Page 5 of 7

The bad economy killed the PS3

Posted: February 5th, 2009, 8:06 pm
by m0zart1

[QUOTE=N64Dude]Last I checked the title siad  The bad economy killed the PS3,therefore imlying an argument over whether it did or didn't,not an all out war against Stalin/aa[/QUOTE]

And?

Stalin is the one saying it.  It was his argument.  It's his thread.  Besides that, he's making a lot of statements that are based on faulty assumptions rather than facts.  Heh, he's making huge treatises without actually doing his homework.

I have nothing against the guy, but you gotta take the flack when you choose to argue from "facts" you can't verify.

The bad economy killed the PS3

Posted: February 6th, 2009, 12:58 am
by Bruce
Er, isn't it a bit early to be writing the PS3 off and claiming it's 'killed'..? 

Sony plays the long game.  It seems to me a lot of folks claimed the PS2 was stillborn and a flop for its first few years, but now it's become a success.

The bad economy killed the PS3

Posted: February 6th, 2009, 2:41 am
by m0zart1

[QUOTE=Bruce]Er, isn't it a bit early to be writing the PS3 off and claiming it's 'killed'..? 

Sony plays the long game.  It seems to me a lot of folks claimed the PS2 was stillborn and a flop for its first few years, but now it's become a success.
[/QUOTE]

I don't remember anybody suggesting that about the PS2 in its early years.  It was a major success out of the gate.

Am I misremembering something?

The bad economy killed the PS3

Posted: February 6th, 2009, 3:59 am
by Stalin
I am sure I had stated in my previous post that on the question of durability the DVD clearly wins over the VHS.
 
When I claimed there was no major improvement in picture clarity between DVD and VHS, I was assuming the comparison of a brand new VHS with a DVD.
 
I did not mean the comparison of a completely worn out VHS with a new DVD.
 
If one has to re-play and rewind a VHS 50 times in order to spot a significant difference in video quality between DVD and VHS, then the DVD format is clearly not a major step up from VHS.
 
So one should buy a DVD merely because it is more durable than the VHS?
 
It is still cheaper to buy a dozen VHS tapes than to acquire a new DVD player, not to mention the cost of DVDs.
 
Moreover, I had never re-played a VHS tape 50 times in my life, and I had not even come near that number, so the point is irrelevant.
 
I doubt that most people would play the same VHS tape more than a dozen times, unless it is a cherished VHS tape.
 
And of course sales matter to a console, and to the company which is producing the console.
 
This is why I had said the PS3 was killed by the bad economy in the first place, because it is not achieving nearly the same amount of sales in which Sony had expected.
 
The reasons why most people buy Xbox 360s instead of PS3s had been adequately stated by those posting on this thread: because their friends have them and because it has better online service.
 
Then one should not find it a surprise that sales for the Xbox 360 in 2007 far outnumber those of the PS3 in 2008.
 
On the issue of time: I thought this was a discussion about sales, not about market share.
 
The two are very different things, and it is fatal to confuse the two.
 
Sales for the Xbox 360 in 2007 were phenomenal whether or not it had all the market share and whether or not it was the first next-generation console to be released.
 
Fine, then let me compare the PS3¡¯s sales with the Wii: the two consoles were released at almost the same time, but the Wii became an instant hit.
 
So why complain on the timing of the PS3?
 
What one should be blaming the PS3¡¯s failure on should be the bad economy.

The bad economy killed the PS3

Posted: February 6th, 2009, 5:44 am
by m0zart1

[QUOTE=Stalin]Fine, then let me compare the PS3¡¯s sales with the Wii: the two consoles were released at almost the same time, but the Wii became an instant hit.
 
So why complain on the timing of the PS3?
 
What one should be blaming the PS3¡¯s failure on should be the bad economy.[/QUOTE]

That argument makes no sense.  All three consoles are in circulation within a bad economy, yet all three consoles aren't suffering from lackluster sales.  You're presenting the bad economy like the proverbial storm cloud following Charlie Brown around, raining on the PS3 but not on the others.  That's the stuff of comic books, not reality.

Besides that, the downturn only happened a few months ago.  The PS3 wasn't doing much better in those more substantial times than it is now.  Why are you harvesting a hump here while throwing out the camel?

Finally, the PS3 isn't dead.  It's not doing terrific, but it certainly hasn't died.

The bad economy killed the PS3

Posted: February 6th, 2009, 7:17 am
by Stalin
The Wii is priced twice as cheap as the PS3, so the economy does not really affect it.
 
The Xbox 360 not only had an early launch date but it was cheaper than the PS3 when it was released.
 
The PS3 lacks both the early launch date and the cheap price, so it was knocked down by the bad economy.
 
Thus it makes perfect sense why the economy affected the PS3 but not the other consoles.
 
Are some people too blind to notice that most gamers today cannot afford the PS3?
 
The signs of bad economy showed as early as 2005.
 
Unless some people were blind and too busy playing God of War or Doom 3 in that year to notice, the videogame market experienced a downturn in that year.
 
Some people resorted to playing the forgotten classic consoles and games (I was one of them), others bought the Nintendo DS, and still more people waited patiently for the release of the Xbox 360.
 
I lived through 2005 to know that a lot of people complained about the state of the market in that year.
 
If the market was so bad in 2005, then what made the economy so much better?
 
Businesses are the core of the economy these days, and private enterprise forms the backbone of the US economy.
 
Don't most people agree today that the second part of the Bush Administration was noticeably worse than the first part?
 
Was not 2005 the year when so many people began to protest about the Iraq War?
 
(granted, they had been protesting before that, but it really began to pick up in 2005)
 
Everywhere one looked in the news there was disaster: first there was the South Asian Tsunami, then the protest about the Iraq war, and complaints regarding the way the US was going.
 
The economy got worse from 2005 until Bush lost all the power he had left (if he even had any at the start), and ended up the way it is now.
 
Major downturns in the economy do not occur without causes, and these always go back to years before the downturn actually happens.
 
Why is the Bush Administration so infamous now?
 
Even in early 2007 most people I saw took it for granted that the US was going to decline in the future.
 
What does this show?
 
Was not the PS3 released only in late 2006?
 
People were already bracing themselves for the downturn of the economy, and so more gamers became reluctant to purchase a console which came with an enormous price tag.
 
One could certainly say that the PS3 had already died.
 
In the eyes of Sony, it had been a critical flop for the company and I do not think they are planning to revive the "sinking ship" any time soon.
 
The Sega Saturn was doomed as soon as it was launched, and its sales only declined as the years went on.
 
The Gamecube was unsuccessful from the start, and no amount of excellent first party titles changed that fact.
 
What makes one think Sony will survive this flop? Just because they are Sony? I think not.

 

P.S. I think I should continue posting as Stalin on this thread so as not to confuse others who had already posted replies on this thread. But I shall post as Kim on the other threads (except those threads which had been posted by aa already).



The bad economy killed the PS3

Posted: February 6th, 2009, 8:47 am
by Emehr
[QUOTE=Stalin]If one has to re-play and rewind a VHS 50 times in order to spot a significant difference in video quality between DVD and VHS, then the DVD format is clearly not a major step up from VHS. [/QUOTE]

50 was a number I pulled out of a hat. Change it to 15. Change it to 7. The point is, the picture on a VHS tape gets degraded with each use. You have a physical tape touching a rotating drum. You don't think that rotating drum is wearing down your tape? Try pausing a movie. See how the VCR automatically stops the tape after five minutes? That's your machine trying to save your tape from getting sanded down to nothing.
 
[QUOTE=Stalin]So one should buy a DVD merely because it is more durable than the VHS? [/QUOTE]
Reread my post for the other advantages. Did you miss the part about machines eating tapes? tracking? ability to almost instantly jump to a scene?
 
[QUOTE=Stalin]It is still cheaper to buy a dozen VHS tapes than to acquire a new DVD player, not to mention the cost of DVDs. [/QUOTE]
Completely lost me there.
 
You're not doing a very good job arguing that DVDs weren't a big jump from VHS. You'll do just as well to try and "suberbly argue" that CDs weren't a big leap from cassette tapes.

The bad economy killed the PS3

Posted: February 6th, 2009, 9:45 am
by Bruce
[QUOTE=m0zart]I don't remember anybody suggesting that about the PS2 in its early years.  It was a major success out of the gate.[/QUOTE]
Maybe my memory is playing tricks in my old age, but that's not how I remember it at all.  I can recall a LOT of whining about the PS2 when it first came out, sluggish sales, a lack of good games, and many predictions it would be a flop.

The bad economy killed the PS3

Posted: February 6th, 2009, 11:47 am
by Bruce

Never mind - I guess my memory is playing tricks on me: I found these sales figures on wikipedia....

Sales

Region Units sold First available
Japan 21,454,325 (as of October 1, 2008)[27] March 4, 2000
North America 50 million (as of January 1, 2009)[28] October 26, 2000
Europe 48 million (as of May 6, 2008)[29] November 24, 2000
Worldwide 140 million (as of July 20, 2008)[2]

 On November 29, 2005, the PlayStation 2 became the fastest game console to reach 100 million units shipped, accomplishing the feat within 5 years and 9 months from its launch. This achievement occurred faster than its predecessor, the PlayStation, which took 9 years and 6 months to reach the same benchmark.[17]

The PS2 has sold 140 million units worldwide as of July 20, 2008, according to Sony.[2] In Europe, the PS2 has sold 48 million units as of May 6, 2008, according to Sony Computer Entertainment Europe.[29] In the United States, the PS2 has sold 42.5 million units as of August 1, 2008, according to the NPD Group.[30] In Japan, the PS2 has sold 21,454,325 units as of October 1, 2008, according to Famitsu/Enterbrain.[27]

In Europe, the PS2 sold 6 million units in 2006 and 3.8 million in 2007, according to estimates by Electronic Arts.[31][32] In 2007, the PS2 sold 3.97 million units in the US according to the NPD Group[33][34] and 816,419 units in Japan according to Enterbrain.[35] In 2008, the PS2 sold 480,664 units in Japan, according to Enterbrain.[36][35]


The bad economy killed the PS3

Posted: February 6th, 2009, 1:36 pm
by Luke
[QUOTE=Stalin]T his is why I had said the PS3 was killed by the bad economy in the first place, because it is not achieving nearly the same amount of sales in which Sony had expected.   [/QUOTE]Ok fine. But you can't necessarily blame the struggling economy for the poor sales of the PS3. I mean, you can. But I think it's kinda foolish to do so. There are simply too many other factors to take into consideration. You've got bad marketing of the PS3 (stupid commercials, ridiculous claims and hype made by Sony execs, etc), the original high price tag, its lack of current exclusive titles, and the fact that so far it hasn't really shown itself to be any more powerful than the 360. Then of course you have to take into account the amazing success of the Wii!

If you want to make an argument as to why the PS3 isn't selling as well as the 360, why not just blame the success of the Wii for stealing its thunder and sales? At least then you might actually have a legitamite argument and be able to back that up with some factual evidence?