News MS: "Sony is out of touch"

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2009/01/22/sony-is-out-of-touch-says-microsoft/1

The war of the words has continued on lately, with Microsoft's Aaron Greenberg claiming that competitor Sony is out of touch with the market.

 

I think I want to know what halucenogenic Kaz was using before he made his comments about being the PS3 being the official industry leader (despite being in last place in every measurable statistic) and I'm not surprised that microsoft would comment on it.

 

Prob the same drugs MS is on when they make just as childish and petty remarks. These 2 are like 2 kids fighting ove ra candy in Kindergarten.

 

The PS3 is a good bit of hardware but Sony marketing failed utterly to make it an attractive buy. Considering that they were competing with M$ they should have had the upper hand (just look at the terrible Vista marketing) but somehow they screwed it up. Other things have been out of their control, like the relative dearth of decent exclusives and a less enticing online experience. People often make the point that you have to pay for Xbox live as if thats a bad thing; all it shows is that people are willing to pay for that service. I don't think I'd bother with PS3 online if I had to pay.

 

i guess he is still living in the PS2 past.... this happened to Sega and Nintendo (but nintendo clawed back), a console manufacture gets cocky and complacent and believes that it's customers will follow it where ever it may go.

brand loyality doesn't get consumers anywhere these days, you just need to shopping around and find a product that suites your needs.

sony needs to remove the PS2 for store shelves if it wants users to get a PS3, as with each month that goes by, sony continue to sell around about the same amount of PS2 and it does with the PS3.

now, other that making a nice profit off the PS2, it can't be good for the PS3

 

In my book Sony is still a quality company. Microsoft jumped to second place this generation because the price was right, the coding was simple and the game titles were there. Wii had a very good sale strategy. PS3 cost too much on all fronts.

Major Generation Battles (Release date:System:Sales)
1994-1996 Nintendo 64 (33million units) v Playstation (102million units) v Microsoft N/A (0)
2000-2001 Nintendo Gamecube (22million units) v PS2 (140million units) v Microsoft Xbox (24million units)
2005-2006 Nintendo Wii (35million units) v PS3 (17million units) v Microsoft 360 (28million units)

Most units that released later into the market had lowers sales. The Wii was the first to break that pattern. Overall in the total (all console sales) video game industry, Sony (1) Nintendo (2) Sega (3) Microsoft (4)

If the PS3 would of had the right price, simple coding and title support like during the PS2 era; The PS3 would be top dog in the console market. NO I don't own a PS3 and what I said is the reason why.

 

sony just doesnt know how to deal properly with competion

sony are getting trounced in the games charts week after week.

the statements yesterday were completely ludicrious.

the 360 is stay way outselling the ps3. it really needs a price cut, quickly

 

Your console sales for this generations is off.

Wii: 46 million
360: 27.8 million
PS3: 19.8 million

Still Sony said market leader versus generation leader which might be true considering PS1 + PS2 + Ps3 + PSP sales

 

well, the PS3 is a more advanced system...technically, with the blu-ray and such...but the problem is they are trying to sell ferraris to people wanting corvettes.

 

The total market sales covered consoles only not handhelds. I used market leader sales as a side fact. This generations sales list I had was from Aug 1 2008 my mistake.

Sony might of lost this battle same as Microsoft but they're still winning the console war.

Like Scarrmrcc said Sony is selling Ferraris in a Vette market.

 

Atleast the PS3 doesn't have RROD...

 

Come on, seriously, the ps2 is still selling well, sony has blu-ray in its pocket, peopel act like Sony is the dreamcast, geez. Sony is doing better then MS overall by a long shot if u look at market penetration. Sony will be fine.

 

The PS3 is, imho, much better hardware, even putting Blu-Ray aside, simply because of the RRoD.

The 360 is, however, a console for the masses. At such low prices they will be selling much better for people who just want a new console, and aren't bothered about fancyness. Couple that with people wanting to spend less money in an economic downturn, and you're looking at even more of a difference in sales between 360 and PS3 imo.

Being less objective, I'd rather have a PS3. I loved my PS2 and PSX, I want to complete the collection and see if the PS3 is even close to basking in their majesty.

 

I think I need to hurry up and flog my PS3 Debugging station.... before it becomes a worthless POS

 

Both companies are taking a huge lost this generation. PS3s cost per unit is higher than the sticker price and the 360 has over filled repair shops (RRoDs, Banned, DOA etc).

My Playstation (Original release in 94) still works. I blew up my first PS2 (1st Gen) in a month so I had to return it for another. I'm now on my 3rd 360 in 2 years: Original Premium, Arcade & Arcade(Falcon mobo).

 

i dont understand how people put up with the noise of the xbox personally?! plus the fact that it is such badly put together hardware just makes it something i would never buy.

having said that i can see why MS are market leaders right now, primarily its down to price point. also sony should have been much more protective over its exclusives.

 

The reason i put up with the 360's noise and RRoD is just simply because it has a far better selection of games on the whole. Of course, this is just personal, but the price, games, and Live are what make it an all around winner.

Wii doesn't cater to my tastes, and PS3 is too expensive, I don't want to have to pay for Bluray, and there are very few games on it that I can't get a similar or superior experience on the 360.

Now, don't get me wrong, the PS3 is an awesome piece of kit, but Sony are useless and made so many mistakes in it's marketing that they all built up and caused the situation they are in now. I remember Kaz (or someone else) saying that the PS3 would sell very well with no games. What an ass. And it looks like he was rather wrong as well. With a fair chunk of decent games, it still is in last place.

Sony just need to rethink their strategies is my personal opinion. MS need to produce something not rushed and of a high quality, and Ninty are just lost in my eyes

 

Blu-Ray is the main reason the PS3 is being held back back in terms of market penetration. It's what held it back from its launch date and it's what is holding it back currently with its higher initial pricing. Secondly, the built-in wireless is also a feature that is keeping the price higher. Everything else that the 80GB PS3 offers out of the box, the 60GB 360 does too and had Sony not included those two features above, it would probably (based on it's current cost) make the PS3 cost less overall than the 60GB 360 (at least in the US). Both consoles have an ethernet port (Gigabit on PS3), both offer HDMI (1.3a on PS3), both offer USB2.0 ports, both offer HDD's, both offer services to buy movies, games, etc. The 60GB 360 is $299 while the 80GB PS3 is $399. So, for $100 more, HW-wise with the PS3 you get built-in wireless and Blu-Ray capabilities. They may be trying to sell what you consider a "ferrari", but IMO, those things can be considered a necessity to certain consumers (they were to me), and Sony's marketing has to learn how to make these consumers aware of it and be able to help them cost-justify it, or else they will look at the other option.

Sony's marketing needs to raise questions to consumers that make them ask themselves: Do I care about true Hi-Definition movies? Will I need a wireless internet connection? Do I want to be able to upgrade my HDD affordably to a higher capacity to store all of my music, photos, movies, downloadable games, partial game installs, or maybe my entire games library (this is home media entertainment device, correct? I guess you could try streaming, but things take too long to load when file sizes/quantity of files gets into the 1000's)? Do I want free online multiplayer that is stable (and offers the most # of online players), but doesn't allow me to talk to my friends outside of games, or do I want to pay yearly for the one that does offer everything the other service does including the feature the other one didn't? If I want online do I care about what my friends/aquaintances are playing? If so, which console do most of them own, or use the most? Do I want rechargeable out of the box controllers? Do I want headphones out of the box? Do I care more for 360's exclusives or PS3's exclusives?

These are the questions that Sony's marketing department needs to answer (through marketing) for potential (average) customers or else they will continue to lose sales to 360 b/c they shouldn't be expected to ask these questions themselves.

Man I typed too much.

 

Nahh, if you factor PSP and all the older consoles in then by rite you have to factor gameboy in and im sure the following maths works out true

PS1 + PS2 + PS3 + PSP < NES + SNES + N64 + GC + Wii + GB + GBP + GBC + GBA + DS + them awesome watch things they used to make

They probably lose out on that one so much that, im not even going to bother with the maths.

It strikes me that Sony have this BMW like status in the consumer electronics market by just verbally convincing people they are in that position, its genious.


I also like how Nintendo dont get involved and even more how Sony said Wii sales dont count because its different.

 

I see what you mean devdevil85. Most of the PS3 features are 8th Gen not 7th.

Only a few things.

The HDD size for the 360 is limited to Microsoft HDDs. The PS3 can use non-Sony HDDs for a lower cost with greater space.

The Dual Shock controller does come with a built in rechargable battery. The 360 requires you to buy those in kits.

This really is just the console version of the Mac vs PC pissing contest. I personally think the Macs I've used run like **** compared to my custom built PC with similar configs.