Did the PS3 just come out too early?

Ryuukishi

Ryuukishi

CAGiversary!
Feedback
12 (100%)
I've got a little pet theory that Sony had waited another year, or even two years, to release the PlayStation 3, it would be faring better against its competition. The supporting evidence, as I see it:

- The PS2 was still going strong in terms of sales and new game releases, making Sony fans more reluctant to upgrade
- Games with long development cycles like MGS4 and Final Fantasy could have come out sooner after the console's debut
- Sony may have been able to offer lower initial prices
- DualShock 3 would have been ready
- Unlike the perfect timing of the PS2 and the DVD format, 2006 was too soon for consumers to want to upgrade to Blu-Ray

Of course, waiting any longer would have made the Xbox 360's position that much more entrenched, and would have meant even less competition for the Wii in its first year.

So was the PS3 just too far ahead of its time in 2006? I'm interested in hearing other people's opinions.

(Please don't interpret this as just a fanboy bash against Sony, I own and love all of their other consoles and I'm a fan of the company as a whole. :) )
 
Sony wanted to wait no doubt for the PS3, but was forced to launch earlier due to MS releasing the 360 early and Sony couldn't afford MS getting a larger foothold of the HD market. Sony wasn't really concerned over Europe and Japan, mostly the U.S./U.K. (where MS was a threat last gen).
 
I don't know about too early, but it definitely launched with too high of a pricetag. But I guess they were in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation like you said.
 
[quote name='The Mana Knight']Sony wanted to wait no doubt for the PS3, but was forced to launch earlier due to MS releasing the 360 early and Sony couldn't afford MS getting a larger foothold of the HD market. Sony wasn't really concerned over Europe and Japan, mostly the U.S./U.K. (where MS was a threat last gen).[/quote]It makes me wonder why Sony was so rattled by Microsoft's head start this time around, when twice already in previous generations, Sega had rushed a console out early but still been steamrolled by Sony despite the head start.
 
it wasn't a console battle... it was a format battle. sony lost the format battle with betamax vs vhs, they were not going to let that happen again. blu ray is now standard, it will be for years to come and hddvd will be obsolete. :)
 
[quote name='keithp']I don't know about too early, but it definitely launched with too high of a pricetag. But I guess they were in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation like you said.[/QUOTE]The problem was, Sony was selling every PS3 console at a $240 to $300 loss near launch. Blu-ray was NOT the main contribution to it (It added $100 to PS3 costs), it was the main PS3 motherboard which cost $500 to produced many estimates predicted.
[quote name='Ryuukishi']It makes me wonder why Sony was so rattled by Microsoft's head start this time around, when twice already in previous generations, Sega had rushed a console out early but still been steamrolled by Sony despite the head start.[/QUOTE]Well, the difference was Sega was never really a threat to Sony. They were in lots of debt and were already struggling. Devs were already weary of supporting Sega due to previous console problems, while all publishers had confidence in supporting MS. MOST people refused to buy a Dreamcast and/or Saturn due to being screwed by Sega in the past (for Sega CD and 32X especially). When reading an old EGM, the entire reason most skipped out on Dreamcast was because of Sega's past, and NO EA support (the biggest publisher).

Although MS never made money on Xbox, they were a fierce competitor. I mean in 2003, Xbox and PS2 sales were actually pretty close, and when I saw an NPD of 2004, the original Xbox actually outsold PS2 that year. But since PS2 already had a huge lead, Xbox could never catch up. That's why Sony say MS has a threat. Also, MS has deep pockets and is willing to spend BIG money for exclusives, something Sony doesn't really have (they are a big company, but they don't exactly make huge profits like MS).

MS launching the 360 first hurt Sony because:
-Developers had 360 development kits way before PS3 development kits, which lead to developers supporting 360 with exclusive content early on due to having no competition. By the time Sony had PS3 development kits out, most devs were already more familiar with 360, using it as a lead platform, and it lead to 360 getting an exclusive game advantage because devs who wanted to make a next gen game, went to 360, and when PS3 came along, they already started (that's the name reason Namco has so many 360 exclusives).
-Sony was forced to rush PS3 out, when its cost was still high, were really far behind with firmware features, didn't have the software emulated EE ready in time for PS2 BC (wasn't ready until March), and so on.

Actually, the situation with rumble is that Immersion DID have a contract with MS that if they put rumble on PS3, they'd have to pay MS back $15 million out of $20 million (I may be wrong on the numbers), so in ways, Sony actually helped MS by getting rumble back. Sony brought it back since people demanded, but they weren't really sure since they'd be helping MS in a way (since Sony would have to pay, and money was going back in MS pocket).

Right now, I could get into a really long post explaining why PS3 was launched early, how it hurt/helped MS and Sony, but I'm just not in the mood (I apologize since my post is poorly constructed here).
 
[quote name='Ryuukishi']It makes me wonder why Sony was so rattled by Microsoft's head start this time around, when twice already in previous generations, Sega had rushed a console out early but still been steamrolled by Sony despite the head start.[/quote]

Cuz Sega doesn't burn money the way Bill Gates does (or can). They lost what, $4 billion on manufacturing and advertising for the 1st Xbox? Let's see Sega do that and not go bankrupt! The Xbox never became profitable, and they matched the price of the PS2 drop for drop, every single time. They never came close to the PS2's numbers, but they put a much bigger dent in the industry than anyone thought they would or could.

Consider this:

-Xbox 1 doubled all the specs of the PS2, making a system literally twice as powerful (double the CPU speed, double the RAM, etc)
-Xbox 1 sold at a loss and dropped MSRP in 6 months or less, I don't remember, but faster than any console before or after it, just to match the PS2 dollar for dollar
-had a somewhat comprehensive online structure from the beginning, which only evolved, and made Xbox THE platform for online gaming

Honestly, it was in Microsoft's best interest to launch early, because of those strengths they had going in. Launching closer to the PS3 wouldn't give them such a clear price advantage, or developers time to get used to the hardware, or to get out truly 'next-gen' games.

PS1 dominated so hard that everyone wanted to wait to see what the PS2 would do before sinking money on a Dreamcast, which was a follow-up to the rather unsuccessful Saturn (at least by comparison). Xbox really didn't have that problem from a consumer standpoint.

But here's the kicker: Sony seems to have forgotten it's lessons from the last two generations.

PS1 - underpowered compared to N64, but still clearly #1

PS2 - inferior to both Gamecube AND Xbox in terms of technical specs (I've looked into it, it's true... few devs really harnessed the power the GC was capable of) but still dominated because of great 3rd party support, affordability, and previous success/brand loyalty/etc

PS3 - Sony tries to match the 360 in terms of horse power, and ends up playing the game Microsoft originally started: selling consoles at a loss just to get some marketshare, and hoping software sales / decreased production costs will make up for it in the future

And now they're hurting because of it. Meanwhile, the under-powered Wii is showing us graphics aren't everything (I realize this argument isn't very black and white, based on the type and scope of games available), even more illustrated by the DS vs PSP. PSP has picked up a lot of slack in the past year, and will probably do even better with newer models coming out (cuz people eat that shit up) and a few exclusives which will push some units (like all the new S-E games coming out, which people also eat up).

So, I think Sony either should have waited longer or gone for something less ambitious. More the latter, since they had obvious reason to be concerned over Microsoft's gains and endless cash to burn.

Edit: Haha, Mana, looks like you beat me to some of it. I was so busy typing my response I didn't realized you'd gotten to it (though I was expecting you too sooner or later).

[quote name='The Mana Knight']
Actually, the situation with rumble is that Immersion DID have a contract with MS that if they put rumble on PS3, they'd have to pay MS back $15 million out of $20 million (I may be wrong on the numbers), so in ways, Sony actually helped MS by getting rumble back. Sony brought it back since people demanded, but they weren't really sure since they'd be helping MS in a way (since Sony would have to pay, and money was going back in MS pocket). [/quote]

I'm reminded of a quite from Phil Harrison:

"I believe that the Sixaxis controller offers game designers and developers far more opportunity for future innovation than rumble ever did. Now, rumble I think was the last generation feature; it's not the next-generation feature. I think motion sensitivity is. And we don't see the need to do that. Having said that, there will be specific game function controllers, potentially like steering wheels that do include vibration or feedback function -- not from us but from third parties."

:applause:
 
Sony was not ready, when they released the PS3. So in terms of being ready, yes they released too early. But the issue is that, they could not afford to let the 360 go two years uncontested, or let the Wii have a year (or even 6 months) uncontested. Honestly, though, PS3 early adopters have essentially been rewarded for being early adopters. How often does that happen. Overall, though Sony released the PS3 at the right time.
 
[quote name='johnnypark']They never came close to the PS2's numbers, but they put a much bigger dent in the industry than anyone thought they would or could.

[/QUOTE]

actually the original xbox was a disapointment to MS. while MS expected to lose money, they were also expecting to complete with sony for first place, not second with nintendo.
 
Bluray would be dead if the PS3 had launched and later. I think if Sony launched the PS3 earlier, even by 6 months, it would take the steam all away from MS.

Regardless the PS2 still amazes me on how many they sell.
 
[quote name='johnnypark']Cuz Sega doesn't burn money the way Bill Gates does (or can). They lost what, $4 billion on manufacturing and advertising for the 1st Xbox? Let's see Sega do that and not go bankrupt! The Xbox never became profitable, and they matched the price of the PS2 drop for drop, every single time. They never came close to the PS2's numbers, but they put a much bigger dent in the industry than anyone thought they would or could.

Consider this:

-Xbox 1 doubled all the specs of the PS2, making a system literally twice as powerful (double the CPU speed, double the RAM, etc)
-Xbox 1 sold at a loss and dropped MSRP in 6 months or less, I don't remember, but faster than any console before or after it, just to match the PS2 dollar for dollar
-had a somewhat comprehensive online structure from the beginning, which only evolved, and made Xbox THE platform for online gaming

Honestly, it was in Microsoft's best interest to launch early, because of those strengths they had going in. Launching closer to the PS3 wouldn't give them such a clear price advantage, or developers time to get used to the hardware, or to get out truly 'next-gen' games.

PS1 dominated so hard that everyone wanted to wait to see what the PS2 would do before sinking money on a Dreamcast, which was a follow-up to the rather unsuccessful Saturn (at least by comparison). Xbox really didn't have that problem from a consumer standpoint.

But here's the kicker: Sony seems to have forgotten it's lessons from the last two generations.

PS1 - underpowered compared to N64, but still clearly #1

PS2 - inferior to both Gamecube AND Xbox in terms of technical specs (I've looked into it, it's true... few devs really harnessed the power the GC was capable of) but still dominated because of great 3rd party support, affordability, and previous success/brand loyalty/etc

PS3 - Sony tries to match the 360 in terms of horse power, and ends up playing the game Microsoft originally started: selling consoles at a loss just to get some marketshare, and hoping software sales / decreased production costs will make up for it in the future

And now they're hurting because of it. Meanwhile, the under-powered Wii is showing us graphics aren't everything (I realize this argument isn't very black and white, based on the type and scope of games available), even more illustrated by the DS vs PSP. PSP has picked up a lot of slack in the past year, and will probably do even better with newer models coming out (cuz people eat that shit up) and a few exclusives which will push some units (like all the new S-E games coming out, which people also eat up).

So, I think Sony either should have waited longer or gone for something less ambitious. More the latter, since they had obvious reason to be concerned over Microsoft's gains and endless cash to burn.

Edit: Haha, Mana, looks like you beat me to some of it. I was so busy typing my response I didn't realized you'd gotten to it (though I was expecting you too sooner or later).



I'm reminded of a quite from Phil Harrison:

"I believe that the Sixaxis controller offers game designers and developers far more opportunity for future innovation than rumble ever did. Now, rumble I think was the last generation feature; it's not the next-generation feature. I think motion sensitivity is. And we don't see the need to do that. Having said that, there will be specific game function controllers, potentially like steering wheels that do include vibration or feedback function -- not from us but from third parties."

:applause:[/quote]

You forgot that the cell wasn't made to combat the 360. This was Kutarugi's baby. He's been designing and dreaming of the cell well before the Playstation 2 came out in the US. HE is the one that sunk all that money into it. The blu ray was smart and will eventually become huge, but the cell processor and all that other crazy design was ALL KUTARUGI and his MADNESS or should I say BRILLIANCE? Though he is fucking crazy as hell, he does hae an eye for vision.
 
[quote name='DestroVega']don't forget the fact that PS2 played DVD's helped it out alot... cause it did.[/quote]

What's a DVD?
 
I definitely would not have been bothered if Sony milked the PS2 for a while longer and released the PS3 sometime around now or even next year. I think console cycles are far too short. Nothing's wrong with PS2/XBX/GC graphics right now: Persona 4 on PS2 is one of my most anticipated games.
 
[quote name='johnnypark']PS3 - Sony tries to match the 360 in terms of horse power, and ends up playing the game Microsoft originally started: selling consoles at a loss just to get some marketshare, and hoping software sales / decreased production costs will make up for it in the future
[/quote]

Non-Nintendo consoles will generally be technically superior to what's out before them. PS2 came before Xbox, but PS3 came *after* 360. Additionally, since the old days, console manufacturers take a loss on hardware to build a larger installed base, because they plan to make a killing on publishing. As installed bases grow, more consoles are manufactured (ordering more costs less), and prices for components go down. Eventually, the hardware begins to make a profit. The PS2 didn't start making a profit until not long ago, and the 360 has also recently turned a profit. By 2010, I'm sure the PS3 will be turning a profit.
 
The main thing this gen that's holding Sony and MS back is their inability to DROP prices. Couple that with all of the extraneous garbage they've tried shoving into their consoles this gen compared to last gen and there's your reasons WHY they can't drop prices quick.

I just don't get why the hell we can't just have a pure gaming machine these days. Why do we 'need' these extra functions? Sure, they're nice and all, but if it keeps the systems from dropping to where many other consumers and I will consider them a good value, then they're only shooting themsevles in the foot in the process.

As for if they released too early, I'd say that they had no choice this gen, since the competition is fierce and they couldn't afford to let MS and Nintendo get too much of a head start.
 
Playstation 3 was released at an initial price point high enough to scare people away in droves. That I believe was the biggest problem, yes waiting might have helped that but then they lose far more of the market to Microsoft and Nintendo. Even if the Xbox 360 and Wii didn't exist there was never any guarantee that the average person was going to plunk down 600 dollars for a console, it was a flawed idea from the start.
 
[quote name='fatez']it wasn't a console battle... it was a format battle. sony lost the format battle with betamax vs vhs, they were not going to let that happen again. blu ray is now standard, it will be for years to come and hddvd will be obsolete. :)[/quote]

I believe this is the case as well. The PS3 was the reason why so many studios were backing Bluray. PS3 is the #1 Bluray player on the marker and will probably remain there until players start selling for under $100. I do not think Bluray would of won if it PS3 was released 2 years later.
 
If the ps3 had been released later, would Sony have received all the kinds of feedback that users have contributed for updating, fixing and improving the XMB/system usability as a whole to the point that we're at now? Or would a lot of the interface still be a work in progress, making users complain that they waited so long for this?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think a lot of the updates you see were planned and a lot of them were from consumer demand. Again, if PS3 launched later Bluray would be dead. I honestly wished they had launched earlier by 6 months as long as they swallowed some pride, dropped some of the 'features' (card readers?!), included rumble from the get go, slapped an HD cable, and kept BC... man Sony would be on top in my book! Wifi shouldn't have been standard, neither should a web browser. Keeping it a core game console with Bluray capabilities and update the system later would have been the tits
 
[quote name='cuco33']I think a lot of the updates you see were planned and a lot of them were from consumer demand. Again, if PS3 launched later Bluray would be dead. I honestly wished they had launched earlier by 6 months as long as they swallowed some pride, dropped some of the 'features' (card readers?!), included rumble from the get go, slapped an HD cable, and kept BC... man Sony would be on top in my book! Wifi shouldn't have been standard, neither should a web browser. Keeping it a core game console with Bluray capabilities and update the system later would have been the tits[/QUOTE]


Dropping features before launch is always bad PR, remember they did drop the dual HDMI output, (or the dual monitor output) and even though it was clearly a feature that wasn't "needed" there was a lot of backlash for that.

Too bad sony can't use some of those Blu Ray profits that were a direct result of PS3 to help further supplement a price drop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top