Sony cutting jobs

[SnakeCharmer]

To go a bit further on what CmdrSlack said:

600 dollars isn't chump change, and I do farily well financially.  There's a whooole lot of variables that goes into being an "adult" with real jobs:

Mortgage
Insurance
Home owners insurance
Car payments
Car insurance
Feeding a family of four (myself, wife, 7 mo old baby, 1 yr old boxer)
Vet bills
Animal rescue work we participate in
Charity donations
Incidentals for home and autorepair that I can't do myself
Gas
Utilities (cable, power, water, gas)
Outside interests:  Golf, fishing, gym memberships, tennis club memberships
Savings accounts
401K accounts, stock purchases, other investments for me, wife, child
Dinners out for me, wife, child


Yeah, we make more money than a college student, but we have more 'bills', some of which we can do without, some we can't.  It's all a matter of priority / perception.

As I said before, it's all about prioritizing. I don't know, but I would think most people here would have gaming as their main hobby. There's numerous things on that list that isn't must haves. A decent golf bag and the money spent on golfing is easily in the same ballpark as gaming, if not more expensive. Yes my buddy didn't have to get a PS3, and I agree that the PS3 isn't worth it as a gaming machine atm. But just as some of you buy Wii for potential, some people buy the PS3 for potential.

It IS about prioritizing, and a PS3 isn't going to gain priority of ANYTHING (and beyond) what I mentioned above.

I'm a gamer at heart.  I love playing games on the PC and xbox360.  

About the only thing on that list that isn't a 'must have' are my gym memberships, dinners out for the clan, and animal rescue bills.  But those are priorities over a gaming machine.  I'm not about to tell the wife "No, we can't go have a nice dinner because I bought a PS3", or "Sorry, I can't take in that abused, neglected boxer and rehab her because I want/bought a PS3".

Everything else?

A must have.

Once you get a little older, your priorities shift and become more realistic.  

[Righ]

If you want *just* Blu-Ray, the PS3 is a good deal.  If you want Blu-Ray and gaming, the PS3 is a great deal.  If you just want gaming, PS3 is a shitty deal.  If you don't have an HD TV, the PS3 isn't even worth discussing.

Well, if you just must have BluRay now, when the price is artificially high due to 99% of early BD drives in limited production shipping to Sony for PS3 use, perhaps. But it would be like paying $1000 for an early model CD player from Philips or Sony back when CD first came out. Every few months the price dropped and the quality of the playback mechanisms improved. You would be better off buying a fifth generation mechanism (with BD we're on 2nd generation now) once they drop under $200 at the entry point. Then $600 will buy you the equivalent of an audiophile product. By that point the software will have both matured and grown to an adequate range.

[Merusk]

As above, only 30 percent of DVD-capable console owners said that the console they owned even allowed for DVD playback, a fact, says Diffusion Group "that demonstrates how poorly many consumers understand the capabilities of today’s game consoles and a major barrier to persuading consumers to start using these platforms for non-gaming media consumption."

No... the quote is an illustration of how fucking out of touch console manufacturers are with the consumer.  (Not that this isn't par for the course for Sony, there's been several articles discussing that before.)   If I own a DVD player already, I don't give a fuck if my game-machine does it.  It likely doesn't do it as well as my DVD player, or doesn't work with my universal remote - not to mention I have to buy a remote separately in the first place.  Additionally, machine-as-player is seen as a low-rent solution by the consumer.  I couldn't even talk previous co-workers who OWNED ps2s to just play their DVDs on them instead of buying a separate player.

[Margalis]

I use my PS2 as my DVD player - my friends laugh at me, especially when I tell them to "press X."

[Merusk]

We did upstairs until dual-layer DVDs started pwning it. 

[Sairon]

It IS about prioritizing, and a PS3 isn't going to gain priority of ANYTHING (and beyond) what I mentioned above.

I'm a gamer at heart.  I love playing games on the PC and xbox360. 

About the only thing on that list that isn't a 'must have' are my gym memberships, dinners out for the clan, and animal rescue bills.  But those are priorities over a gaming machine.  I'm not about to tell the wife "No, we can't go have a nice dinner because I bought a PS3", or "Sorry, I can't take in that abused, neglected boxer and rehab her because I want/bought a PS3".

Everything else?

A must have.

Once you get a little older, your priorities shift and become more realistic. 

So golf & tennis membership are must haves?

What do you know about my priorities and how they will change when I get older? I plan to continue spending cash on my main hobby, namely games.

[sigil]

It IS about prioritizing, and a PS3 isn't going to gain priority of ANYTHING (and beyond) what I mentioned above.

I'm a gamer at heart.  I love playing games on the PC and xbox360. 

About the only thing on that list that isn't a 'must have' are my gym memberships, dinners out for the clan, and animal rescue bills.  But those are priorities over a gaming machine.  I'm not about to tell the wife "No, we can't go have a nice dinner because I bought a PS3", or "Sorry, I can't take in that abused, neglected boxer and rehab her because I want/bought a PS3".

Everything else?

A must have.

Once you get a little older, your priorities shift and become more realistic. 

So golf & tennis membership are must haves?

What do you know about my priorities and how they will change when I get older? I plan to continue spending cash on my main hobby, namely games.

You keep thinking that. . .

[LK]

I don't buy every game system and game that comes out.  I used to be a consumer whore when I was younger and wanted to experience as much as possible.  Nowadays, I've played a lot of games and really only look out for the highest quality experiences because most other games that come out are drivel.  As an example, after playing WoW, I ran through about a dozen different MMOs and none could really match the experience of WoW, so until a good MMO comes out (It doesn't HAVE to be WoW, but god damn it it needs to be a compelling experience), I don't see myself playing any other MMOs.

I think about stuff like houses and all that, when I didn't use to before.  So my priorities are shifting at 26, but nothing where I have to give up anything yet.  I don't have to worry about most of what you guys do but I also live in an incredibly expensive area of the country.

[schild]

Maybe the problem is that you play MMOGs.

Wait, no, that's definitely the problem. ^_^

[Chimpy]

What do you know about my priorities and how they will change when I get older? I plan to continue spending cash on my main hobby, namely games.

There comes a time for every man where his priorities change, the world starts passing by faster, he realizes he is in debt and has not saved a dime for retirement or a rainy day, he loses his job, and he says FUCK WHY DID I SPEND THAT 600 BUCKS ON A SILLY PASTIME!?!?!

Enjoy your hobby while you can, as every other man trying to keep afloat post college with bills and stuff has attested so far, your outlook will change when you least expect it to.

[Sairon]

I already have a lot of money saved from when I worked, I take no loans while studying and will never loan for anything but must haves, which means pretty much house only. The difference between me and for example SnakeCharmer is that I skip the golfing & tennis and there by can afford the super expensive luxurious $600 console called Playstation 3. Also, audiophiles, car enthusiasts and a truckload of other people doesn't exist, there simply is no way one can afford doing something that expensive for a hobby.

[Margalis]

Stop being stupid. How many times do I have to say that talking about $600 as cheap or expensive is folly? Would you pay $600 for a corn dog? How about for a private jet?

The point is value. $600 is a steal for a jet, not so good for a corn dog considering you can buy other corn dogs for $2. Whether or not you want a PS3 or can afford one? Who cares? I could buy 10 tomorrow no sweat. But the value isn't there. Compared to what else you can get for the same or less it isn't attractive. That doesn't mean you shouldn't buy it, or that you don't want it, or that you can't afford it. It just means that there is a good reason why other people aren't buying it - better alternatives exist that cost the same or less.

The question is, would you pay $600 for something, or $600 or *less* for something better? Tough one. Especially if you do have a limited budget.

Edit: This isn't rocket science. It costs more and is worse. Wow, it is a flop HOW SURPRISING!!!

[Merusk]

You just called the PS3 worse than the alternatives.  I think I hear some heads asploding.

[Sairon]

Stop being stupid. How many times do I have to say that talking about $600 as cheap or expensive is folly? Would you pay $600 for a corn dog? How about for a private jet?

The point is value. $600 is a steal for a jet, not so good for a corn dog considering you can buy other corn dogs for $2. Whether or not you want a PS3 or can afford one? Who cares? I could buy 10 tomorrow no sweat. But the value isn't there. Compared to what else you can get for the same or less it isn't attractive. That doesn't mean you shouldn't buy it, or that you don't want it, or that you can't afford it. It just means that there is a good reason why other people aren't buying it - better alternatives exist that cost the same or less.

The question is, would you pay $600 for something, or $600 or *less* for something better? Tough one. Especially if you do have a limited budget.

Edit: This isn't rocket science. It costs more and is worse. Wow, it is a flop HOW SURPRISING!!!

The only fact in this matter is that the PS3 is a steal for the hardware in it. Iirc you're intrested in the Wii which in my opinion using the same logic is freaking expensive.

[Margalis]

The only fact in this matter is that the PS3 is a steal for the hardware in it. Iirc you're intrested in the Wii which in my opinion using the same logic is freaking expensive.

LOL reach much? I hear that video game systems exist not simply to exist, but to play these things called "games."

The Wii is at least better than the PS3 in some ways, or at the very least not directly comparable. You can't get a system comparable to the Wii for any amount of money. Again, the real competition here is with the 360. You can get a system comparable to the PS3, in fact better, for less money.

You can say the Wii is overpriced for the hardware, which may be true, but you can't find a system that does the same thing but better for less money. That is exactly the situation the PS3 is in with regards to the 360 - the 360 is both better and cheaper. Depending on whether or not you like the Wii it's either your second or third system choice behind the 360.

I'm no MS fan, in fact I hate MS, but I have trouble understanding why anyone would own a PS3 and not a 360 other than rabid brand loyalty.

[schild]

The PS3 doesn't break. It doesn't falter. The firmware updates make significant changes to the quality of the OS and gaming on the system. Blu-Ray is awesome. Folk Lore has already done things that simply haven't or can't be done on the 360. There's lots of reasons.

[UnSub]

The PS3 doesn't break. It doesn't falter. The firmware updates make significant changes to the quality of the OS and gaming on the system. Blu-Ray is awesome. Folk Lore has already done things that simply haven't or can't be done on the 360. There's lots of reasons.

... but none of those reasons relate to games, which is the main reason people buy consoles.

[HaemishM]

The only fact in this matter is that the PS3 is a steal for the hardware in it. Iirc you're intrested in the Wii which in my opinion using the same logic is freaking expensive.

You can't play hardware. Hardware sits there and looks shiny and gathers dust until software comes along. If the only software that comes along is shitty shit shit shit, the greatest hardware in the world is worth less than shitty shit shit shit. I don't give a flying rat fuck if it's the obisidian obelisk from 2001 in that bitch, the games available RIGHT FUCKING NOW for the system aren't worth $600 for the hardware.

[schild]

The Wii isn't worth $250. I'm a gamer. $250 is chump change to me at console launch. If the Wii was worth $250, I'd HAPPILY ADMIT IT. It'd be the best deal in gaming. It's not. Nowhere near. Minigames not Games. They're Almost Games. I don't play almost games. Just like you don't bake bread to win.

[Sairon]

The only fact in this matter is that the PS3 is a steal for the hardware in it. Iirc you're intrested in the Wii which in my opinion using the same logic is freaking expensive.

You can't play hardware. Hardware sits there and looks shiny and gathers dust until software comes along. If the only software that comes along is shitty shit shit shit, the greatest hardware in the world is worth less than shitty shit shit shit. I don't give a flying rat fuck if it's the obisidian obelisk from 2001 in that bitch, the games available RIGHT FUCKING NOW for the system aren't worth $600 for the hardware.

I agree with that totally, it's all about the software. As I've said, I wouldn't buy the PS3 at this point for the games, but just as people buy the Wii for potential it's the same with PS3. Even if it's a crime to say but innovation is fucking overrated, the shit that has been done in the name of innovation is overwhelming. I just want quality games and that's the reason for why I'm intrested in the PS3, the games which are scheduled for it intrests me a lot more than those for the 360 or Wii.

The reason for why I even brought up the hardware argument is because that's the only concrete fact that there is to go on. We can argue all day which console is the best, but the hardware in the PS3 costs more to produce than what you pay for it, which isn't the case afaik for the Wii.

[Righ]

the hardware in the PS3 costs more to produce than what you pay for it

Are you accusing Sony of dumping? That's a serious allegation.

[Sairon]

the hardware in the PS3 costs more to produce than what you pay for it

Are you accusing Sony of dumping? That's a serious allegation.

It's a pretty well known fact I belive http://www.isuppli.com/news/default.asp?id=6919, there's been a lot of news about it. I belive it was the same with the 360 in the beginning.

[WindupAtheist]

Blu-Ray versus HD-DVD is the format war nobody outside of technophiles gives a shit about.  As far as the average non-hardcore consumer is concerned, Sony may as well have jacked up the price of the PS3 by an extra $200 for fucking nothing.

[Righ]

the hardware in the PS3 costs more to produce than what you pay for it

Are you accusing Sony of dumping? That's a serious allegation.

It's a pretty well known fact I belive http://www.isuppli.com/news/default.asp?id=6919, there's been a lot of news about it. I belive it was the same with the 360 in the beginning.

Woah - those prices are trying to suggest that Sony buys hardware in the retail chain one unit at a time? Hilarious. I can even see prices in there that I can beat on Newegg.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148088

[Margalis]

The reality is that the people who *really* know how much it costs to manufacture consoles aren't talking.

[Simond]

It'd be the best deal in gaming. It's not. Nowhere near. Minigames not Games. They're Almost Games. I don't play almost games. Just like you don't bake bread to win.

How many DS's have you owned, again?

Anyway summary time: Sony gambled that consumers would be willing to pay a $200 premium over the competition for blu-ray functionality. Turns out that most people won't.

Whoops.

[schild]

Eh? I've owned 4 DSs. One I slammed in a car door. One I simply returned on a replacement plan to go from Blue to Red. And then, of course, I bought a Lite when it came out. The brighter screen was worth the price of admission. I still own the red one. I have not had a problem with my DSs.

[Riggswolfe]

Eh? I've owned 4 DSs. One I slammed in a car door. One I simply returned on a replacement plan to go from Blue to Red. And then, of course, I bought a Lite when it came out. The brighter screen was worth the price of admission. I still own the red one. I have not had a problem with my DSs.

I think he was implying that DS games are all about the minigames.

[Yegolev]

Anyway summary time: Sony gambled that consumers would be willing to pay a $200 premium over the competition for blu-ray functionality. Turns out that most people won't.

My take was that it was more of a corporate mandate that BluRay be included in all units rather than having it optional, naturally to assist in the uptake of the new standard.  Obviously if they wanted to sell units, they should have done more to compete with the 360, such as provide a $400 unit sans BRP.  If they did that, the 360's price advantage goes poof.

As for DS games, most of them are shitty.  A few are awesome.  The awesome ones don't use the stylus in stupid ways, or at all.  The saving grace is the cheapness.

[HaemishM]

but just as people buy the Wii for potential it's the same with PS3. Even if it's a crime to say but innovation is fucking overrated

And I'll say it again. I didn't buy the Wii for innovation. The two games I lusted for on the Wii at release were Red Steel and Madden 07, and I loved them both, despite their flaws. I've played some mediocre games on the Wii, and have said so when I played them. I have yet to play a SHITTY Wii game, but then I haven't played them all, so I can't speak to every game being shitty. But the games I bought the system for delivered the goods, as did Zelda.

And even moreso, do you really think the majority of people who bought the Wii bought it for potential games? No, you see casual gamers and people who are not hardcore EGM readers do not do this. They buy for the right now, for the games they can get when they pick up the system. Mostly they don't buy on release day, and yet they did. Casual gamers, the Wii's target audience, do not buy based on potential.

I just want quality games and that's the reason for why I'm intrested in the PS3, the games which are scheduled for it intrests me a lot more than those for the 360 or Wii.

Fair enough. All of one game currently out on the PS3 interests me in the slightest, Resistance. Everything else, I'd either get on another platform (sprots games I'd get for the Wii) or don't give a shit about.

The reason for why I even brought up the hardware argument is because that's the only concrete fact that there is to go on. We can argue all day which console is the best, but the hardware in the PS3 costs more to produce than what you pay for it, which isn't the case afaik for the Wii.

And your point is... what? That the Wii makes a profit. I don't have a problem with that. I never have. Sony might have been able to make a profit on each PS3 had they not tried to force Blu-Ray down gamer's throats. The value in the hardware isn't in whether or not the components cost more than the system's price, it's in whether the games are any good. And by your own admission, the system doesn't have enough good games right now. It might in the future. Which means you bought your console for potential, AND paid almost 3 times what I paid for the console I bought based on the games it had at release.

[schild]

Eh? I've owned 4 DSs. One I slammed in a car door. One I simply returned on a replacement plan to go from Blue to Red. And then, of course, I bought a Lite when it came out. The brighter screen was worth the price of admission. I still own the red one. I have not had a problem with my DSs.

I think he was implying that DS games are all about the minigames.

I thought that at first, but it was so stupid that I didn't know what to say. So I gave a straight answer.

[cmlancas]

What do you know about my priorities and how they will change when I get older? I plan to continue spending cash on my main hobby, namely games.

There comes a time for every man where his priorities change, the world starts passing by faster, he realizes he is in debt and has not saved a dime for retirement or a rainy day, he loses his job, and he says FUCK WHY DID I SPEND THAT 600 BUCKS ON A SILLY PASTIME!?!?!

Enjoy your hobby while you can, as every other man trying to keep afloat post college with bills and stuff has attested so far, your outlook will change when you least expect it to.

$10/week to your 401k is a lifesafer. I started at age 20. Now I'm supposedly on track to be a millionaire at 60. Hooray. People who have these sort of sob stories now are complete morons who cannot prepare adequately for the future. Sorry. I really have no sympathy for this argument. I make $11.50/hr USD and that equals out through incentives to be around $25000 USD/yr. I have a pretty nice apartment, I pay for my own schooling at a state university, a dog, two cats, two gaming rigs, and two current-gen consoles. I also have a 401k. By budgeting correctly and making decently sound financial investments (aka this rig that I'm on now that has lasted me four years and still plays up-and-coming games), I live pretty comfortably.


In response to Schlid's post about the Wii not being worth $250, no matter how loud you yell, it doesn't negate the popularity of the Wii. The numbers, in my opinion, speak for themselves. When I walk into any local game store, local Target type store, or anywhere that I could possibly buy a gaming system, I see the PS3 on the shelf and no Wiis in sight. Why is this? I think it is because the average gamer: doesn't give two shits about blu-ray; thinks $600 is a huge barrier to entry just to play a few games; and also thinks that Wii mini-games are a fun way to spend a Saturday night with a case of beer. Perhaps I'm in a bad cross-section of society considering I am twenty-one and in college, but I can only name one person I know who owns a PS3 whereas I can cite at least twenty that own Wiis. Obviously, many "gamers" (and if you want to argue that people who think that the Wii is fun aren't gamers then you're being puerile) think that the Wii is in fact worth the $250.

I'm not going to argue with you about the PS3's build quality or future quality because I agree with you. Maybe Sony busted on Blu-Ray, but I know they will shell out some good games for it -- their track record has shown as much. All in all though, the Wii rocks the shit out of the PS3 right now. Refusing to interpret the market data and hold up a banner that says PS3>Wii is analogous to the crazies on the side of the road telling me the world is ending tomorrow -- it just isn't true.

[Merusk]

$10/week to your 401k is a lifesafer. I started at age 20. Now I'm supposedly on track to be a millionaire at 60. Hooray. 

To derail momentarily into something, y'know, interesting.. this has always bothered me a bit.  We keep telling folks to save, save, save.. but if everyone has a million at 60, well then.. we're all fucked.

Me, I'm going to start to tell more people, "It's not worth it.. dude the market sucks. Rember what happend to you in 2000? Save it somewhere else!"

[Murgos]

Save more then the other shmoe then.  Not to wave epeens but I max the 401k and a Roth IRA contributions every year, along with the company match I should be quite comfortable regardless of inflation.  Also, there is something to be said for how you manage the money in the accounts that will show up at the finish line.  If you're putting it all into safe 4.5% bonds well, don't be surprised when Pablo The Lawn Boy tells you he has no job openings available for a 70 yr old.

I actually make about $400 more a paycheck in the deferred tax savings due to the 401k.  Sure I can't touch that money untl I retire but, that's what it's there for, I'll takeFuture Worth Value at 8 - 10% (or more, go go index funds!) over the next 20+ years for the win Alex!.

[schild]

I should get on the 401k horse. I'm not getting any younger.