the popularity of the psx, and then his stuberness on sticking with the cell procesor really cost them, when they could have gone with a much cheaper easier to develop for CPU.

I really dont think we will see another launch like that again now tha Kaz is in charge. There is no way in hell that Ken would have aloud Playstation Suite on anything other than a Playstation console. Sony has entered a new era of Playstion with Kaz in charge.

I think Kens reply at the Playstation event the other day says it all:

When asked whether he thought yesterday's presentation was what he'd been thinking about starting fifteen years ago, Kutaragi, replied, "I've already turned over the reigns. Ask Hirai." Kutaragi then added, "No comment."

[nameisjimbo]

Originally Posted by Musashi

Pretty big asterisk on that one tho. The 360 has lost about as much money for Microsoft as the PS3 has for Sony

I don't think this is borne out in the financial statements of the corporations. Admittedly I can't find the recent neogaf post to that effect. Sonys is due in about a week so will revist.

[Terjyn]

Originally Posted by nameisjimbo

I don't think this is borne out in the financial statements of the corporations. Admittedly I can't find the recent neogaf post to that effect. Sonys is due in about a week so will revist.

Microsoft's reports are for a division that includes several things in it that don't lose money...thereby hiding the losses the 360 has.

They also put some of the costs into other divisions as "research".

Both are common accounting tricks, but it means nobody knows if/when the 360 attained profitability. However it is very clear that the first time the divison was profitable the console wasn't...considering they were still losing a lot of money per console sale at the time of the quarter.

[haushausman]

Originally Posted by bandit29

the PS3 really didn't need a memory card reader. It is nice to have but I've barely used mine.

I use my constantly. I love being able to pop it in from my digital camera and review all my movies and pictures on my 61" screen.

To each their own. It's one of my favorite features

[Boston Litigator]

I think they would have improved the online experiance to be similiar to Live.

[Toptube]

Originally Posted by haushausman

I use my constantly. I love being able to pop it in from my digital camera and review all my movies and pictures on my 61" screen.

To each their own. It's one of my favorite features

Its nice that its there, but it was completely unnecessary. You can buy a USB card reader for a few dollars, at the most. It probably costs SONY more to include it in the PS3 than it would to offer their own USB universal reader. When you are talking about a device that sells in the millions (the PS3) every penny you can save is important.

More USB ports sounds better. But the fact is that average use of the PS3 does not call for 4 or more USB ports to be constantly populated. And besides, each single USB port supports several devices at one time via daisy chaining and/or a hub. Again, this is an extremely cheap item that can be easily and cheaply acquired by the consumer if needed.

Dual HDMI outputs defeats the point of a unified design (see: sound and video in one cable). The PS3 is also not designed for multi-tasking or productivity. So multiple display devices is moot. Multi-display gaming currently requires horsepower much beyond the capability of current consoles, so that's also out the window.

I cannot think of a reason that a PS3 would need dual gigabit Ethernet. Thats a special setup for very specific scenarios, all of which you would never see in anything resembling typical use of a PS3. Typical use of a PS3 isn't even on a gigabit network.


This number may be inaccurate, but I think I read this somewhere so lets just run with it:

I think I read estimations that Sony saved about $30 in parts with the Slim PS3 VS. the original. Lets say on average, Sony sells 200,000 PS3 per month.

That's some real cash saved in negligeble* parts.


*there was a lot of *****ing about the loss of PS2 Backward Compatibility. But to a company that just got finished selling PS2's to everyone, chances are good that you probably already have a PS2, and therefore effectively including a PS2 inside of a PS3 is gross luxury that they don't need to pay for.



and as far as having USB ports in the back. Well, that's pretty unecessary from a design stand point, when considering the PS3. PS3 are typically placed in an entertainment center or some sort of shelf unit where the rear of the device is difficult to access therefore, almost never touch once its in place. Therefore, it makes sense to include the USB ports on the front, because USB ports are typically meant for non-permanent devices and peripherals. It sounds nice, elegant, the idea of a semi-permanent HDD which you could plug into the back of the PS3 and leave in place and you won't have a cable sticking out, obstructing other things and looking ugly.

That's a pretty specific scenario, for which your options are:

1. deal with the ugle cable sticking out the front and wrapping around
2. Hey did you know that you can buy any off the shelf standard size 2.5 inch SATA HDD and use it in your PS3?
3. Hey did you know that your PS3 can connect to a DLNA media server and stream multimedia files over your home network?


**please note, I'm just pointing out facts of design considerations. So, I'm not trying to sound like a snarky jerk or anything.

[Uxi]

OTOH, USB readers are cheap and when Sony is ordering them in the millions, they should be REALLY cheap.

As far as BC, you're forgetting the context of the argument. Sure, now it's more than feasible for there to not be a PS2 BC SKU. That there is NO SKU capable of it is a different argument and not in Sony's favor, but I digress... when they launched, the competition had a year head start and had worked through that awkward first year that plagues every new console generation and had A-list quality titles coming out. SCEI's marketing trumpeting their FULL backward compatibility was significant compared to their competitions... especially since the launch lineup was lackluster compared to the direct competition... context is everything... but having a device that really "does everything" is something many of us want. Not enough at this point, maybe (I think a very good argument could be made for a premium SKU with the appropriate cost increase, but that's neither here nor there).

In 2006, it wasn't a viable choice to not include PS2 BC with the launch lineup they had. Remember, God of War 2 was a PS2 title, not a PS3 title... and it came out AFTER the PS3 launch.

[Toptube]

Originally Posted by Uxi

OTOH, USB readers are cheap and when Sony is ordering them in the millions, they should be REALLY cheap.

As far as BC, you're forgetting the context of the argument. Sure, now it's more than feasible for there to not be a PS2 BC SKU. That there is NO SKU capable of it is a different argument and not in Sony's favor, but I digress... when they launched, the competition had a year head start and had worked through that awkward first year that plagues every new console generation and had A-list quality titles coming out. SCEI's marketing trumpeting their FULL backward compatibility was significant compared to their competitions... especially since the launch lineup was lackluster compared to the direct competition... context is everything... but having a device that really "does everything" is something many of us want. Not enough at this point, maybe (I think a very good argument could be made for a premium SKU with the appropriate cost increase, but that's neither here nor there).

In 2006, it wasn't a viable choice to not include PS2 BC with the launch lineup they had. Remember, God of War 2 was a PS2 title, not a PS3 title... and it came out AFTER the PS3 launch.

At initial launch, Sony tried to play the game differently than Microsoft. The PS3 was expensive. This was always the chief complaint. After the redesign and the price drop, the PS3 sold better than ever. The price point was what held back the mass market from finally purchasing a PS3. Early on, sure, the PS2 compatibility was a nice bullet point, that they could hold over Microsoft who has a very limited list of BC titles. and at the time, the PS2 was still getting relevant games. But this was a limited and special period. and it was just too expensive for Sony to maintain, after they found that their price point just would not work. Something had to go. People already have PS2s, it makes a lot of sense.

Originally Posted by Musashi

Knowing what I do now, I do find that the PS2 BC needed to be shelved. The PS3 can't really emulate the PS2; funny what a small bit of ultra-speed scratch RAM does.

The 60GB PS2, which includes both the Emotion Engine processor and the graphics chip its almost like having a PS2 inside of the PS3. It wasn't really emulation. The 60GB is something like 90% compatibility. Though some games do have a few sound and syncing glitches here or there.

The 80GB PS2 with BC left out the Emotion Engine processor. So it emulated that part of it. But the graphics card was always present, because as you mention, the kind of bandwidth and speed available to its RDRAM is just too great to emulate well, without significant R&D and some hefty hardware to back it up. A full software solution would be even more difficult.

I still say they could've included a special port for a retro card that would make the system fully backwards compatible. It'd be just the the Game Boy Player you could get for the GameCube.

They could and a few months ago such a device was speculated upon. But historically, add-on units don't do well at all. For a company that's having trouble with money, such chances don't make sense right now. Even then, an external unit? Why not just buy a PS2 slim? The ONLY advantage BC has over an actual PS2 is the option for digital video over HDMI and possibly saving the use of a sound cable. Woot? On the flip side, you end up using way more electricity to play your PS2 games.

Originally Posted by Terjyn

This is the greatest lie to come out of this generation.

For the customer Exclusives are _always_ better.

For the industry exclusives are cheaper to make, and often sell as well as a cross platform game does.

The reason that the exclusive is a lost art this generation was a self-fulfilling prophecy. Companies felt they _had_ to go multi-platform, so they did. Without a "control" game to compare to, there is no objective way to tell if you could have done better, and since the numbers on a cursory glance look better, it's impossible to convince yourself to go the other way on your next release.

The rest of your argument is repeating the tired old fallacy.

*EDIT* Want evidence this is a fallacy? It's always a one-way argument. Nobody _ever_ uses the argument when the 360 loses an exclusive, and nobody _ever_ posts that a 360 game should have went multiplatform because of this argument.

Well, you put an interesting spin on it. So I admit that the situation is not as clear to me as it had been. But lets dispute a few things here, for the sake of conversation:

I think the only party that really benefits from the concept of an exclusive, is Console/hardware company itself. (See: Sony or MS or Nintendo). Because then it becomes a marketing tool for them.

Exclusives are cheaper to make, yes. But the money and resources to do a port are insignificant compared to initial cost of making the game at all. I'm not going to get into the specifics of the possible development scenarios. But its true, porting and/or designing separate versions in parallel is not usually a significant cost over that of initial development. Especially when its planned for from the beginning.

Ports/separate versions get expensive when its not planned for or done after the fact. But, the fact is, going multi-platform makes you available to much larger possible consumer base. In the end, you are usually going to see more money.

Exclusives usually sell as well as the average multi-plat game because exclusives are usually AAA names. A game that sells ok is a game that sells ok. A game that sells well is a game that sells well. If its available on other systems, its probably going to repeat some of that performance.

Exclusives are a double edged sword for consumers:

A. they are better in the sense that the final product is probably going to be better quality and maybe offer some interesting features that would be less pursue-able on split systems.
B. They suck in the sense that you have to buy a whole other console to get some of those games.

Now, in the present, the latter point is more and more the main one (although it may seem to be A. due to developer lazyness and/or rush jobs).

exclusives are happening less and less. So its becoming that the only reason to own the other console is a few games. Which is stupid. If the only thing separating two sides is a few things, what is the point? In the past when we had lost more exclusives it made more sense. But in the present, there are less exclusives because everyone is scrambling for money and making an expensive game for one user base just doesn't work out. hardware pricing is cut-throat. We just spent a couple of pages talking about it. But now its ok that I have to go spend $300 more bucks to play a few different games???

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by Toptube

Its nice that its there, but it was completely unnecessary. You can buy a USB card reader for a few dollars, at the most. It probably costs SONY more to include it in the PS3 than it would to offer their own USB universal reader. When you are talking about a device that sells in the millions (the PS3) every penny you can save is important.

More USB ports sounds better. But the fact is that average use of the PS3 does not call for 4 or more USB ports to be constantly populated. And besides, each single USB port supports several devices at one time via daisy chaining and/or a hub. Again, this is an extremely cheap item that can be easily and cheaply acquired by the consumer if needed.

Dual HDMI outputs defeats the point of a unified design (see: sound and video in one cable). The PS3 is also not designed for multi-tasking or productivity. So multiple display devices is moot. Multi-display gaming currently requires horsepower much beyond the capability of current consoles, so that's also out the window.

I cannot think of a reason that a PS3 would need dual gigabit Ethernet. Thats a special setup for very specific scenarios, all of which you would never see in anything resembling typical use of a PS3. Typical use of a PS3 isn't even on a gigabit network.


This number may be inaccurate, but I think I read this somewhere so lets just run with it:

I think I read estimations that Sony saved about $30 in parts with the Slim PS3 VS. the original. Lets say on average, Sony sells 200,000 PS3 per month.

That's some real cash saved in negligeble* parts.


*there was a lot of *****ing about the loss of PS2 Backward Compatibility. But to a company that just got finished selling PS2's to everyone, chances are good that you probably already have a PS2, and therefore effectively including a PS2 inside of a PS3 is gross luxury that they don't need to pay for.



and as far as having USB ports in the back. Well, that's pretty unecessary from a design stand point, when considering the PS3. PS3 are typically placed in an entertainment center or some sort of shelf unit where the rear of the device is difficult to access therefore, almost never touch once its in place. Therefore, it makes sense to include the USB ports on the front, because USB ports are typically meant for non-permanent devices and peripherals. It sounds nice, elegant, the idea of a semi-permanent HDD which you could plug into the back of the PS3 and leave in place and you won't have a cable sticking out, obstructing other things and looking ugly.

That's a pretty specific scenario, for which your options are:

1. deal with the ugle cable sticking out the front and wrapping around
2. Hey did you know that you can buy any off the shelf standard size 2.5 inch SATA HDD and use it in your PS3?
3. Hey did you know that your PS3 can connect to a DLNA media server and stream multimedia files over your home network?


**please note, I'm just pointing out facts of design considerations. So, I'm not trying to sound like a snarky jerk or anything.

The saving was around $145 per unit. The 160GB phat was the only one that ever sold for a profit up front. All others made a loss at retail in the USA.

The PS3 slim console actually pushed Sony as a company from loss making territory into profit making territory. In their financial filings for last year they specifically mention that SCE pushed them over the line, and tomorrow we will find out whether the profits have been expanded.