«

Tomcat wrote:

> On Feb 20, 3:17 pm, Derek Janssen <ejan...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>If you buy an S300 that doesn't work, or if you buy a PS3 that does, for
>>movie-watching only, and play a Sony disk on either one, why should that
>>trouble their sleep any?
>>
>
>
> Because Sony loses more money on selling you a $400 PS3 as a movie
> player than selling you the $400 S300.

What, because you're "not playing games"?

Well, um....play a game then. Or not. Knock yer freakin' self out.

Derek Janssen

On Feb 20, 12:05*pm, Doug Jacobs <djac...@shell.rawbw.com> wrote:
> So...you want us to applaud you for picking the right format? *
> Gee, you only had a 50-50 chance of getting THAT one right.
>
> --
> It's not broken. *It's...advanced.

Hmm. So I guess that would make someone an idiot for NOT getting that
one right if it was that simple.

"Tomcat" <> wrote in message
news:412b4658-f05a-4eb1-9489-...
On Feb 20, 3:17 pm, Derek Janssen <ejan...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
>
> If you buy an S300 that doesn't work, or if you buy a PS3 that does, for
> movie-watching only, and play a Sony disk on either one, why should that
> trouble their sleep any?
>

Because Sony loses more money on selling you a $400 PS3 as a movie
player than selling you the $400 S300.

===============================================

But, Sony (as well as MS) make their money on peripheral hardware and
software sales, so if they sell more PS3s, they also are going to sell both
movies and games. From a marketing standpoint, they cannot lose on this
scenario.

In alt.games.video.xbox Calab <> wrote:
> > THE XBOX 360 AND PS3 ARE NOT PRIMARILY MOVIE PLAYERS OR DATA
> > STORAGE DEVICES. THEY WERE INTENDED TO BE GAME CONSOLES.

> Except that the PS3 was never designed to be just a game console. Sony
> themselves say that the PS3 was designed to be a media hub.

Which is why it's failing as a game console.

With the exception of blu-ray, the 360 can do all the same media tricks
that the PS3 can do - and I really don't care. I want games.

> > THEY DO NOT REQUIRE HIGH CAPACITY DISKS TO FUNCTION. GAMES
> > WORK FINE ON DVD.

> Except for games that have more than 8 gig of content.

There has yet to be a PS3 game that would not fit onto a DVD. Games like
Heavenly Sword only take up so much space because they put every language
version on the same disc. Normally these languages would appear on
different versions of the game. Other games have to use replicated data
across the disc to help with the PS3's blu-ray drive's otherwise slow data
transfer. This is hardly the evidence slam-dunk that proves that blu-ray
isn't just "nice", but "REQUIRED" for gaming that Sony claims it is.

Also, on the 360 side of things, there's only been one game so far that
hasn't fit on a single DVD, and that's a RPG, which have been been released
on multiple discs since CDs were first starting to make their appearance in
the console game world.

Try again.

Sony may have won the next generation of home video, but they're in real
danger of losing the this generation of game consoles, and have damaged
their chances for the next generation as well. I hope the tradeoff was
worth it.

--
It's not broken. It's...advanced.

Doug Jacobs wrote:

> In alt.games.video.xbox Calab <> wrote:
>
>>>THE XBOX 360 AND PS3 ARE NOT PRIMARILY MOVIE PLAYERS OR DATA
>>>STORAGE DEVICES. THEY WERE INTENDED TO BE GAME CONSOLES.
>
>
>>Except that the PS3 was never designed to be just a game console. Sony
>>themselves say that the PS3 was designed to be a media hub.
>
>
> Which is why it's failing as a game console.
>
> Sony may have won the next generation of home video, but they're in real
> danger of losing the this generation of game consoles, and have damaged
> their chances for the next generation as well.

Gee...Guess they may just have to take all that leftover game processing
technology and make Blu-ray players that work as well as the PS3,
instead. ^_^

Derek Janssen (somewhere on Gilligan's Island, there's a Japanese
soldier still shouting "The PS3's a game-machine flop!" long after the
War was over)

In alt.games.video.xbox Derek Janssen <> wrote:
> Sony doesn't ask WHY you buy a PS3...

No, but the PS3 comes from the video game arm of Sony - not the A/V
products arm of Sony.

Unlike Sony's TVs or cameras, the PS3 by itself doesn't make money. If
anything, it's sold at a loss to help get consoles into the market.
Although I think right now, Sony is selling the PS3 at about the
break-even point, meaning they're not losing money...but aren't making any
either. Game consoles - which is what the Playstation is - make their
money from the sales of games, not movies. So long as the sale of PS3
games is also increasing along with PS3 console sales, Sony may be OK.
However if too many people just buy the PS3 to use as a blu-ray player -
and ONLY as a blu-ray player - Sony won't be making nearly as much money
from those customers. The licensing fees Sony collects from a single sale
of a PS3 game is far more than what Sony can collect from the licensing
and sale of a single Blu-Ray movie.

It would be rather odd, but not surprising, if the PS3 ended up near the
top in terms of hardware sales, but near the bottom in terms of software
sales.

--
It's not broken. It's...advanced.

Doug Jacobs wrote:
>
> It would be rather odd, but not surprising, if the PS3 ended up near the
> top in terms of hardware sales, but near the bottom in terms of software
> sales.

In fact, it would be rather astonishing.

Derek Janssen

In alt.games.video.xbox Derek Janssen <> wrote:
> If you buy an S300 that doesn't work, or if you buy a PS3 that does, for
> movie-watching only, and play a Sony disk on either one, why should that
> trouble their sleep any?

Sony makes more from the sale of the S300 vs. the sale of the PS3.
They're also different departments, so while Sony's studios may make money
from the sale of blu-ray discs, Sony's video game department loses money
on the sale of the PS3, and then more money when the customer fails to buy
any games for it.

--
It's not broken. It's...advanced.

Doug Jacobs wrote:

> In alt.games.video.xbox Derek Janssen <> wrote:
>
>>If you buy an S300 that doesn't work, or if you buy a PS3 that does, for
>>movie-watching only, and play a Sony disk on either one, why should that
>>trouble their sleep any?
>
>
> Sony makes more from the sale of the S300 vs. the sale of the PS3.
> They're also different departments, so while Sony's studios may make money
> from the sale of blu-ray discs, Sony's video game department loses money
> on the sale of the PS3, and then more money when the customer fails to buy
> any games for it.

Um, let's ask a nice, smarmy and despicably insufferable question Doug:
Just who WON the damn war, anyway? As in, "Who"?

Samsung? Panasonic? The Sharp players we never got? Those LG
dual-players (which they still intend to make)?
How about the studios?...No, wait, as you point out, disks are
meaningless unless there's something to play it on.
Oh, wait, I know!--Maybe it was all those fine, cutting-edge Sony
S300's, and their expert "Future of entertainment is here" craftsmanship!

Hmm, well, we *know* it couldn't have been the PS3, because it flopped
as a game machine.
Gee, that's puzzling. Maybe nobody won the war. Maybe it never
happened. ^_^

Derek Janssen (whew, man, I'm worn out; this denial stuff's a workout,
how do you manage it??)

"Doug Jacobs" <> wrote in message
news:...
> In alt.games.video.xbox Derek Janssen <> wrote:
>> If you buy an S300 that doesn't work, or if you buy a PS3 that does, for
>> movie-watching only, and play a Sony disk on either one, why should that
>> trouble their sleep any?
>
> Sony makes more from the sale of the S300 vs. the sale of the PS3.
> They're also different departments, so while Sony's studios may make money
> from the sale of blu-ray discs, Sony's video game department loses money
> on the sale of the PS3, and then more money when the customer fails to buy
> any games for it.
>

But they are buying games for it Doug. If you go back just 5 months ago,
the PS3 had only 2 games sell a million+ to that date and no other games
over 500K. Now fast forward to now, and you have 8 game that sold a million+
and a total of 20 games over 500K. How is this not selling games, even if
they are cross-platform, the PS3 versions are still selling which is MAKING
Sony money. Worldwide, the PS3 has been on par with the 360 in selling
games, this with the fact that the 360 has a 7mil+ install base over the
PS2. If the PS3 had the same sales totals in consoles, you wouldn't want to
see the disparity. So tell everyone how Sony isn't selling games.