Sony kicked 'yo ass foo!

[Jonathan Meer]

You do remember when the PS3 was priced at like $700 just before release, right?

Then they trimmed it down to 600.

Then some more. And people were grumbling about the loss they were taking on every system.

Now they're doing this.

So you're pretty much wrong. PS3 has been priced hundreds of dollars more expensive in the past, but they realized quickly how insane that was when no one was buying their product. Just because they eventually got it down to with $100 of the 360 doesn't mean it was comfortable to do so - in fact, it's pretty brutal.

Ok, the 60GB at launch was $599. But the 20GB at launch was $499. So you could have a fully-functioning, 'standard' PS3 at launch for $500 (not $600 or $700).

Your language is quite silly. If you create a product and realize that it is priced too expensive for anyone to buy, then you lower the price. It's a reasonable business move. I don't understand why you're holding Sony at fault for editing its price in order to improve its business.

Hell, Wal-Mart'd probably rile the fuck up out of you.

[Belle Hibiki]

Ok, the 60GB at launch was $599. But the 20GB at launch was $499. So you could have a fully-functioning, 'standard' PS3 at launch for $500 (not $600 or $700).

Your language is quite silly. If you create a product and realize that it is priced too expensive for anyone to buy, then you lower the price. It's a reasonable business move. I don't understand why you're holding Sony at fault for editing its price in order to improve its business.

Hell, Wal-Mart'd probably rile the fuck up out of you.

I never said that it wasn't a reasonable business move to lower the price in that case. Its original price was WAY too high of an investment for most consumers to make.

You're misrepresenting things that I'm saying and trying to put words into my mouth. Sony "at fault"? I just think that they don't have enough prospects to reasonably start taking slices out of the 360/Wii userbase, even with a price cut. So, I think that this is probably about the fact that they're selling less systems than they want to right now than a sign of strength.

Like I've said before, they're taking big hits on every system sold. Taking $100 more is not something that you would do every day, and certainly not a move of strength when your console is a distant third in userbase.

Edit: And I think our terminology might be getting crossed, here. By "weak", I don't mean that it's necessarily a BAD move. It makes sense given their situation. But it's not a move made from a position of strength.

[Jonathan Meer]

If you actually read the rest of my post, I gave my reasons why I think that, in this case, it's a sign of weakness. Expansion certainly isn't always a signal of one thing or another, and I think it's pretty disingenuous for you to paint what I said as such.

Not trying to paint it. I'm genuinely confused. As far as I can tell, you're saying a reasonable business move is a sign of weakness. I don't see enough basis in your posts to suggest that.

[Super Buu]

They're doing terrible because they have to expand to "broke mothafuckas" like you. They were already taking a pretty hefty loss on every system sold (which isn't unusual, but in Sony's case it was really big), and now that gap is going to be even larger. If they were really doing fine, they'd just keep selling at their old price than try to expand into the 360 price range. They certainly don't have enough base to really commit to that kind of aggressive expansion, so this is probably just about the fact that they're not selling enough systems and they NEED money.

I'd assume that, like the PS2 slim, the new design actually cuts hardware costs.

....Who am I kidding, this is Obama Thread now. Continue the raging, this is entertaining.

[Jack]

I don't even expect my posts to be read right now. I could post a vagina and nobody would even notice.

Obama Thread, I love you.

[Super Buu]

Let's see how much lols we can bleed out of this thread before it comes to the peaceful resolution described on page 2.

[Jonathan Meer]

I never said that it wasn't a reasonable business move to lower the price in that case. Its original price was WAY too high of an investment for most consumers to make.

That's true. The original price was high.

You're misrepresenting things that I'm saying and trying to put words into my mouth. Sony "at fault"? I just think that they don't have enough prospects to reasonably start taking slices out of the 360/Wii userbase, even with a price cut. So, I think that this is probably about the fact that they're selling less systems than they want to right now than a sign of strength.

If I'm misrepresenting what you're saying or putting words in your mouth, I apologize. It's unintentional.

I'm still not sure how 'them changing the price for the sake of selling more systems' is a sign of weakness. Microsoft has dropped the price of their systems in the past, and I imagine it was also because they were selling fewer systems than they would have liked.

Like I've said before, they're taking big hits on every system sold. Taking $100 more is not something that you would do every day, and certainly not a move of strength when your console is a distant third in userbase.

Not-so-distant third. And it's a bit misleading to compare either Microsoft or Sony against the Wii. It constitutes a separate territory in the video game market at this point.

They were taking big hits on every system sold. Last I heard, while they're not making a profit (it's rather uncommon for a console to do that), the manufacturing cost of the components of the PS3 has been significantly reduced in recent years. I don't know if it's such a big hit anymore.

[Sage]

Your inroads thing is clever. Only that's not what's happening.

Instead, your typical developer is like 'fuck this, I'm coding for a system that makes sense,' ie, computer, 360.

And yeah. MGS4 will look better than Gears because it was specifically designed for PS3. Your typical multiplatform game, on the other hand, looks better on the 360, is more stable, and has better DLC support. A big part of that being that the PS3 sucks ass to code for.

Look at Fallout 3. Almost visibly identical and the 360 version is way less glitched (which is hilarious, because it's still horribly spotty). You get fewer instances of the dreaded "guy fell through the rail in Megaton," for example. And patches have been released quicker and more frequently. =x

The whole 'progressively better' thing only would have worked if anyone actually cared enough to push the machine along. Only very few developers do.

Bottom line is there isn't nearly enough money in it versus projected and actual cost, so people are either pulling out entirely, or just basically playing lip service by releasing what is essentially a 360 port of whatever game to PS3.

Corporate arrogance is what allowed the PSX to overtake the N64 back when Nintendo was legitimate and also an unstoppable juggernaut, and the same thing is what's killing the PS3.

Ultimately, sales don't lie. Developers need sales and sales are better in the 360 camp. Even if the machine is a piece of shit, that's just the way it is.

[Josh]

PS3 sales have been better overall then 360 sales, if you match up their release dates the PS3 is beating 360 in units moved.

About the coding issue.

The reason the PS3 is hard to code for is not because the architecture sucks, it's actually brilliant and powerful- but it's very new. They use Cell computing which requires multithread coding and an entirely new way of thinking; the PS3 really is next generation unlike the Xbox 360 which is just a gussied up PC.

That's why Valve likes coding for the Xbox360, because they simply write the code for the PC version and then port it over to the Xbox360 which is cake. They won't simply admit that it requires talent and effort to code for the PS3, as well as money, so they say it's stupid to code for the PS3.

This is also why multiplatform games look better on the Xbox360- sometimes. Because most of the time the game is coded specifically for the Xbox360 and then they use a developers kit from Sony to help port it over. Though as time goes on this is going to get better and better on the PS3 as they update the the kit.

Even better is that the PS3 hasn't even reached full power yet, while the 360 is basically pushing the very limit of it's hardware the PS3 has shit tons of room left which is going to become more apparent over the years.

[Sage]

'Sort of' or 'technically' better sales aren't better sales.

About the architecture. ...I basically said the exact same thing in a meaner way. I'm still adamant that it's stupid, but I guess we shall see. And yeah, totally didn't say the 360 was or was not already at the edge of it's ability. O.o

[Waffuru]

PS3 is not hard to code for.

It's just different from everything else and not based on DirectX so it has to be learned from scratch.

[Sage]

I find it hard to believe that when everyone including Sony claims that it is. -_-

[Waffuru]

I'm actually learning to code for Phyre Engine for PS3.

o_O/

[Belle Hibiki]

I fail to see how "leaning a new programming language from scratch" isn't hard.

I mean, sure, ostensibly it may not be more complicated than other systems, but it's not as if learning something completely new is easy.

[Sage]

I'm actually learning to code for Phyre Engine for PS3.

o_O/

Cool.

But... to what end?

[Waffuru]

That's why everyone has said 'it's too hard ;_;', but once they've learned it and y'know passed the learning curve it's not like it's any harder to code for than anything else.

You do still have to learn it, but once you do you're fine.

Cool.

But... to what end?

I'm not at liberty to discuss that.

[Sage]

...I'll bet.

[Tempo]

why isnt this over yet?

[Sage]

It hasn't degenerated into one of those 'You're a fag for liking 'x' more than 'y'' fights yet.

No sense locking something that hasn't spiraled horribly out of control.

[Jack]

Sage... YOU'RE A FAG FOR LIKE 360 MORE THAN PS3 AND I HAVE PROOF. Where is this proof, you ask? Two words:

Uranus