Final Verdict
Member
The PS3 mistakes and awe full cocky sony attitude towards the consumer's reaction was in large part due to their overconfidence, and domination in past years.Okay, so let's assume their megalomania wasn't triggered until the PS2. What hostile policies were born of that? There was no property removal system. Free multiplayer. No Netflix racket. Was it the massive hardware subsidies? Was it the fact that it cost $100 more than a similarly equipped XB360? Was it the inscrutable architecture? I'm seeing some boneheaded decisions here, but could you point me towards the evil?
No, they dropped the price to make more money.Sorry, are you suggesting they dropped the price because of competition from the 360 and Wii, which had launched 3-4 years earlier? What happened in 2009 that suddenly turned those two in to a threat to the PS2? Isn't the more simple explanation that Sony 2009 is when Sony were able to reduce costs enough to hit that price point? Maybe the timing of the PS2 drop had more to do PS3 than the XB360; perhaps their losses on the PS3 were finally down to a point where they felt like they didn't need the extra $30/PS2 anymore. Like I said, you sell the hardware as close to cost as is reasonable, but if you're trying to get another product on its feet, "reasonable" may not be particularly close at all.
They are a company remember?
All I was saying is that if the PS2 had strong competition, then it may have reached lower prices sooner.
For example, Sony was willing to sell PS3 at a loss for years because they had to compete with Xbox and Wii.
If PS3 had dominated at $599, then you really think they would have dropped the price like they did?
No, I never said that. I'm saying competition drives prices lower faster.If you want to make the argument that strong competition is required to trigger price drops, you need to show a more direct link than, "Well, other consoles were out there too." Like I said, it's in Sony's interest to sell the hardware as cheaply as possible, because games are where they make their money. The less money the consumer spends on hardware, the more money they have to spend on games. The less money the consumer the consumer spends on hardware, the more attractive the hardware becomes. The more attractive the hardware is, the more likely that the consumer buys it, and games to go with it. The sooner the consumer buys the hardware, the more games they will buy in the long run.
Why do ya think Xbone when from $500 to $330 + 2 games (BF) in just one year??
Competition.
A company who is a monopoly would still lower prices over time, but not as fast.
IDK, they were losing brick tons last gen. with the PS3, and still managed to grow thier first party stable by a couple studios + growing ND to a much bigger size.Let's say MS are buying their way to victory, and force Sony to take a $50 loss on the hardware to maintain sales. That would be pretty awesome, right? Cheap hardware is good, after all. Actually, that's sorta terrible, for both Sony and their customers. If they sell 15M units at a $50 loss, that's $750M down the drain. That's money they don't have to spend on Naughty Dog's space game, improving the network, etc. That affects not only the 15M who bought in at the reduced price, but also the 20M users who already had one, and the 30M+ users yet to come. Like I said, cheap hardware is good as a consumer, but you also don't want to let your short term greed damage your long term interests. It's nice to save money, but as a platform user, you also have a vested interest in the health and sustainability of the platform holder's business. Similarly, if your platform holder is forced to buy market share, that should be seen as worrisome.
No you won't. If anything, competition will make the company need to make more games that are platform exclusive.Basically, I'm saying that it should be a symbiotic relationship; you need them just as much as they need you. All you really care about is playing games, and all they really care about is making games. The hardware is just the "necessary evil" which allows all of this to take place. It's basically a barrier to entry, so it's in everyone's best interest for that barrier to be as low as possible. At the same time, the health of "the other guy" should be important to you as well. If the customer is taking a loss on the hardware, that's just money they now don't have available to spend on games, so what have you really gained? Effectively nothing, and you may have lost a potential customer in the process. If the platform holder is taking a loss on the hardware, that's just money they now don't have available to spend on games, so what have you really gained? Effectively nothing, and you may have lost a potential game in the process.
Also, what I said above about PS3....
These companies make plenty of money off of game, subscriptions, and accessories, so I wouldn't feel sorry for them not having enough money.
If they make more money, it usually just goes back into their pockets, not new games....Just look at Nintendo for example. How many new game studios did they open up during the Wii generation back when they were making bank like crazy?
I mean have you ever heard one of them announce "oh sorry, we are canceling this game because we are losing too much money on HW, or we are closing this studio because we can't make a profit on HW."
If that was true, then why didn't Sony drop the PS4 price in the US for the holidays, or after that?As I pointed out, there are complications which prevent price being tied directly to cost, but do you see where I'm coming from here? As a general rule, it's in everyone's best interest for the hardware to be sold at the lowest reasonable price. In the long run, no one really benefits from having it overpriced or underpriced, regardless of "competition."
And while I'm sure they will likely drop it this year to keep up, I personally just don't see $299 yet.
Um well Watchdogs and AC4 (like I said earlier) came with extra missions only for the playstation versions, and Destiny launched with extra content on disc only for the Playstation versions.Link? Parity has been required for all development on XBox for years. These policies are under heavy NDA, of course, but there's no indication whatsoever that they've been abandoned, and some indications that they haven't.
Interesting. It wouldn't surprise me. Can I have a link plz? Like what sort of features?It is precisely true. First, the anonymous publisher told Eurogamer so in the linked article, and developers have specifically said that features which are not possible on XBox require Microsoft's approval before they can be included on other platforms. If you don't play ball, then you may not be permitted to publish on XBox.
Also interesting. But I doubt they have much control over bigger games because they obviously need 3rd party support.On platform strengths, see above. On exceptions, yes, they are granted on a case by case basis, just as they are for launch parity. But in the end, Microsoft's word is final; if you don't agree to hold back your product on rival platforms, you may not be allowed to publish on theirs. The developer who specifically said he needed MS approval for PS features also said he was confident he could get such approval, but the feature was never spoken of again. Basically, you implement the feature on PlayStation, demo it for your MS rep, and hope he says, "Yeah, that's dumb. Do whatever you want." The problem is, sometimes he says, "This is amazing. You must never speak of it to anyone." If he does, you either eliminate the "strength," or you say goodbye to the XBox user base. Totally your call either way, of course. No pressure; MS don't need your petty royalties anyway, so whatever you decide is fine with them.
There is no way they could do that to publishers pushing big games like Cod, AC, Batman, or The Witcher, because to say "you can't publish on out platform" would be just as bad for them as for the publisher as it would give the competition a AAA exclusive for free.
This is probably just one of those policies they hung over Indy developers since they have less options, and need to launch on xbox more that xbox needed their game.
Of coarse I'm not condoning that behavior, but if I was making a MP game, I obviously wouldn't put extra time into making an awesome feature that only half of my userbase could use, and just give the middle finger to everyone who "chose the wrong platform".
Small things like using the PS4 touchpad to scroll maps, or using the X1 rumble triggers are fine, and have been done plenty in games, but it would be wrong in my opinion to go out and do a whole bunch of special stuff just for one platform as it alienates part of you userbase.
So my example doesn't count as anticonsumer?It's really easy to claim Sony Too but it's far more difficult to actually support it. Sony have dominated this industry since the day they joined it apart from last gen and they haven't displayed any of these behaviors at all. Microsoft have been doing this stuff for years, despite not dominating the market. Their biggest success in the console space yet having the slowest-selling console in Gen7 gave them enough confidence to take away our used and rental games, and when we complained, they literally responded with "Have you seen Titanfall? Nuff said. Conversation over."
I'm sure I could find more examples if I dig a little ;p
Like I said, they are a company just like any other.Sorry, but the idea that Sony are just as bad as MS or are just one success away from turning in to MS is pure, unadulterated bullshit. Haters gonna hate, Microsoft gonna Microsoft, and Sony gonna Sony.
It seems like they have a special place in your heart, and so you probably feel like I'm insulting you personally whenever I insult them. I'm not though. I'm just saying watch out because they can be just as bad as anyone else, and if you become too attached, then you will become blind/oblivious to whenever they try to skrew you over.
Sort of like how when your in love with someone you tend to overlook their faults, and put them up on this high pedestal to where they can do no wrong.