Note to Sony: End the Stupidity (Lund)
Jonah Falcon
advice on how to solve it.
--------------------
Note to Sony:
Here’s some free advice - You’ve made a lot of critical errors with
the Playstation 3 (pricing it too high, not sending out enough dev
kits then claiming you did, saying you weren’t going to delay the
launch, then delaying the launch, etc.) and based on the diatribe from
Bobby Kotick, head of Activision, it’s time to start meeting your
latest error head on.
Rest of article: http://www.gamestooge.com/2009/06/19/editorial-note-to-sony-end-the-stupidity/
Mattinglyfan
Sony was planning on dropping the price any way and no statement from
ANY developer is going change that. They are not stupid. You can't
announce a price cut until right before it happens and obviously their
time is not yet.
Doug Jacobs
> Sony was planning on dropping the price any way and no statement from
> ANY developer is going change that. They are not stupid. You can't
> announce a price cut until right before it happens and obviously their
> time is not yet.
I'm sure that Sony has a plan for the PS3 and its pricing. And we all
know you announce a price drop right before you implement it.
That's not the problem.
The problem is that the PS3 should have already had a price drop. Going
this far into 2009 with a $400 and $500 console is just crazy. When Sony
didn't drop the price in January/February, everyone figured Sony was
waiting for E3...which came...went...and still no price drop.
Now Sony has a new problem. Because of Activision's saber-rattling, if
Sony DOES drop the price now then they'll look like they're bowing to
pressure from Activision - even if their original plan was to drop the
price in the summer or fall timeframe.
I really don't know how much weight to put behind Activision's statement
though. They obviously have games for the PS3 in various stages of
development, and I doubt they'd just pull the plug on all of them. Even
if Activision announced that starting tomorrow they won't start any new
PS3 games, that means they'd still be releasing PS3 titles for the better
part of a year before they were completely PS3-free.
--
It's not broken. It's...advanced.
Mattinglyfan
I think they would alienate more gamers than creating 360 sales.
There are more PS2 gamers than PS3 and 360 combined. I still see
people buying PS2 games (I personally think its kind of silly). But I
guess if I weren't in a position where I could afford every new system
when it comes out, I might look at things differently. I played my
360 to death for extended periods of time but it has spent the last 4
months in my classroom closet. If the $400 I paid for it were truly a
big deal to me, I would force myself to play it or at least make my
kids play it. I had a PS2 installed in my wife's minivan more than a
year ago that hasn't been used since. My DS has gone unused for 11.5
out of the last 12 months. I didn't use my PSP for 3 months until
picking Monster Hunter. We are not the "average" gamers. The average
gamer doesn't have stacks of games unplayed for extended periods of
time. The average gamer, makes it a point to make their investment
worthwhile. You, yourself have described instances where your PS3 was
a "paperweight". "Average" people don't buy paperweights let alone
$400 ones. You my friend, are not average.
Doug Jacobs
> I think they would alienate more gamers than creating 360 sales.
> There are more PS2 gamers than PS3 and 360 combined. I still see
> people buying PS2 games (I personally think its kind of silly). But I
> guess if I weren't in a position where I could afford every new system
> when it comes out, I might look at things differently. I played my
> 360 to death for extended periods of time but it has spent the last 4
> months in my classroom closet. If the $400 I paid for it were truly a
> big deal to me, I would force myself to play it or at least make my
> kids play it. I had a PS2 installed in my wife's minivan more than a
> year ago that hasn't been used since. My DS has gone unused for 11.5
> out of the last 12 months. I didn't use my PSP for 3 months until
> picking Monster Hunter. We are not the "average" gamers. The average
> gamer doesn't have stacks of games unplayed for extended periods of
> time. The average gamer, makes it a point to make their investment
> worthwhile. You, yourself have described instances where your PS3 was
> a "paperweight". "Average" people don't buy paperweights let alone
> $400 ones. You my friend, are not average.
We post on usenet. That alone throws us far, far from the "average".
I'm not sure what an "average gamer" does. I can only call back to my
childhood when my brother and I would have to save up allowance for about
a month or two in order to have enough money to buy a game. We had an
Atari 2600, and later, an Apple ][. Since we couldn't afford to just buy
games at will, what we DID buy, we played the heck out of. Good, bad, it
didn't matter. I can't tell you how many aggravating hours we put into
trying to like some of the turds we bought... I think the worst was some
kung-fu type game from Data East. I think it was based on an arcade game,
but the Apple port had a bug in it which pretty much made it impossible to
get past the killer wasps on the 2nd level.