Weekly Poll 10/14/07

[shaggy]

Is Sony screwing themselves by having too many variations of the PS3?

[TraderJake]

People are going to be ticked off when they find out that their 40GB PS3 does not play PS2 games.

[phoenix1967]

I voted "only the parents buying the system for their kids" would be confused.

If their kid wants a PS3, the parents are likely to think that one PS3 is like any other...until they get to the store and try to figure out all the options. Then the grief they get if they get the "wrong" one for their kid.

Imo, I don't think Sony had planned on releasing so many different versions of the system. I think they were likely to believe that the consumer would be willing to pay the $499-$599 without much thought. Now, they're so far behind in market share to Microsoft's 1 year head start and Nintendo selling Wiis off the shelves that they need to release this 40gb version @$400.

If they would've just left the Blu-Ray out in the first place to be able to sell the system for $200 less, they wouldn't be in the predicament they are now.

The other factor hurting Sony is the fact that their PS2 is still going strong. They're basically competing with themselves in that regard because big games keep getting released for the PS2. Madden, Guitar Hero 3, Rock Band...all will be available on PS2, so why should a PS2 owner spend $600 more to play the same game if there's little to no difference in the versions? And who knows when they're going to cut off the flow of games to the PS2?

So yeah, I think the consumer is confused to a certain degree.

[Tondog]

I voted: Yes, the consumer is confused and doesn't know what they are buying.

However, I don't know that "hardcore gamers" are confused by it.

If they would've just left the Blu-Ray out in the first place to be able to sell the system for $200 less, they wouldn't be in the predicament they are now.

True dat, but if Sony just used regular DVDs, they would be having the same problems that have affected Blue Dragon (3 DVDs), Project Gotham Racing 4 (day/night setting being cut due to size constraints), Lost Odyssey (4 DVDs). Not to mention, the size limitation is currently affecting Infinite Discovery, Asassin's Creed, Grand Theft Auto 4, and L.A. Noire.

While it did raise the price of the PS3, which is definitely not a good thing, including Blu-ray was a smart move on Sony's part to prevent this type of issue from occuring. I remember when PS2 came out, it caught a lot of heat for using DVDs as the storage medium, but look how that turned out. I think that as time goes on, and especially if Sony is planning to keep this system around for 10 years, they need to have something that offers more capability than DVD.

[The Metamorphosing Leon]

I could care either way.

[Tan]

I don't know why people harp on multi-disc games so much. Who cares if a game comes on 2 or more discs? The PS1 did it, the PS2 did it, the Gamecube did it, the Wii prob will at some point, PC's have done it for decades.

In any case, it'll be a bit confusing for consumers. I think ultimately a crippled PS3 with no backwards compat for $400 doesn't sound good when compared to a $250 Wii or $280 X360 with 5 games. Keep in mind only 40% of PS3 owners even know of it's Blu-Ray capabilities, so it's a moot point. Also consider how many $10 X360 games you can pick up now.

[James]

I don't know why people harp on multi-disc games so much. Who cares if a game comes on 2 or more discs? The PS1 did it, the PS2 did it, the Gamecube did it, the Wii prob will at some point, PC's have done it for decades.

I care. It's a pain to have to swap discs over all the time. I've never liked it. Just because it's been done in the past doesn't mean it's a good thing. The fact that PCs have always done it is irrelevant because once the game is installed you only need one disc to play it.

[Cobra]

People are going to be ticked off when they find out that their 40GB PS3 does not play PS2 games.

For real? glad I ain't in the market for a PS3. With a move like that, I'd say yes they are confusing the hell out of potential buyers unless the box states clearly not PS2 compatible.

[phoenix1967]

I don't know why people harp on multi-disc games so much. Who cares if a game comes on 2 or more discs? The PS1 did it, the PS2 did it, the Gamecube did it, the Wii prob will at some point, PC's have done it for decades.

In any case, it'll be a bit confusing for consumers. I think ultimately a crippled PS3 with no backwards compat for $400 doesn't sound good when compared to a $250 Wii...

I agree. The Wii doesn't even have a DVD movie player in the system nor the graphics capability of the 360 or the PS3 and it's outselling both of them. A large part of it is likely that the consumer likes its simplicity and backward compatibility. And the fact that there's only 1 Wii console SKU on the market assists that.

The 360 price drop helps its case as well, but with it coming out with multiple versions, it could create some consumer confusion.  Most people are comfortable with the premium or elite, but the new "arcade" version might lead the consumer down the path of "What?".

To me, multidisk games are no big deal either. The Blu-Ray may allow for additional storage capacity, but the problem developers are having with the PS3 is that it's active memory storage is too small. Assassin's Creed is an example. And they're having the opposite problem developing it for the 360: They're having a capacity issue with the 360 to get the game on 1 disk, but no active memory storage issues.

If Sony is indeed planning on keeping the Blu-Ray and the PS3 around for 10 years, they're going to be even further behind. My prediction is that consumers are going to be caring less and less about having movies on a disk, and more about having them downloaded to their entertainment device of choice (PC or console). Which makes Blu-Ray and HD-DVD obsolete. Games may still be put on the medium required for the console, and that's fine. But why pay more for a console if it has a movie player you won't use? That's one of the reasons Nintendo is cleaning up in this generation and is now #1 in market share...no movie player to worry about; just make the games. 

[Izret101]

They release multiple versions in hopes of bring a new "type" of gamer into the fold.
Multiple price ranges and different bundle styles that try to appeal to casual-hardcore gamers.

Is sony still loosing 200$s on every PS3 they sell?
I can only hope so.

MS lost on every console they sold(i believe 90-100 some odd $s) and they still managed to pick up a good market share and come out with a second and IMO much more successful system.

Maybe they will learn their mistakes from PS3 and make right on the PS4.

Anyone remember the "people will learn to pay 70$s per game and like it and our games will only work on 1 consle" fiasco? Or is that just me?

[Izret101]

I agree. The Wii doesn't even have a DVD movie player in the system nor the graphics capability of the 360 or the PS3 and it's outselling both of them. A large part of it is likely that the consumer likes its simplicity and backward compatibility. And the fact that there's only 1 Wii console SKU on the market assists that.

Rumors were abound that a new model w/ CD/DVD player was supposed to come out in 2k7(reason i didn't buy a launch Wii when i had the money) but it seems like they decided against it.

This of course was when i was at GameCrazy. It took over a year for the Elite 360 to come out that had all of us working there confused and anticipated about though so you never know.

[Tondog]

Doesn't all these different models make you miss last gen where you had just one model to choose from?

[Tan]

I don't know why people harp on multi-disc games so much. Who cares if a game comes on 2 or more discs? The PS1 did it, the PS2 did it, the Gamecube did it, the Wii prob will at some point, PC's have done it for decades.

I care. It's a pain to have to swap discs over all the time. I've never liked it. Just because it's been done in the past doesn't mean it's a good thing. The fact that PCs have always done it is irrelevant because once the game is installed you only need one disc to play it.

New PC games do that but not older ones, you played off of whatever disk was necessary.

Don't forget that the PS3 has to balance it's storage media. Most of that extra space is used for 1080p textures and such not gameplay because it doesn't have a 1080p scaler onboard. Eventually even the PS3 may need to use 2 discs for a game.

Those 60 gigers will become collectable one day I'm sure of it and not just because they are launch systems. The real confusing part is that overall if you consider all the options, the order of the PS3's from best to worst go 60, 80, 20, 40. You could argue that an extra 20 gig would make the 80 superior but you could always add to a 60 gig, you can't buy the EE PS2 chip.

[phoenix1967]

Pretty lopsided results in this poll so far..."confusion" seems to be running away with it. Although it is likely that the Sony hardcores are primarily the ones buying it and know what they're getting.

[Tondog]

Although it is likely that the Sony hardcores are primarily the ones buying it and know what they're getting.

LOL ME!!!!!