Why does Sony continue to cheap out the PS3?

[soylentgreen]

It's retarded. The first PS3s could play PS2 and PS1 games...had 4 USB ports, could play SACD discs and had memory card readers. I know they're trying to cut cost out, but what's the cost savings by changing to 2 USB ports instead of 4? A nickel? The crap is almost free these days.

Now, the latest "slim" version can't run Linux either! Most of these changes are software related and don't save any money, but make the machine less capable. The marketing people must be dumb.

If you're in the market, go buy a used older model on eBay...seriously. Model CECHE01.

[fat mike]

marketing people are often very stupid-i have experienced this phenomenon

[grimrebuke]

Because they can, duh!

I am, however, equally surprised at the PS3. This is the first time I've seen a continuous downward path for a computing device class. Sometimes we see this in video cards or other electronics, but always in order to provide a more "entry-level" version of the same product at a lower price. With the PS3, this has not been the case. Every single version since I purchased mine has been inferior. And every version has been inferior compared to the previous version, with no discounting of the new model. In fact there isn't any real evidence that the newer version is inferior unless you read up on these kinds of things and check model specs. They have even put in smaller processors (and I don't mean physical size).

My guess is that Sony didn't know what the determining factor would be for people buying the PS3 and therefore went in all guns blazing with the first round. Fearing competition from their own PS2 line they ensured backward compatibility. Fearing the expandability of the Xbox 360 would play in, they added as many wireless, bluetooth, and USB connections as would fit. Fearing game developers pushing the outer limits of graphics and game physics they beefed up the processor.

And then I bought it because it was half the price of other blu-ray players and, hey, free gaming console included. Comically the one place they are not getting great traction is games. Their title library is still light, their titles are still mostly very expensive, and the instrument debacle between Harmonix and Activision probably screwed them over that holiday season. But it is still one of the better blu-ray players and is still price-competitive in that role (I think) and, hey, free gaming system.

[Dick Tator]

PS3 sucks. They don't have the massive library of the Xbox 360 or the simple fun games of the Nintendo Wii. PS3 was losing money for every system they sold. Nintendo Wii was making money from day 1. I imagine if Nintendo puts all that cash into development that they will be able to release an even better system out... and much sooner than Sony would ever expect to release a PS4. They are planning for the PS3 to be a 10 year system... I am sure a new Nintendo system released in 2 years would absolutely destroy the Playstation brand.

[soylentgreen]

Originally Posted by grimrebuke

Because they can, duh!

I am, however, equally surprised at the PS3. This is the first time I've seen a continuous downward path for a computing device class.

With the PS3, this has not been the case. Every single version since I purchased mine has been inferior. And every version has been inferior compared to the previous version, with no discounting of the new model.

It's insane. As you noted, most electronics devices add funtionality and reduce cost at the same time. The PS3 has completely reversed this trend.

I was in the market for a system earlier this year. One thing I insisted on was backward compatibility. Although I don't have a huge number of games for PS2 (and PS1), I didn't want to run two systems in parallel. That just makes no sense...particularly when they're from the same maker. When I bought my PS2, the same issue was there and Sony took care of us.

So, at the time I was looking, there were various PS3 versions out there...some had packaging that said they "might" play some PS2 games while other said they definitely wouldn't. It was all so confusing and stupid...and frustrating...that I decided to buy a used system on eBay. Sony is creating a market for the USED machines. Problem is, they don't make money when a used machine is sold. Duh! Brilliant.

So, I got the CECHE01 for $335 that included two Blueray movies that I subsequently sold on eBay. So, I got the good system for a few dollars more than the slim system. If you include the fact that I didn't pay sales tax, it's a wash.

Originally Posted by grimrebuke

And then I bought it because it was half the price of other blu-ray players and, hey, free gaming console included.

But it is still one of the better blu-ray players and is still price-competitive in that role (I think) and, hey, free gaming system.

Absolutely. If you look at it from that perspective, a $400 system is a deal. When you add to that the fact that it can run another OS, it starts to look doggone cheap.

I just added Linux Yellow Dog 6 this weekend. Surf the web from the comfort of your couch. The Yellow Dog install includes Firefox, the Open Office word processor and spreadsheet and an bunch of other stuff. I'm new to Linux. I still need to figure out how to install Adobe Flash player and enable my Bluetooth keyboard. I'll get there...

[soylentgreen]

Originally Posted by Dick Tator

PS3 sucks. They don't have the massive library of the Xbox 360 or the simple fun games of the Nintendo Wii. PS3 was losing money for every system they sold. Nintendo Wii was making money from day 1. I imagine if Nintendo puts all that cash into development that they will be able to release an even better system out... and much sooner than Sony would ever expect to release a PS4. They are planning for the PS3 to be a 10 year system... I am sure a new Nintendo system released in 2 years would absolutely destroy the Playstation brand.

There's no reason to release a PS4 system any time soon. As the systems get more complex and costly, I'd expect them to have longer life cycles.

I've played the Wii and the PS3 is technically superior in almost every way. The Wii does have a certain "fun factor" that can't be denied.

[Dick Tator]

Originally Posted by soylentgreen

There's no reason to release a PS4 system any time soon. As the systems get more complex and costly, I'd expect them to have longer life cycles.

I've played the Wii and the PS3 is technically superior in almost every way. The Wii does have a certain "fun factor" that can't be denied.

Nobody denies that the PS3 is superior when it comes to many things, especially graphics, however, the goal of a business is to produce a product that sells and makes a profit. Given this standard, Sony has failed on both fronts.

Nintendo put out a product that was much cheaper to produce and made a profit from day one. Add on top of this the fact they sold their system vastly cheaper than the competition and with a nice little twist (wii motion) AND the fact that they are trying to sell the system to people who don't even play video games... they are making one hell of a profit!

Ooo! And let's not forget that Nintendo is selling all those Wii Wheels, Zappers, bats, rackets, bowling balls, and other pieces of PLASTIC for like $10 to $30 bucks a piece!! Flcuking genius!

[DngrMse]

Why does Sony continue to cheap out the PS3?

It's been thay way ever since Cher left him.

[soylentgreen]

Originally Posted by Dick Tator

Nobody denies that the PS3 is superior when it comes to many things, especially graphics, however, the goal of a business is to produce a product that sells and makes a profit. Given this standard, Sony has failed on both fronts.

Nintendo put out a product that was much cheaper to produce and made a profit from day one. Add on top of this the fact they sold their system vastly cheaper than the competition and with a nice little twist (wii motion) AND the fact that they are trying to sell the system to people who don't even play video games... they are making one hell of a profit!

Ooo! And let's not forget that Nintendo is selling all those Wii Wheels, Zappers, bats, rackets, bowling balls, and other pieces of PLASTIC for like $10 to $30 bucks a piece!! Flcuking genius!

I think PS3 sales are outpacing Wii right now. In any case, that doesn't concern me...nor does the profitability of Sony or the PS3. As a consumer, what I want is a product that serves my needs/wants. The early PS3 is exactly what I wanted. It's a dream machine. As was noted, the original system was a bargain when you consider its capabilities. A top-notch Blueray player with SACD capability, that can also connect to the internet via WiFi and has Bluetooth wireless and can operate as a home PC as well as be the most advanced gaming system...all for only $500!!

My complaint is that in order to boost sales they've downgraded the product? It makes no sense especially considering that many of the downgrades couldn't have had much impact on Sony's cost to make the system. For example, removing the ability to use an alternate OS and play SACD discs don't save anything. They're software changes.

Sony's original machine was brilliant. The problem isn't the product.

[Dick Tator]

Originally Posted by soylentgreen

Sony's original machine was brilliant. The problem isn't the product.

Exactly. The problem was the price. They have to consider that the old school gamers are in there mid twenties to early thirties... We typically can't afford to drop 600 bucks down for a gaming system because we have children. BUT, we can drop 250 for a fun little system that the children will LOVE. Sorry, the machine was brilliant, but Sony wasn't. They don't know their demographic. THAT is the reason they are having to dumb down the PS3... in order to actually be able to sell the product to those people who would want it.

And then there is the fact that Nintendo has VASTLY expanded their demographic...

[Geoffrey]

I hope they cut more crap like that and lower the price to 199. I don't need backwards capability. Anyone that does is a hardcore fanboy and bought a first gen.

I don't need to run linux
I don't need usb ports (I prefer wireless)
I don't need SACD support, whatever that is
I really can't think of a reason to use memory cards, when it has a 120gb hdd

I just want one to play games on. Well, speaking of that, what games does P$3 have that Xbox doesn't (that's worth playing)? I have bought maybe 2 games since COD4 came out (GOW2 and NASCAR 08) It didn't take long for me to go back to COD4. Now MW2 is coming out, I won't need a new game for 2 or 3 years

[Dick Tator]

Originally Posted by Geoffrey

I hope they cut more crap like that and lower the price to 199. I don't need backwards capability. Anyone that does is a hardcore fanboy and bought a first gen.

I don't need to run linux
I don't need usb ports (I prefer wireless)
I don't need SACD support, whatever that is
I really can't think of a reason to use memory cards, when it has a 120gb hdd

Exactly. I think Sony was hoping to build on it's PS2/DVD player success, but I mean... people used it to play DVDs for like what? A couple of months? I agree that alot of the stuff the PS3 has is completely unnecessary and pointless. And adding their motion control as an after-thought because of the Wii's motion control is priceless! I have my 360 for multi platform games so that I can play a great game graphics-wise, and my Wii for fun Nintendo titles. I agree with your sentiment that anything worth playing on the PS3 is also available on the 360. I for one can't think of a reason to buy a PS3....

[soylentgreen]

Originally Posted by Dick Tator

Exactly. The problem was the price.

Nope. As I explained (and you didn't read) the original product at the original offering price was a slamming deal when you consider all the features.

Originally Posted by Dick Tator

They have to consider that the old school gamers are in there mid twenties to early thirties... We typically can't afford to drop 600 bucks down for a gaming system because we have children.

Wrong. That's old thinking. When you buy a PS3, you're not buying a gaming system. You're buying a PC that can play blueray movies and happens to also be the most awesomest game system on top of it. Certainly a PC, a bluray player, and a Wii would cost far more than $600. More like $1000 or $1200.

Maybe the problem is Sony's marketing. They didn't sell the machine as something other than a game system. Big mistake.

[soylentgreen]

Originally Posted by Geoffrey

I hope they cut more crap like that and lower the price to 199.

As I mentioned, cutting features doesn't necessarily lower the cost. It's mostly software changes.

Originally Posted by Geoffrey

I don't need to run linux

Perhaps not, but if it costs nothing extra for Sony to include that capability, why would you turn it down? You're not obligated to use it. It's totally at your option and it's free.

Originally Posted by Geoffrey

I don't need usb ports (I prefer wireless)

Again, what's a USB port cost? $0.25?

Originally Posted by Geoffrey

I don't need SACD support, whatever that is

If you don't know what it is, how do you know if you want or need it? It's Super Audio Compact Disc. SACD has a sample rate of 2822kHz, has a dynamic range of 120dB, and a frequency range of 20 to 50kHz. That's compared to 44kHz,96dB, and 20kHz for standard CD.

Again, the hardware already has the capability to read the discs. Taking away the ability to play them is a software change and saves zero dollars.

Originally Posted by Geoffrey

I really can't think of a reason to use memory cards, when it has a 120gb hdd

Doesn't your digital camera use memory cards? You can plug those right in and download your pictures.

[Dick Tator]

Originally Posted by soylentgreen

Nope. As I explained (and you didn't read) the original product at the original offering price was a slamming deal when you consider all the features.

Features that people obviously didn't want if sales are any indication. This has been verified by Sony's removal of many of these features.

Wrong. That's old thinking. When you buy a PS3, you're not buying a gaming system. You're buying a PC that can play blueray movies and happens to also be the most awesomest game system on top of it. Certainly a PC, a bluray player, and a Wii would cost far more than $600. More like $1000 or $1200.

Maybe the problem is Sony's marketing. They didn't sell the machine as something other than a game system. Big mistake.

Marketing isn't the problem. People just wanted a kick ass gaming system and not all the other bullshit. They inflated the costs of the machine by including shit in it that people didn't want. It's good to see that Sony is rectifying that mistake. Maybe now I will be able to buy one and play the new Final Fantasy when it comes out... but honestly, it will still have to come down in price some more and put out a few more decent titles... I have 2 systems already. Sony is REALLY going to have to sell the idea of getting a third one to me.

[86Dude]

My PS3 OWNS YOU!

[Dick Tator]

Originally Posted by 86Dude

My PS3 OWNS YOU!

Owns who?

[86Dude]

Metal Gear Solid 4 will blow your mind on a PS3. Ditto for every game I ever played on that thing. I've played a few on the X-box and they just didn't compare. Plus all the other frills on the PS3 just fit me I suppose. I don't want to use my body in the game like the WII, I wanna veg and blast nazi's and filthy japs.

[soylentgreen]

Originally Posted by Dick Tator

Features that people obviously didn't want if sales are any indication. This has been verified by Sony's removal of many of these features.

I think people didn't know about the features and therefore didn't realize that they wanted and/or needed them. It was marketed as a game system. But, that's not what it was. It was a do-everything system. They made the consumer think it was a game system...so it's no surprise that's what the consumer wanted out of it.

Originally Posted by Dick Tator

Marketing isn't the problem. People just wanted a kick ass gaming system and not all the other bullshit. They inflated the costs of the machine by including shit in it that people didn't want. It's good to see that Sony is rectifying that mistake.

They didn't inflate the cost. The estimated cost to build the system was $800 and they were selling it for $500. That's the whole point I'm making! Most of the features cost nothing extra.

[Dick Tator]

Originally Posted by soylentgreen

I think people didn't know about the features and therefore didn't realize that they wanted and/or needed them. It was marketed as a game system. But, that's not what it was. It was a do-everything system. They made the consumer think it was a game system...so it's no surprise that's what the consumer wanted out of it.

So you're saying they should have sold it as a webtv type thing instead? Or a computer? I'm sorry, but it's just a video game console. I mean, how many people used their PS2 as a DVD player in 2005? Very few, if any.

I'm sorry, but when you get down to it, people don't give a shit about Linux or BluRay. Even when BluRay completely replaces DVD... people aren't likely going to be using their PS3 as a BluRay player.