Is Sony in Trouble?

"Mattinglyfan" <nospam.TakeThisOut@bigmommashouse.com> wrote in message
news:O5mdndfJTMrQzkfZnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "TheGame" <n0n0n0n0n0.TakeThisOut@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:1155155060.092950.39870@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> True. Just think, if you do not have HDTV (which most ppl don't have)
>> and don't plan on buying one, then in essence you are paying $500 (or
>> $600) just for a game console, which is inconceivable.
>
> The Neo Geo and friends called from the 80's and they are wondering how
> old you are.

What was the market penetration of the Neo Geo? Are you suggesting we might
have to pay hundreds of dollars for the PS3 games, as well?
 >> Stay informed about: Is Sony in Trouble? 

"Fred Liken" <nothanks RemoveThis @toocoolforschool.com> wrote in message
news:44da75a9$0$60308$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com...
> "Mattinglyfan" <nospam RemoveThis @bigmommashouse.com> wrote in message
> news:O5mdndfJTMrQzkfZnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>> "TheGame" <n0n0n0n0n0 RemoveThis @excite.com> wrote in message
>> news:1155155060.092950.39870@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>> True. Just think, if you do not have HDTV (which most ppl don't have)
>>> and don't plan on buying one, then in essence you are paying $500 (or
>>> $600) just for a game console, which is inconceivable.
>>
>> The Neo Geo and friends called from the 80's and they are wondering how
>> old you are.
>
> What was the market penetration of the Neo Geo? Are you suggesting we
> might have to pay hundreds of dollars for the PS3 games, as well?
>

No but to anyone who has been gaming for longer than 15 years, doesn't the
statement, paying $500 "just" for a game console, seem silly considering
what we have all paid in our lives for much less?
 >> Stay informed about: Is Sony in Trouble? 

"TheGame" <n0n0n0n0n0.TakeThisOut@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1155155060.092950.39870@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> True. Just think, if you do not have HDTV (which most ppl don't have)
> and don't plan on buying one, then in essence you are paying $500 (or
> $600) just for a game console, which is inconceivable.

For the umpteenth time....Sony does not want you to think, and from
everything I've read does not even think internally, of the PS3 as "just a
game console." Crazy Ken would bitch slap a gamer who called the PS3 just a
game console. The inclusion of Linux is, according to Sony, supposed to
drive people to use it as a web browser and to send email, etc. I am not
saying that it's not really "just a game console" but I am saying that Sony
doesn't think of it that way. Plus, the console even on a SDTV will very
likely provide more objects on screen and be a bump in graphics from the
PS2, just like the 360 is a bump even on a SDTV from the XBox. If people
would realize they really do mean the "it's a PC" stuff Crazy Ken has been
saying, and that they really do think people actually want a console in
their living room to do all the things their desktop PC does (but with an OS
only 10% of the world uses) they'd understand why they're willing to release
it now. I'm not saying that strategy's smart (because it's not) but it is
what they believe.
 >> Stay informed about: Is Sony in Trouble? 

"Mattinglyfan" <nospam.DeleteThis@bigmommashouse.com> wrote in message
news:ZKednZ7sxpxIHUfZnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Fred Liken" <nothanks.DeleteThis@toocoolforschool.com> wrote in message
> news:44da75a9$0$60308$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com...
>> "Mattinglyfan" <nospam.DeleteThis@bigmommashouse.com> wrote in message
>> news:O5mdndfJTMrQzkfZnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> "TheGame" <n0n0n0n0n0.DeleteThis@excite.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1155155060.092950.39870@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>>> True. Just think, if you do not have HDTV (which most ppl don't have)
>>>> and don't plan on buying one, then in essence you are paying $500 (or
>>>> $600) just for a game console, which is inconceivable.
>>>
>>> The Neo Geo and friends called from the 80's and they are wondering how
>>> old you are.
>>
>> What was the market penetration of the Neo Geo? Are you suggesting we
>> might have to pay hundreds of dollars for the PS3 games, as well?
>
> No but to anyone who has been gaming for longer than 15 years, doesn't the
> statement, paying $500 "just" for a game console, seem silly considering
> what we have all paid in our lives for much less?

You bought a Neo Geo? I didn't. Not many people did. Why? Because to the
vast majority, paying $500 to $600 dollars was very much inconceivable. His
point was very valid, especially since he's already talking about people
that didn't see the value of buying a HDTV anyways.
 >> Stay informed about: Is Sony in Trouble? 

"CJ" <cjmartin04.RemoveThis@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:_pwCg.14132$rd1.12510@trnddc01...
>
> "TheGame" <n0n0n0n0n0.RemoveThis@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:1155155060.092950.39870@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> True. Just think, if you do not have HDTV (which most ppl don't have)
>> and don't plan on buying one, then in essence you are paying $500 (or
>> $600) just for a game console, which is inconceivable.
>
> For the umpteenth time....Sony does not want you to think, and from
> everything I've read does not even think internally, of the PS3 as "just a
> game console." Crazy Ken would bitch slap a gamer who called the PS3 just
> a game console. The inclusion of Linux is, according to Sony, supposed to
> drive people to use it as a web browser and to send email, etc.

Yes, because Linux is the perfect OS for couch potatoes. You wouldn't need
something like Linux just for web and email, honestly. It's marketing only.

> I am not saying that it's not really "just a game console" but I am saying
> that Sony doesn't think of it that way. Plus, the console even on a SDTV
> will very likely provide more objects on screen and be a bump in graphics
> from the PS2, just like the 360 is a bump even on a SDTV from the XBox.

I agree. It'll probably look better, IMHO, since it would mask aliasing.

> If people would realize they really do mean the "it's a PC" stuff Crazy
> Ken has been saying, and that they really do think people actually want a
> console in their living room to do all the things their desktop PC does
> (but with an OS only 10% of the world uses)

No, actually the OS the PS3 is using, 0% of the world uses. It's not Red
Hat, SUSE, etc, AFAIK.

> they'd understand why they're willing to release it now. I'm not saying
> that strategy's smart (because it's not) but it is what they believe.

I doubt it. Sounds like another way to get around taxes, etc.
 >> Stay informed about: Is Sony in Trouble? 

Funny that you mention that, Kaz recently suggested that PS3 games may
cost between $59 and $99. If you compare the cost of DVD9 and BR, BR
costs about 15x more. NeoGeo games cost alot due to the use of
cartridge. If my memory is correct, those carts were huge.

Fred Liken wrote:
> What was the market penetration of the Neo Geo? Are you suggesting we might
> have to pay hundreds of dollars for the PS3 games, as well?
 >> Stay informed about: Is Sony in Trouble? 

Tom wrote:
> It's a hard time to sell an expensive console designed for HDTV. We
> are in a transition period of people buying new, expensive HDTV's.
> Those that don't have an HDTV yet (estimated to be 75 percent)

Last I heard is that 85% of U$ households don't have HDTV and probably
99% households don't have an HDTV with HDMI 1.3.

> won't
> want to spend $500+ on something they can't fully utilize, and those
> households that do have HDTV probably just bought it within the last
> year or two which means they may not have much disposible income left
> to spend on an expensive console.

This also applies to PS3 and game/BR sales. Due to its price, I don't
expect a high console to game ratio for PS3 at launch. If one buys PS3
60GB, 2 games, extra controller, and extended warranty, that is going
to cost nearly $900.
 >> Stay informed about: Is Sony in Trouble? 

Well you are saying the key words "in a few years". Besides, FCC could
delay the digital TV law again. I certainly hope not since I have HDTV
but it could happen.

GMAN wrote:
> Well in a few years you will have no choice but to either use a converter box
> with your old tv or in the event that you want to or need to buy a new TV, you
> will have nothing but HDTV or at the very least SD ATSC sets to choose from.
> Any TV over 27" I believe now must include an ATSC tuner .
 >> Stay informed about: Is Sony in Trouble? 

CJ wrote:
> For the umpteenth time....Sony does not want you to think, and from
> everything I've read does not even think internally, of the PS3 as "just a
> game console." Crazy Ken would bitch slap a gamer who called the PS3 just a
> game console.

hehe

> The inclusion of Linux is, according to Sony, supposed to
> drive people to use it as a web browser and to send email, etc.

True but you really need an HDTV in order to read the text better in
web pages, email, etc or else you got the Dreamcast web browser all
over again... (yuck)

> If people
> would realize they really do mean the "it's a PC" stuff Crazy Ken has been
> saying, and that they really do think people actually want a console in
> their living room to do all the things their desktop PC does (but with an OS
> only 10% of the world uses)

I doubt the public is buying it. Even Ken is not saying that anymore.
It seems as if sony is trying something to hype about PS3, but it does
not seem to be effective this time around. Maybe the public has learned
from PS2? Maybe M$ is secretly paying game mags off to diss PS3..? I
dunno but the mags, even OPM, have been pretty critical of PS3.

> they'd understand why they're willing to release it now. I'm not saying that strategy's
> smart (because it's not) but it is what they believe.

Well they have to release it this year. Sony can't afford M$ to get an
even larger head start. And lets not forget, Wii will be serious
competition, esp in japan. Supposedly there will be 5 million Wiis
shipped worldwide by the end of the year. If that turns out to be true
then PS3 will be deep in last place...
 >> Stay informed about: Is Sony in Trouble? 

In article <1155155060.092950.39870 RemoveThis @i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "TheGame" <n0n0n0n0n0 RemoveThis @excite.com> wrote:
>True. Just think, if you do not have HDTV (which most ppl don't have)
>and don't plan on buying one, then in essence you are paying $500 (or
>$600) just for a game console, which is inconceivable.
>

Well in a few years you will have no choice but to either use a converter box
with your old tv or in the event that you want to or need to buy a new TV, you
will have nothing but HDTV or at the very least SD ATSC sets to choose from.
Any TV over 27" I believe now must include an ATSC tuner .



>Doug Jacobs wrote:
>> I agree that the PS3 is a bit ahead of its time. Between the confusion
>> about the new formats, the expensive components in the PS3 (Cell, Blu-Ray
>> drive), and the relatively small percentage of consumers with a HDTV, if
>> Sony could have waited even just one year, I think the PS3 would be much
>> better off.
>
 >> Stay informed about: Is Sony in Trouble? 

"TheGame" <n0n0n0n0n0.RemoveThis@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1155246451.927261.139950@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Well you are saying the key words "in a few years". Besides, FCC could
> delay the digital TV law again. I certainly hope not since I have HDTV
> but it could happen.

For most people, the timing of the ending of over the air SD signals
doesn't matter. If somebody gets their TV from cable or satellite, they'll
continue to get TV the same way, regardless if they have an HDTV or not. The
only thing that's ending is OTA SD broadcasts, the channels on a cable
system won't suddenly all become HD, a consumer will only get those by
purchasing their HD package just like we do now. The only way the timing of
that changeover would matter is if cable and DirecTV/Dish suddenly stopped
broadcasting in SD, but they're not.
 >> Stay informed about: Is Sony in Trouble? 

It's really about the FCC wanting the big $$ they can make from
auctioning off the analog spectrum which will be freed up by HDTV. They
couldn't give a rat's ass about the consumer or the technological
benefits of HDTV (beyond the fact that it will free up the analogy
spectrum so they can sell it).

-Eric

CJ wrote:
> For most people, the timing of the ending of over the air SD signals
> doesn't matter. If somebody gets their TV from cable or satellite, they'll
> continue to get TV the same way, regardless if they have an HDTV or not. The
> only thing that's ending is OTA SD broadcasts, the channels on a cable
> system won't suddenly all become HD, a consumer will only get those by
> purchasing their HD package just like we do now. The only way the timing of
> that changeover would matter is if cable and DirecTV/Dish suddenly stopped
> broadcasting in SD, but they're not.
 >> Stay informed about: Is Sony in Trouble?