Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Buy a PlayStation 3 and Sink Sony 441

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the there-be-sharks-in-them-there-seas dept.
sonnyweathers writes "There has never been a more perilous time for Sony than 2006. But if you think you can save the company by buying PlayStation 3 consoles, you're wrong. Analyst Evermore believes that selling 6 million PS3 consoles will make Sony a ripe target for takeover — perhaps even by Microsoft."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Buy a PlayStation 3 and Sink Sony

Comments Filter:
  • Analyst who? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 25, 2006 @10:05AM (#16184573)
    Analyst me believes that it won't.
    Where's my Slashdot article?
  • Even better... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BigDork1001 (683341) on Monday September 25, 2006 @10:05AM (#16184577) Homepage
    ... don't buy it and just let it sit there on the store shelves collecting dust. Taking this approach also saves you $600.
  • Strange (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dan East (318230) on Monday September 25, 2006 @10:06AM (#16184587) Homepage Journal
    Boy, that makes a lot of sense. If Sony makes "6 million PS3 units before April", and sells them all, then they recoup part of their expense. If they don't sell any, then they are somehow better off not recouping anything at all? More sensationalism.

    Dan East
  • by EVil Lawyer (947367) on Monday September 25, 2006 @10:09AM (#16184627)
    The only argument supporting their assertion that Microsoft might want to buy a beleaugured Sony is:

    "And who could be the potential buyer?

    Microsoft.

    That's right. I said it. Just think about it."

    Okay. I've thought about it. And it doesn't make very much sense. Neither does the rest of the article -- but at least they tried to support their main thesis.

  • Re:Strange (Score:2, Insightful)

    by EVil Lawyer (947367) on Monday September 25, 2006 @10:11AM (#16184669)
    It's a dumb theory, but not for the reason you suggest. Sony won't produce 6 million units if it doesn't sell the first x-million. Their theory requires Sony manufacturing marginally more units for every unit sold.
  • by Speare (84249) on Monday September 25, 2006 @10:13AM (#16184693) Homepage Journal

    There was the same talk about buying XBoxes just to "stick it to the man." Everyone who thinks they can hurt a company by vigorously buying their products, even if they were sold at a loss on the razorblade model, is deluding themselves.

    First, they will crow that they're selling tons of units, which will look good to their management and drive forward their strategies, whether or not games are being sold at the same rate. Second, the base units just get cheaper to manufacture over their product lifetime, so at some point, you're thinking you are still shafting them while they take profits to the bank. Third, as I've said before, once you're talking about millions of customers, any possible "hurt" done by a few thousand boycotters or complainers is something a megacorporation can simply shrug off and ignore.

  • by traveller604 (961720) on Monday September 25, 2006 @10:15AM (#16184729)
    Let's not. What kind of an idiot wrote that article??
  • Re:Strange (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DerGeist (956018) on Monday September 25, 2006 @10:19AM (#16184771)
    I don't think you fully understand how this is supposed to work. You see, Sony is selling the PS3 consoles with the expectation that someone is going to buy them (at a loss to Sony) and then buy games (i.e., big profits for Sony).


    Think of a generic fast-food restaurant. Imagine they have a "value menu" with the Stinkburger Deluxe for only $0.99, but it costs $2.99 to produce. Drinks, however are $2.50 and cost about $0.15 to produce. Similarly fries are $0.99 but cost only $0.10 to produce. The restaurant will go out of business if every customer enters, purchases one Stinkburger Deluxe, and leaves. But most people aren't satisfied just downing a Stinkburger, they want fries and a drink too. That's the idea here; it's called the "razor and blades business model [wikipedia.org]."

    So if no one buys a PS3, Sony obviously won't produce six million. If people buy them and buy NO games, NO blu-ray discs, and NO accessories (extra controllers, etc.) then Sony will be in quite a bit of trouble.

  • Re:"Save Sony?" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dan East (318230) on Monday September 25, 2006 @10:20AM (#16184793) Homepage Journal
    Actually, that's a strategy that could possibly save Sony -- abandon DRM loudly and publicly, and tout themselves as the Kings of Unrestricted Media. A big campaign of "We trust you to not steal our stuff, but Microsoft and Apple think you're thieves."

    Sony is too big, and has an vested interest in too many areas. Thus they cannot serve only the consumer in any of their divisions. As long as we see movies with the word "Sony" in the opening credits, we can be certain that Sony hardware will embrace DRM to the fullest extent possible.

    If Sony could have their way, the only media and hardware channel between the movies they produce and the consumer would be Betamax®, oops, I mean Memory Stick®, oops, I mean UMD®, oops I mean Blue-ray®. And if someone is reading this 5 years from now, insert whatever DRM infected crap they're currently pushing at the end of that sentence.

    Dan East
  • What? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by NosTROLLdamus (979044) on Monday September 25, 2006 @10:21AM (#16184819) Journal
    Yeah, right. Selling 6 millions PS3s would only cement sony's position in the video game industry. It'd give them a huge market, and would have developers lining up, purchasing *gasp* dev kits, and of course, licences to produce games. Big Name Games, and hell, sony'd make cash of the turdz as well. That's why they're selling it at a loss. I thought this was the basis of console strategy for a long time? (well, minus nintendo, but they're way out in left field anyway)
  • by Spad (470073) <slashdotNO@SPAMspad.co.uk> on Monday September 25, 2006 @10:22AM (#16184833) Homepage
    Luckily for Nintendo, they sold the Gamecube at a profit. It's a little known business trick in the console industry, but not selling your products at a loss is a great way to make money.
  • by Y-Crate (540566) on Monday September 25, 2006 @10:25AM (#16184871)
    "Our ideal," Kutaragi said, "is for consumers to think to themselves, 'OK, I'll work more hours and buy it.' We want people to feel that they want it, no matter what."
    I'm not one to assume that I deserve to get a PS3, 360 or Wii, but Kutaragi's comments border on insulting.

    Yes, I know that if I want to purchase consumer goods that I need to work to earn money to be able to afford them. I have no problem with this, the problem I have is that Kutaragi's attitude is one of "The price is not our problem, the price is your problem, do something about it."

    If you own a business, and your product is rejected by the market fot being too expensive, then you either deal with the lost sales or change your pricing structure. If you cannot do the former because it would hurt your bottom line, and you cannot do the latter because your have designed a product with a very high materials cost, then it's your problem, not that of your potential customers.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 25, 2006 @10:26AM (#16184883)
    The saddest thing is that Microsoft is probably going to drop the price of the Xbox to $300 or $200 the moment the PS3 hits the stores. Consumers will have to make the choice between many $50 games on a $300 system or a couple $100 games on a $600 system. I think the choice is obvious. The Playstation line had a great run but complete corporate incompetence will probably kill it during this iteration. Pity, but that's life.
  • Re:"Save Sony?" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NDPTAL85 (260093) on Monday September 25, 2006 @10:28AM (#16184897)
    You're one of those funny Slashdot people who thinks the masses would care about DRM even if they knew what it was in the first place, aren't you?

    Think about what you just said. "abandon DRM loudly and publicly." Go outside your home or office right now and run up to 10 people and ask them if they know what DRM means. Help them out even, let them know DRM stands for Digital RIghts Management but tell them nothing more. You'll be lucky to find one person who can tell you what DRM means. So how exactl would your suggestion help Sony again? And why is Apple so successful despite its use of DRM with iTunes?
  • Re:Even better... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jimstapleton (999106) on Monday September 25, 2006 @10:30AM (#16184923) Journal
    Sony already got all the money they'll get directly for those consoles, that just hurts the stores who's shelves their sitting on. By buying them, Sony will make more, and sell more, taking a loss on each.

    They get there money from games.

    A PS3 is a cheap computer for the processing power. Not a bad system for Linux/BSD, and Sony doesn't make money off of those, if that's all you use. And that's all I'll use on a PS3 if I get one.
  • by hoy74 (1005419) on Monday September 25, 2006 @10:30AM (#16184925)
    If Game prices really do go to $100 a game, it may help out a company like GameznFlix http://gameznflix.com/ [gameznflix.com].
  • Economics 101 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Alchemar (720449) on Monday September 25, 2006 @10:34AM (#16184997)
    This is based on how much sony will lose based on cost to manufacture vs. sell price. $750 - $400 = $350 in the hole. They will be spitting these things out like no tomorrow near the release date. They have to pay to manufacture the unit if you buy one or not. $750 - $0 = $750 in the hole. If you want to see sony go down for all their stupid behavior then Don't buy a unit. They will probably cut off production when they don't sell, but it should be too late by then.


    If we can find out who is making all the decisions it probably wont be hard to convince him that they aren't selling because they need to manufacture more units, maybe add a root kit to every box and recall the old ones.

  • by creimer (824291) on Monday September 25, 2006 @10:37AM (#16185053) Homepage
    Or better yet... Get a Nintendo Wii, save money and sink Sony's market share.
  • by ConfusedSelfHating (1000521) on Monday September 25, 2006 @10:38AM (#16185085)
    I think that the Japanese government would block a takeover of Sony by Microsoft for one reason: pride. Despite its faults, Sony is still widely preceived as being one of the crown jewels of the Japanese nation. If Sony went deeply in the red, the Japanese goverment is likely to not allow a takeover and bail them out.

    Most of Sony's troubles lie in its poor management. Sony could own the MP3 market if it hadn't been as concerned with content protection or proprietary formats. If Sony had made a deal with Toshiba with high definition format DVDs, Sony would be almost guaranteed to make moderate (billions) profits off of the new format. Sharing a positive number (profits) is better than having a negative number (losses) all to yourself. With a new format decided on, the adoption rate of high definition discs would be much quicker. Sony felt that it could win the format war easily by putting the Blu Ray drive in the PS3. I feel that Microsoft launched the Xbox 360 in 2005 because they knew that Sony would be in a poor position with the Blu Ray drive.

    If Microsoft could take over Sony, they should. Microsoft doesn't really have anywhere to expand in software, they need to find new products if they want to have growth. Consumer electronics would be a very good area to get into for Microsoft. It is a low profit industry, but Microsoft would be in a position to sell services and software on the products. Many of Sony's failing products could be attractive to various Microsoft strategies. Think Sony with better management, it is really hard to get worse management.

    This situation will most likely happen if the Wii is the dominant console this generation. If the PS3 doesn't do well, Sony will be in a position ripe for acquistion. If the Xbox 360 doesn't do well even though they had a year head start, Microsoft will either drop out of the console market or buy Sony and combine the Xbox and PS3 brands. If the Wii is the dominant console, then the anti-trust people will look more favourably on the merger of two failed brands.
  • Just to nitpick (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 25, 2006 @10:40AM (#16185107)
    Most fast food places earn a profit on EVERYTHING they produce. At McDonalds circa 2 years ago, the ONLY thing the restaurant sold at a loss was a Big'N Tasty (sorry, I've already forgotten where the ' goes. It's their Whopper-clone) and even THEN it was only at a loss during a particular sale (1 dollar a sandwhich, very short lived) and even THEN only if used in conjunction with an employee discount of 50 percent. The sandwich was the most expensive one made because it required (1) Quarter meat, (2) Tomato (usually a premium charge), (3) Quarter Bun, and (4) the cheap stuff like lettuce, onions, mayo.

    The sandwhich cost 54 cents rounding upwards, and on effectively a double sale they lost 4 cents. When the sandwich returned to $3, the returned to making 2.50 per sandwich.

    And yes, I understand that there is other overhead and labor costs, but the time-per-transaction is relatively low. Divide the hourly salary of the average McDonalds worker (let's go with $7 although I think the average pay might have trickled up a little), and divide that by the number of seconds in an hour and we end up with about 2 cents per second. Lets say the staff is slow and from start to finish that BnT took 40 seconds to assemble and wrap, that cost the store about 80 cents. Now let's assume that it took another 40 seconds for the counter person to pick up your sandwich, put it on a tray and set it on the counter. Another 80 cents. Now, we're looking at about 2.15 to make the sandwhich, versus the 3 price.

    And don't foolishly equate the time you wait for your food with the time it takes to assemble, or at the very least should take.

    You can further break it down to include the cost of heat to cook that sandwich, the roughly 20 cents in money-time it takes the grill person to lay and remove an entire tray of quarter meat (divided by the number of patties cooked over course), the penny for the wrapper, taxes on the building divided by the number of seconds in a year, the cost of management's salary divided by the number of seconds they work and the number of employees they oversee, etc... but I'm sure there's still baselining a little profit. Just not as much as the soda where the cup costs more than the soda itself.

    The fast food analogy is more appropriate to Nintendo who will make some profit on the console, but is predominantly looking at the markup on games.
  • Perhaps not (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Dark Paladin (116525) <jhummelNO@SPAMjohnhummel.net> on Monday September 25, 2006 @10:51AM (#16185285) Homepage
    If you look at the upcoming November console elections - I mean, launches, there's an interesting thing going on:

    1. The Wii is launching with more games than the PS3, and in greater numbers
    2. Therefore, developers who develop games for the Wii or the PS2/360 will have greater sales than PS3 sales, simply by available units.
    3. If a publishing company wants to make more money, make a PS2/Wii/360 game first.

    I've even heard some publishers moving to shift their games to the Wii just because the PS3 will be launching in such low numbers. Eventually this will change, but if you're looking at your angry stockholders wondering why "Murder Death Kill 2000" sold only 100,000 copies on the PS3 while the Wii version of "Shoot Him In The Head III" sold 300,000 copies.

    If the PS3, however, sells 6 million units within six months, you bet those same developers will want to be heading to the big lake since they expect bigger fish there. Personally, I'm holding off on the PS3 until about 2008/2009 (depending on certain game launches), and I'm actually considering getting a 360 next year with Mr. Tax Return or some such (once they get "Shenmue 2" and "Panzer Dragoon Orta" backwards compatibility up).

    I'm getting a Wii this Christmas, if for no other reason than a) it looks sweet, and b) My Lovely Wife (MLW), Mrs. Non-gamer herself who got hooked on "Brain Age" is curious to try out that "Cute tennis game you showed me".

    Just because any chance I get to have MLW jumping around the TV set in a cute little tennis outfit is a good day for me :).
  • Re:Strange (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Scrameustache (459504) on Monday September 25, 2006 @11:03AM (#16185463) Homepage Journal
    If people buy them and buy NO games, NO blu-ray discs, and NO accessories (extra controllers, etc.) then Sony will be in quite a bit of trouble.

    If Gamera the giant firebreathing space turtle lands on their offices, they'll bit in quite a bit of trouble too, and that's about as likely to happen.

    Who the hell is going to buy a 600$ piece of electronic equipment out of spite with no intention of using it?
  • Knuth said it (Score:4, Insightful)

    by xtracto (837672) on Monday September 25, 2006 @11:09AM (#16185547) Journal
    "Name and conquer"

    No, people does not know what DRM means, but what they do know is that they cant copy their music freely from their iPod as they could with the tape recorder. They also know they cant backup that game/app DVD as they could do 10 years ago, or that movie DVD as they could with their VHS movie.

    What happens is that they do not relate those annoyances they have everyday with technology with the Bad(tm) DRM. They just think it is "more difficult". Back in the times of the VHS you just inserted the original and the blank and presseed REC+PLAY and voila.

    It is your task as "computer expert" to let them know that it is not a consequence of advanced tech that it is more difficult or impossible to do that but it is a consequence of the restrictions that these corporations are adding to their content (wheter that is or not legal is another story)
  • Re:"Save Sony?" (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dthree (458263) <`moc.liamtoh' `ta' `etilsoahc'> on Monday September 25, 2006 @11:21AM (#16185749) Homepage
    Why do /.-ers always trot out the betamax to "prove" sony's desire to foist proprietary systems on consumers? First off, sony didn't own any movie studios when they developed the betamax and there were no prerecorded tapes untill several years later. Secondly, they did attempt to license the technology to JVC, who they didn't know at the time was developing a competing format, and did license to Aiwa, NEC, Zenith, Sanyo and Toshiba. Thirdly, how is JVC/Matsushita's VHS format any less proprietary if manufacturers have to pay a license fee to make them?

    I'm not saying sony hasn't been stupid about other things, even in addition to the one's you metioned, (Mindisk, 8mm, rootkits, etc) but WTF do you people have against betamax?
  • by Xuranova (160813) on Monday September 25, 2006 @11:35AM (#16185967)
    I want HD movies. I don't want an add on. I'll gamble with a $600 system that does that and gamves vs a HD DVD player that does only one thing.
  • by The Sage Of Time (862628) on Monday September 25, 2006 @11:53AM (#16186249)
    $500 for a watered down version of the console. Also, do you honestly see $500 as reasonable even still? Please, you're the one acting defensive here.. Perhaps you'd qualify as a fanboy and not the poster you just replied to, eh? Besides.. You cannot forget to include tax into the price.. Once you factor THAT into things, you realize how ridiculous this is going to be to buy at launch.. Who the hell has this kind of money to spend on a video gaming console? Couldn't you sooner upgrade your PC? (Which would do a lot more for you in the long run..) Or buy BOTH the other consoles? (Which evens out to be about the same in cost, give or take a bit.) I mean hell, the Wii will allow most past Nintendo (and some Sega, and other stuff) consoles playable on it. That's a LOT of content in terms of gameplay, and yet.. the price is so much less.

    You're buying it for the GAMES right? Not for the freaking NAME BRAND, right? Sheesh, this wouldn't even be a discussion if Sony weren't trying to push so much useless crap into the console. (Who CARES about Bluray this early on, for example? Does it merit the price THAT MUCH to us? Hell no, I don't think so..)

    And $100 games sounds impossible? $70-80 games have been seen in the past already.. It is VERY possible, a scary reality perhaps that you don't want to consider, but still possible.. No though, I doubt it will come to this, but it wouldn't surprise me in the LEAST if it did happen..
  • by couch_potato (623264) on Monday September 25, 2006 @12:00PM (#16186329)
    $500 for a watered down version of the console. Also, do you honestly see $500 as reasonable even still?
    Actually, $500 is quite reasonable for a Blu-ray player. The fact that it'll play games will just make it that much more popular. I recall when the PS2 first came out, it was selling huge in Japan, but the games weren't. The reason was that it was much cheaper than an average DVD player at the time. People (in Japan) were buying it for the optical drive, not because it was a console.

    Cool links. [blogspot.com]
  • by amuro98 (461673) on Monday September 25, 2006 @12:07PM (#16186433)
    Actually, with recent announcements, the low-end PS3 looks a lot more competitive vs. the 360 Premium.

    For one thing, Sony has announced that the low-end model will also have the HDMI port - this was the biggest difference between the two SKUs. Now, the only differentiating features between the 2 PS3s is a larger HDD, wireless controller (vs. the wired controller) and the 9-in-1-media reader (for your camera's media card.)

    Second, Sony announced a price drop on the 360 low-end unit for Japan, dropping to about $430. No word on if this discount will apply for the US or European markets or not. But if it does, it will make the low-end PS3 cheaper than buying a 360 + the HD-DVD add-on drive, which is expected to sell for about $170.

    At any rate, I agree - you buy these things for the GAMES. I will probably buy a PS3 eventually - but I can certainly wait until a decent library has accumulated, and maybe the hardware's gone through a price drop (or 2.) The same goes for the 360. I'm still in wait-and-see mode for the Wii.

    And $100 games - sure why not? They already go for about that much overseas. So long as people continue to buy, the prices will remain that high. Me? I'll wait for the price drops.
  • by GaratNW (978516) on Monday September 25, 2006 @12:15PM (#16186555)
    Being a martyr is all fine and dandy. But, honestly. If every white collar worker in America stopped working for corprorations that did one or more things that the individual dissaproves of, we'd have a nation of corporations with only exectuive management left working for them, and an unemployment rate of 99.9%. I left Microsoft a number of years ago. Not for any moral or ethical reasons. They do stuff I think is great (still), and do stuff I think is horrible (still). How is this any different from IBM, Oracle, Intel, AMD, Sony, the rest of corporate america? Experience has taught most people that, the way to make something better, is not to quit on ethical grounds and send yourself and your family to the poor house. Work on making things better, and if at the end of it, you no longer can handle it any more, then make that decision to leave. But, that's a pretty santimonious attitude you have there, no matter how you look at it, Moofie.
  • Re:"Save Sony?" (Score:2, Insightful)

    by NeutronCowboy (896098) on Monday September 25, 2006 @12:18PM (#16186595)
    OK - don't want to hear about Betamax? There's also Memorystick, ATRAC, MiniDisk and UMD. 4 formats, all proprietary, all exclusive to Sony, all designed for consumer lock-in. The sooner Sony dies, the happier I am.
  • by mikeisme77 (938209) on Monday September 25, 2006 @12:18PM (#16186601) Homepage Journal
    There's a difference in that though: DVD was already an established standard and had clear benefits over VHS (plus it didn't require additional equipment to get those additional benefits). Blu-Ray (and HD-DVD) still have yet to become proven standards/successors to DVDs, currently lack any additional benefits (beyond picture/audio quality), AND require most consumers to purchase additional equipment to see any benefit from them.

    Of course, on the other hand, MiniDisc was actually successful in Japan... so something has to be said about Sony's mindshare there.

  • by nine-times (778537) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Monday September 25, 2006 @12:19PM (#16186613) Homepage
    "Our ideal," Kutaragi said, "is for consumers to think to themselves, 'OK, I'll work more hours and buy it.' We want people to feel that they want it, no matter what."

    This part of the quote really turns the rest of the quote around for me. The idea that the PS3 costs too much, but I should work harder to buy it-- you're right, that sounds silly and insulting. However, that last part that I emphasized gives it all a different context. I think he's really just saying that they're aiming to make the PS3 so fricken good that $600 won't seem like an unreasonable price.

    You might argue that he doesn't really mean it, and you can argue that Sony will fail at this aim. However, I don't mind the idea in the abstract. There are lots of instances where I appreciate someone going the extra mile, and I'll pay extra to get the high-end/high-quality version.

  • by salle_from_sweden (896798) on Monday September 25, 2006 @12:34PM (#16186777)
    How can you think it's insulting, he's saying "I want people to feel a need to own our product", sure even if he took it to a degree wherein the person would think about ways to earn more money so that they could fulfill this need. The Playstation concept AFAIK is to be the best gaming console on the market. And so will the PS3 be, (if we just disregard the innovation that is the Wiimote) it will probably be the best or chaired best in pretty much all aspects. Have you ever met someone who has had a poster of a Ferrari when they were young? Do you think that Ferrari is insulting that person because s/he will never have enough money to buy (let alone own) a Ferrari? No, they are making a product for a certain demographic, and most people who has Ferrari posters will never be a part of that demografic. If you own a business, and your product is rejected by the market fot being too expensive, then you either deal with the lost sales or change your pricing structure. Either you're clairvoyant, or you're just assuming that all this talk about ps3 being too expensive (on the net or with your friends) before you can buy one, is any kind of indicator of how it will turn out. If Sony (or rather their analyst) had shared your view they wouldn't have delayed the PS3 launch in Europe, they know that there is a HUGE demand for their "overpriced" product yes even at it's current price.
  • by bmajik (96670) <matt@mattevans.org> on Monday September 25, 2006 @12:45PM (#16186907) Homepage Journal
    You're doing a little mis-representation :) That was a _$1200_ BMW I had in college... one that was 18 years old and with 220,000 miles. I had one of the oldest, crappiest cars at the midwestern state-school I went to... which was fine since I was more interested in driving it than being "cool" (nobody is cool in a rusty BMW)

    And the Audi I have now was $2400, and has 200,000 miles on it... and has had parts fall off of it at track events.

    Only my wife has a "new" car - and that one was still ~2 years used when we bought it.

    As an aside, I do more OSX support than Windows - my wife has an iBook (one that's had a failed disk and 2 failed screens, mind you, i've written on my MSDN blog in detail about the OS X bootup sequence (which i had to figure out when debugging a botched patch install on my sister-in-laws powerbook). The notion that linux or OSX is a magic bullet for compuers having problems is frankly hillarious. I don't mean to sound like I am pulling rank but I've got plenty of professional and "the guy in the family" experience supporting all three (yes, i made my dad put up with running linux when i was in highschool and all of the support that that entailed).

    And one (presumably) difference between you and I is that when I run across something that trips up a family member with an MS product, I track down the appropriate people at work and ask them if that's really the best we can do, if it's the right behavior for customers, and so on. It is at least as effective at getting things fixed as undirected complaining on slashdot :)

    Finally, anytime i make a post that plainly states who i work for, i get plenty of AC's responding with negative remarks. The negative remarks are fine - but are people so unsure of themselves or their arguments that they are remaining anonymous? It's not like I can pick up the phone and have your computer explode remotely if you say something nasty to me on slashdot.

    (I'd send an email. Phones? Who even uses those anymore :)
  • by digidave (259925) on Monday September 25, 2006 @12:50PM (#16186985)
    "If every white collar worker in America stopped working for corprorations that did one or more things that the individual dissaproves of, we'd have a nation of corporations with only exectuive management left working for them, and an unemployment rate of 99.9%."

    Actually, those corporations would be forced to adapt or go out of business. We'd live in a country where employees have a major say in how a company operates.

    In reality, the company just hires someone who doesn't give a shit.
  • by Moofie (22272) <leeNO@SPAMringofsaturn.com> on Monday September 25, 2006 @12:53PM (#16187013) Homepage
    "As an immigrant, who now owns his own multi-million dollar business, do you really think that that I should up and leave my financial security because I don't agree with the policies of the current administration, even though I currently cannot be part in changing them?"

    That might be the most impressive straw man I've ever seen.

    Elitism? What elite? I assert that you are judged by the company you keep. I assert that if you work for a company, you are giving them your imprimatur, to one degree or another. I assert that if your employer is doing something that is incompatible with your values, integrity dictates you find another employer. If you do not, that says something about your values.

    Is integrity elitist?
  • I'm not talking about being a martyr. I understand needing to pay the bills. I am saying, however, that your credentials work against your rhetorical stance. You benefit from MS's DRM practices. You might not like them, but you are reaping the rewards.

    Isn't this comparable to saying, "Well, you live in the United States, so your position against the current government is essentially invalid where it counts." ?
  • LOL (Score:2, Insightful)

    by infofc (979172) on Monday September 25, 2006 @01:09PM (#16187243)
    When did Microsoft last take over a competitor in an industry they are well established in? Exactly. The suggestion makes zero sense. Besides I'm sure the japanese would figure out a way to save Sony if it really came to it. Microsoft want to move into new industries, so gaming is not on the radar, as they are pretty well covered there.
  • Don't be stupid. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 25, 2006 @01:17PM (#16187337)
    Just take a look at the last 2 flops from Nintendo. The N64 was outsold by the PS1, the Gamecube came in a stale 3rd behind the regular Xbox and PS2

    Getting outsold, does not a flop make. This is business, you know, where you try to make money? Do you understand that skippy? This isn't a video game where you try to get the highest score.

    Because this is business, where the goal is to make money, saying Nintendo released two flops when they sold millions and made billions is about as idiotic a fanboy statement as I've come across. Jaguar was a flop. Dreamcast was a flop. N64 and Gamecube were both successes.

    As to the price issue, this will be the first time that there was a $200+ price difference between the consoles. This is also a different economic environment. This is also during a year in which Sony has had it's worst public relations disasters in a long time, if not ever. And, Nintendo, actually seemed to have added a different dimension to gameplay that a lot of reviewers seem to like. But none of this means I think Nintendo will be number one in terms of market share.

    My call is, out of the gate, Nintendo is going to fly off of shelves, because of the faithful and the price, they will outsell the competition this year. Sony will end up having to implement drastic price cuts because despite having their own faithful(many of whom have to go through mommy and daddy for their console), the cost prohibition is simply too great for now(many mommy and daddys will go postal when asked to purchase a $500 video game system for their precious little couch warmer). They will regain their "#1" position in terms of numbers after the price cuts, but it will come at the cost of having profitability issues for the first year or two(speaking hardware wise). The new video formats will be largely irrelevant to the majority of console consumers for at least a year, if not two to come. Period. Only the very small "gee whiz" early adopters care at all about, the majority don't see what's wrong with their DVD players. The VAST majority.

    After a few years, and sony has a higher percentage of the market, fanboys like you will call the Wii a "flop" after it's sold millions of units and made more billions of dollars for Nintendo, and assholes like me will be here mocking your dumbasses for making moron statements like that.

    This is a best case scenario too. Pray that Sony doesn't run into supply problems with the chips.
  • by cyber-dragon.net (899244) on Monday September 25, 2006 @02:02PM (#16188039)
    Our opinion IS basically invalid where it comes to the current administration.
    How many other countries would keep a leader who has 2/3 of the country wanting to linch him according to approval ratings before he started shouting Sept 11th again. He has committed actual CRIMES and no one will impeach him. I do not exactly feel my opinion matters much here :)

    Political asylum in the EU anyone?
  • by An Onerous Coward (222037) on Monday September 25, 2006 @02:15PM (#16188229) Homepage
    I think you are taking a rather harsh and uncompromising stance (though I'm not sure where people got 'elitist' from). People usually go where they believe they are doing the most good, if you define 'doing good' according to their own values. For example, the person you're responding to might think he is promoting the greater good by supporting his family comfortably, by working on some exciting project in his company that will make life better for lots of people, by promoting consumer-friendly and responsible attitudes within his company, and by putting his education to good use.

    We could argue all day about whether he is being effective in his efforts, whether his family could live happily on a smaller paycheck, whether his current project is really going to benefit society, and a whole bunch of other things. It's difficult, though, because peoples' values differ, because we're all masters of rationalization, and because we generally don't like it when our lifestyle choices are questioned, especially by strangers.

    You're never going to find any large, complex organization which does nothing but good all the time. Nor are you going to have a lot of success convincing people that they should jump ship at the first sign of corruption. But I sympathize with you; we've become rather too comfortable with corporate evilness, and that's at least partly because so many of us have a job or own a tiny bit of stock in the companies. And if a company's misdeeds will reflect on you personally and professionally, it's an incentive for you to demand the highest standard of behavior from that company.

    Sorry, just feeling rambly today.
  • by Alex P Keaton in da (882660) on Monday September 25, 2006 @03:00PM (#16188923) Homepage
    I am not in marketing, but I think that like the majority of things Americans buy, the PS3 won;t cost $500. It will cost a swipe of the charge card and and a small uptick on their monthly minimum payment to the credit card company....
    Haven;t you read how that reason people don;t seem to care that gas prices are up is b/c of credit? If people used cash and spent money thay actually have, $500 may be steep. But with plastic, people don't seem to realize that it is actually money
    Just my 2 cents.
  • by MojoBox (985651) on Monday September 25, 2006 @03:37PM (#16189665)
    And $75,000 is reasonable for a Ferrari, doesn't mean it's affordable.
  • by Mal Reynolds (676267) <Michael_stev80NO@SPAMhotmail.com> on Monday September 25, 2006 @05:14PM (#16191447)

    The key to sinking Sony is not just to purchase their subsidized console. It's to do that while dissuading a massive proportion of these subsidized PS3 owners from buying PS3 games.

    There is a way to accomplish this, but I suspect it will not be easily or quickly accomplished. Sony's Achilles heel in all of this is not the underpriced PS3, it's the PS3's game-disc copy protection scheme. To have any hope of sinking Sony, a torpedo will have to be directly aimed at that copy protection.

    In a best case scenario (or worst, depending on your perspective), a comprehensive crack of Sony's game-disc copy protection would be released at the very instant PC-based Blue Ray burners drop to a reasonable price, say $300. This game-cracking software should be so easy to use that any punter with a PC and a Blue Ray burner could easily make copies of Sony's only profit center, the game discs. To truly sink Sony, this crack shouldn't require swapping discs or modifying hardware. The cracking software should be very easy to use, completely effective, and comprehensive across all of the PS3 line.

    If such a comprehensive crack were released after Sony had shipped say, 5 million PS3 units, it would be nearly impossible for Sony to "fix". Of course, if Sony have done their work correctly, the execution of this will be supremely difficult.

    Sony has almost certainly used some sort cryptographic hash to sign the game discs. So unless Sony has left a gaping hole in their copy protection system, a massive effort would be required to unravel the keys. If I were to suggest an avenue of attack, it would not be a brute force assault against the cryptographic keys. I think a far more productive attack would be a signal analysis of the PS3 chipset. Just such an analysis managed to crack the Xbox keys.

    It's a big job, but if someone out there really has it in for Sony, this would sink Sony right to the bottom.
  • by jazuki (70860) on Monday September 25, 2006 @05:23PM (#16191617) Homepage
    Two basic criticisms with Evermore's analysis.

    First, she (?) assumes no economies of scale for Sony in manufacturing the console, and no ability for Sony to squeeze its own supply chain. Perhaps there is or isn't, but I remember when the iPod first came out, there was a lot of discussion about Apple's margins on the device were marginal at best, and perhaps even negative, given the known component costs. But that fact was not in evidence in Apple's financial reports for that quarter or since.

    I'm not arguing that the PS3 will be profitable initially or any particular year of its life, but Evermore's analysis (a $300 or $400 loss per unit over 6 million units ?!?) has a weakness that a lot of economic projections seem to share: assume perfect knowledge not only about current price structures and individual and corporate economic behavior, but also assume you know exactly how it's going to turn out in the future.

    Second, her comparison of the DaimlerChrysler merger to a putative Sony-Microsoft merger does not make sense from a anti-trust perspective. Daimler and Chrysler largely had a complementary market presence in that Daimler-Benz's strengths were in markets Chrysler was weak in or did not serve, and vice-versa. In fact, I'm not aware of any market or market segment where both could be regarded in the top two, like Sony and Microsoft, or even the top five. (If anyone knows different for any of the national markets, please apprise us. I'm honestly curious.) There may have been other reasons to question the merger, but anti-trust issues were not one of them.

    In other words, Daimler/Chrysler didn't trigger heightened anti-trust scrutiny. Microsoft/Sony most certainly would, and not only in the United States.
  • by SanityInAnarchy (655584) <ninja@slaphack.com> on Tuesday September 26, 2006 @01:23AM (#16195727) Journal

    What was the benefits over VHS with DVD? The two stand-outs are picture and audio.

    I just walked into the TV room. My roommate was watching the Mask of Zorro, and I was wondering why it was fullscreen (instead of widescreen). It was a VHS tape.

    No difference in quality that I could tell, except once towards the end, there were lines visible on the screen, for less than a minute. Oh well, better than what happens when a DVD degrades.

    No, the benefit of DVD is that it's digital. You can navigate easily via chapters, and fastforward/rewind as fast as you want. You get tons of extra features (commentary, deleted scenes, etc) which, even if they existed on the VHS tape (not likely), would not be as easy to find. You have to rewind a tape; you can just pop out the DVD. You can have multiple soundtracks (other languages, commentary), subtitle tracks (enable/disable subtitles at will, choose CC vs subtitles), even video tracks (angles, I think sometimes black and white vs color), all on the same disc. This is very nice for anime, too -- distribute one disc, purists will watch with Japanese audio and English subtitles (or no subtitles if they understand Japanese), people who hate subtitles will turn them off and watch with the English dub.

    Really, need I go on? In fact, we're willing to take a LOSS in quality for this kind of convenience, which explains why piracy and fansubs can work, even if it looks much worse than old VHS tapes.

    The picture and audio quality is a bigger jump with Blu-ray/HD-DVD than from VHS to DVD.

    That's debatable. Most people can sort of tell the difference, but don't think it's worth spending any more money on.

    The problem does not lie in the hardware (there really is no competition - Blu-ray is supported by basically the whole industry).

    That, itself, is a problem. The problem also lies in the standard. If your particular model of PS3 is found to have an exploit, new blu-ray discs could be issued which would brick your shiny new PS3, or any other Blu-Ray player they choose.

    You are getting a deal by buying the Playstation 3.

    Yes, I'm sure. $500 + $100/game? Or have the numbers changed lately? Because it seems like everyone who wants a new game console is buying a Wii.

    Or are you referring to the actual processing power of the thing? Those of us who care so deeply about how good our games look have either already bought an Xbox 360 (and are hurting for cash), or have already bought and are continuously upgrading a PC. I know this doesn't apply to you, and certainly there are exceptions -- given an infinite amount of money, most gamers would buy all three, and some gamers do have a huge amount to spend.

    You may not want that deal, but then there is always the alternative.

    Regarding Blu-Ray, you just told me "there really is no competition." But sure, show me an alternative that I can play over a DVI cable, to my existing LCD monitor.

    So why are you complaining again?

    Read again -- parent wasn't complaining, merely stating reasons for not wanting one.

    If you don't want to pay for a Blu-ray player then buy an Xbox 360. The vast majority of games will be cross-platform between those two systems because they are equal on terms of system power.

    Sorry, you were talking about a "deal" above? I guess you weren't talking about processing power. Actually, I suspect the PS3 will beat the 360, but not by nearly enough to matter. Remember the Xbox vs the PS2? DVD playback was just one of many things to love. Another is how much cheaper the PS2 was.

    The Playstation 3 is a steal if you want, need, or love high definition movies right now. The content isn't here yet, but you can damn well bet its going to be flooding the market soon.

Our business in life is not to succeed but to continue to fail in high spirits. -- Robert Louis Stevenson

Working...