Sony CEO not being bullied into making PS3 price cut
Almost everybody agrees that the Playstation is priced too highly to really compete with the Xbox 360 and Wii in the middle of a recession. Everybody, that is, except Sony itself, which continues to stick its head in the sand and hope sales will pick up without any price cut. And Sony CEO Howard Stringer is refusing to be bullied on this matter.
Last month saw Activision chief, Bobby Kotick, threaten to pull his company’s support for both the PS3 and PSP. Kotick claims this was as a response to the continuing high price of the PS3 and Sony’s refusal to cut the price, although quite what the PSP has to do with that is anyone’s guess. Kotick said:
They have to cut the price, because if they don’t, the attach rates are likely to slow. If we are being realistic, we might have to stop supporting Sony… When we look at 2010 and 2011, we might want to consider if we support the console — and the PSP too.
As Mike explored at the time, it seems likely that there was more behind Kotick’s statement, with royalty rates being the most likely explanation. However, taking it on face value, it seems it’s more than just consumers and analysts failing to understand the lack of a price cut to reinvigorate sales. When games companies themselves start also expressing that same opinion you know you’re in trouble.
Except Sony CEO Howard Stringer is refusing to listen, let alone see the signs that we can’t all be wrong in thinking what the PS3 really needs right now is a major price cut. He responded to Kotick via Reuters, and added an aside to explain rather succinctly why Sony isn’t eyeing up a PS3 price cut anytime soon. He said:
He likes to make a lot of noise. He’s putting pressure on me and I’m putting pressure on him. That’s the nature of business.
I (would) lose money on every PlayStation I make — how’s that for logic.
Not bowing to pressure from an outspoken games company boss is one thing, outright refusing to cut the price of an overpriced product in the face of almighty opposition is quite another. Kotick may well have had his own reasons for last month’s outburst but the fact remains that the PS3 is in desperate need of a price cut.
Sales are moseying along at a pedestrian pace right now, and much of that will be because there are two cheaper alternatives on the market. In these economically-challenged times when people are more aware of spending money than ever, the PS3 is just too expensive as a standalone product to sell to the mainstream.
Related Posts:
102 Responses to “Sony CEO not being bullied into making PS3 price cut”
Leave a Reply:
You must be logged in to post a comment. Don't have an account? Register today!
July 9th, 2009
yeah but ps3′s software sales rose like 90% since last year… attach rates may slow? why would they say such a thing when sony arguably has the strongest lineup for games coming fall 09 into 10 they pissed off a sleeping giant as to in pearl harbor it was the other was around…of course
if i was a develpoer id be excited to develpe for exclusively both consoles with
A. xbox 360 sells good despite no new games comin out (alan wake)
B.ps3 like i said has great lineup to puch units out the door
July 9th, 2009
back me up ppl
July 9th, 2009
To kevo:
I’ll back you up.
You can make good looking games only on the 360, PS3, and PC. And seeing how badly the PC is doing right now, turning your back on Sony is a very bad move.
July 9th, 2009
Sony really are in a bind, aren’t they? They can’t lower the price of the PS3 because they’re already losing money on it, and now they have one of, if not THE, largest game publishers threatening to pull support for it. And if it really is over royalties, then that would be another blow for Sony, i.e losing even more revenue.
Not to mention the below better than expected sales of their inhouse titles.
July 9th, 2009
I have a feeling Sony is just gearing up for the redesign and price drop, but do not want to say anything in order to clear old stock. Bundling that old stock with it’s two arguably most expensive to make games that are selling less than half the competition’s similarly positioned exclusives, let alone several third party titles, is probably the best move they can make at this point. A $299 quality redesign with full BC will likely have them see a huge spike in sales. In the meantime it’s incremental paces to that play.
July 9th, 2009
As I said before, the denial COULD be just “smoke and mirrors”
Wait and see, I suppose.
July 9th, 2009
If Stringer’s telling the truth (which shouldn’t be too hard to tell) and if Sony stick to what they have publicly said so far (no price cut until the unit is not only profitable v manufacturing costs before but also after any such cut) then things look even worse for Sony.
Their latest bundle giving away 2 of their top titles can’t be helping if they’re making a loss on the price of the PS3 console itself.
At this stage of proceedings 3yrs in that looks like the Steve Jobs ‘bag of hurt’ alright.
July 9th, 2009
So Sir Howard Stringer basically is calling Kotick’s bluff. Everyone knows Kotick is full of shit, and there’s no way Craptivision would pull support of the PS3.
Go to VG Chatz and do some research kids. The numbers don’t lie. The COD franchise has been built on the same engine since 3. The Guitar Hero engine has been recycled so many times, I’ve lost count. Still the PS3 versions of those games sell millions.
July 9th, 2009
Sounds like corporate spiel to me. What do you expect them to say? I know some of you will cling to HS’s words of “losing money” to provide fanboy fodder for the remainder of the topic, but the people that pay attention (carlb) realize it’s the exact thing one would expect him to say.
July 9th, 2009
Didn’t you get the memo …. “the sky is falling?”
July 9th, 2009
Price drop or not i could care less, I already got my PS3 and even if Sony stay in 3rd play this gen there not going out of the gaming business.
They have the biggest first party gaming studios and the have the support of Japan. As long as Japanese Dev are supporty Only PlayStation Sony will do fine.
July 9th, 2009
Howard Stringer is the best friend Nintendo and Microsoft could have.
The longer he keeps making excuses for the PS3’s high price and resists a price drop, the longer both competitors look like much better value to the consumer and continue to outsell Sony’s effort.
Keep it up, Sir.
July 9th, 2009
phranctoast:
“it’s the exact thing one would expect him to say.”
Why?
He could have simply fobbed the journo off with the usual non-committal fluff and said what they usually come out with, things like that they have no current plans and will announce any new developments at the appropriate time.
He certainly didn’t have to say that they are still losing money on every PS3 sold.
S’funny but this is an amusing tale.
It’s clear as day that if this story were replicated for Xbox then the resident PS3 fanboys would be all over it telling us all at great length how it meant disaster for that console and effectively spelling doom for any confidence in the brand.
July 9th, 2009
the xbox is a cheap piece of hardware as it is.
July 9th, 2009
maybe it’s just a way of him sayin we won’t drop the price untill fall…crossing the fingers though
July 9th, 2009
“S’funny but this is an amusing tale.
It’s clear as day that if this story were replicated for Xbox then the resident PS3 fanboys would be all over it telling us all at great length how it meant disaster for that console and effectively spelling doom for any confidence in the brand”
please go easy on that poor straw man.
July 9th, 2009
Seriously, a $399 80GB PS3 or a $399 Elite, know my money would be going to the PS3! Too bad that’s just me, and there are far more people who see $199 for Xbox arcade and will go with that, just because it’s $200 cheaper. Sony needs to drop the price and fast! On the other hand maybe Sony should increase they price back to the launch $599! Lord knows it would make for a more interesting story then these stupid fucking PS3 price drop threads twice a day! Seriously, give a it fucking rest!
July 9th, 2009
sony needs activision as much as activision needs sony….
and btw ppl we hardcore gamers need to stick together… i mean what would we do if the wii has a casual market zombie attack…
hope you guys been playin nazi zombies for practice…lol
July 9th, 2009
Knighthawk
I think the $299 60gb Xbox is the biggest seller.
(does anyone know of any stats for the break-down in Xbox sales?)
kevo
Nazi zombies with knife only, that’s the real test!
July 9th, 2009
havent tried but sounds crazy
July 9th, 2009
get awarded a shit ton of points that way…whats the furthest you’ve gone Happy?
July 9th, 2009
Uh oh.
Another turd lands in the PS3′s US swimming pool –
Netflix announces partnership with Sony to stream movies to Bravia HD TVs – but this does not include the PS3.
h**p://sev.prnewswire.com/computer-hardware/20090709/SF4408309072009-1.html
That’s a handy feature Xbox has but PS3 does not.
July 9th, 2009
2 levels, it’s f**king hard & you have to dance around a lot!
July 9th, 2009
hope you guys been playin nazi zombies for practice…lol
Kevo that game is addicting, cant stop playing it.
ive got as far as 19th round.
July 9th, 2009
PS3
“That’s a handy feature Xbox has but PS3 does not”
I Stream movies on my PS3 through the Web Browser (at no extra cost)
on the other hand netflix for 360 you have to pay XBL $50/yeah and you have to pay netflix for couple hrs of streaming
July 9th, 2009
Roca
Are you saying you’re not interested & don’t want the option for Netflix?
July 9th, 2009
I’m still waiting for Netflix streaming to have something on it that I want to actaully watch.
It reminds me of the HBO/Showtime/ any movie on demand service. They have all these movies and there may be only one that you’re interested in. You may watch the other stuff to thwart boredom.
July 9th, 2009
Happy? are you talking about the Streaming or the Mail service?
July 9th, 2009
Because if your talking about the streaming, i would like the option have it but im not interested in it, as you the works like a computer and you know you can STREAM movies from different websites for FREE.
so why would i want to pay next for something that i can get for free.
July 9th, 2009
Correction:
so why would i want***to pay netflix*** for something that i can get for free.
July 9th, 2009
Roca
Netflix is not a facility we have in quite the same way here in the UK, but we’re getting something similar with Sky TV.
I subscribe to Sky for my TV anyways & I know subscribers either getting a discount or some stuff free.
Will I make a great deal of use of it?
Perhaps not but it will be very nice to have as an option and on those occasions when they have something I really want to see
(especially with the new Silverlight 3 HD streaming, my connection is good enough to get a very high quality stream now).
July 9th, 2009
So far no connection is good enough to stream HD movies, I bought a HD movie on the PSN and it was 9GB for a 90min movies… 9 fucking GB
July 9th, 2009
Thats funny, because lase night I was re downloading Age of Conan (2 weeks ‘come back please!’ offer), and it was 11gig. Only took 2 hours at just over 2MB/s.
So while it may not be super mainstream yet, its possible.
July 9th, 2009
Roca
I don’t know what sort of peasant’s connection you might have but my experience with an 18mb connection is that it’s perfectly ok to stream and download.
I could d/l complete Blu-ray rips now but tbh I just don’t see the point.
If it’s a movie I particularly like & want I’ll buy it anyway.
If it’s not then I don’t care that an encode (at 4.3gb or 8.5gb or 12gb or a max of 16gb) is lacking a tiny bit when compared to the retail version.
8gbs in under 1.5hrs places nice encoded .mkv HD movies right in the sweet spot of spotting 1 or 2 decent films and d/l’ing them in the day or early evening to watch later.
Works for me.
It’s also worth remembering that streaming is not downloading, streaming is all about what the buffer enables you to have and not necessarily about the max total file size or your own connection/bandwidth.
July 9th, 2009
I downloaded Gran Torino 1080p over XBL and was watching it within a minute after starting the download (it downloaded the rest while I was watching). Netflix HD streaming is great, right now I’m watching The Tudors going through season 2. The streaming isn’t limited either and it comes with one DVD/Blu-ray disc at a time. The quality difference from this service compared to what you get over the internet for free is huge. It is much better through Netflix.
July 9th, 2009
Do you mean free, or ‘free’ yarr
hehehe
July 9th, 2009
carlb downloading is different than streaming.
streaming is slower and lower quality
July 9th, 2009
Roca
You’re being far to general and you’re out of date on this.
You can get some really badly done encodes on download these days which claim to be ‘HD’ and a ‘Blu-ray rip’ at well under 4gb
(sadly this is a consequence of too many people who don’t know what they are doing getting hold of some simple encoding tools and trying to size things to get around the 4gb Fat32 limit).
You can also get some extremely high quality encodes done by some highly talented amatuers @ 4.3gb – 16gb.
Streaming on the otherhand is wholly dependant on the tech used (silverlight 3 being about 2 or 3 full generations ahead of youtube & google video’s flash for instance); the connection you are attempting to stream over and whether or not the ISP you use is doing anything to crimp your bandwidth.
The latest streaming tech (like silverlight2 & 3 – which IIRC is coincidentally what Netflix use) is far from slow and the quality is very very good.
July 9th, 2009
Well I was going to post but I see HH already did
But he’s right. Just because you stream something, doesn’t mean its crap quality at all.
July 9th, 2009
roca, I know. I merely added Gran Torino as an example of how fast 1080p downloads can start on 360 at this time.
The Netflix HD streaming in something like, The Office Season 4 (watching it right now), is of an exponentially higher quality than any of the free streaming I have seen on the internet to which you refer (Hulu, PlayOn, etc.).
July 10th, 2009
yeah rocca it is extremly addictive furthest for me was 17 and they were on fucking roller blades in the 18th frame lol
July 10th, 2009
yeah after the 18th most of the guns are useless
Ray gun and 100-bullet machine gun are fine for a couple of more round.
July 10th, 2009
@HH
“S’funny but this is an amusing tale.
It’s clear as day that if this story were replicated for Xbox then the resident PS3 fanboys would be all over it telling us all at great length how it meant disaster for that console and effectively spelling doom for any confidence in the brand.”
Stop, making shit up. You have no idea what we would say so just keep quiet.
Man you are such a jealous child.
July 10th, 2009
“Are you saying you’re not interested & don’t want the option for Netflix?”
Not everyone want’s netflix HH. With the current technology, I certainly don’t.
July 10th, 2009
I certainly have no interest in NetFlix. I have a BD collection that is growing rapidly. What I can’t buy for cheap I rent and rip. Netflix would be great for me if I wasn’t knowledgable of better quality alternatives, but that boat has sailed.
I am making no statement on the marketability of netflix. I am merely stating that for me, it is useless.
July 10th, 2009
I have no interest in Netfix either.
July 10th, 2009
stringer’s playing with fire.
apparently all the ps3 fanboys forgot that publishers can make or break a console. ea helps the dc fail by refusing to make games for it.
the ps3 is no exception. if activision continues to lose money on ps3 games, they have no option but to leave the ps3 w/o their games. it’s just business.
to say activision needs sony as much, is just plain wrong. activision’s games are selling fine on other consoles. they can save a lot of money by not developing games for the ps3, use that money to market for other consoles and still come out in the black.
if the ps3 loses the cod, gh and other stellar franchises, it will not be pretty for the ps3… then again, it’s never been pretty for the ps3…
July 10th, 2009
Oh please. Stringer basically told Activision to Fuck off.
for CoD we have Killzone, MAG, Socom, Resistance
for Guitar Hero we have Singstar and Rockband (which is better)
And we have the Japanese the Developers who dont be Milking GAMES like Activision.
i mean who needs 7 Guitar hero games in 3 Years.
but then again Activion Blizzard is big on MMO’s and the PS3 is the only console that can support FULL MMO games like a PC. and also u have free access to the online service
July 10th, 2009
Roca.:
“i mean who needs 7 Guitar hero games in 3 Years.”
Well, I bought 4 Guitar Hero games (2, 3, WT & Aerosmith).
I also got Rock Band 1 and when I find Rock Band 2 at a sane price I’ll pick that up too.
All at a bargain price I might add – usually below 1/2 the full retail price.
If I find the AC/DC & Beatles ones going at a sensible price I’ll grab them too.
It’s all about the set list.
So long as you don’t pay the stupid lainch price it’s no big deal.
July 10th, 2009
Roca.:
“the PS3 is the only console that can support FULL MMO games like a PC”
Explain this statement precisely, please.
Just how many more players over and above Xbox are we talking about and in how many games – and how many less than you average PC MMO game?
I suspect if there’s any difference at all it’s nothing to do with machine spec.
My bet is that you’re really only talking about one slightly larger molehill – if that – compared to another molehill – set in front of a huge wide range of mountainous MMO games.
July 10th, 2009
I dont have access to my source because im at work and it is blocked but it’s been said many times that the PS3 is the only console capable of run MMOs
Halo MMO = Canned
Marvel Universe MMO = Canned
Most player in one game:
40 players in Frontlines and that game was laggy as shit.
moving on to the PS3:
-40 player online running at full speed with no lag was a launch titles (Resistance)
-Follow by 60-players online (R2) with 8 players co-op (havent that on another console)
-Follow by MAG 256 players online
Upcoming Full MMOs:
-DC Universe
-Free Realms
-The Agency
-Uncharted Warter Online
-
July 10th, 2009
I highly doubt Sony will loose the PS3 is Activision left. GH is ok but it’s the same on my Wii so I wont get it on the PS3.
I did pick up Arrowsmith for the PS3 but only because It was $10 and it works with the Rockband guitar.
July 10th, 2009
I highly doubt Sony will loose the PS3 is Activision left. GH is ok but it’s the same on my Wii so I wont get it on the PS3.
I did pick up Arrowsmith for the PS3 but only because It was $10 and it works with the Rockband guitar.
July 10th, 2009
I ment IF Activision left.
July 10th, 2009
speaking of guitar hero i watched the south park episode where stan and kyle play…it made me “lol”…i wonder if they make a game like “heroin hero”
for those that don’t know its where u shoot up heroin and chase a dragon but u can never catch him
July 10th, 2009
Roca you’re splitting hairs.
July 10th, 2009
what do you mean?
July 10th, 2009
“the PS3 is the only console that can support FULL MMO games like a PC.”
Sorry roca, but this just isn’t true. So far the 360 is the only currently manufactured present gen console that can support the full MMO games FFXI and Phantasy Star Universe. Maybe that will change sometime in the future.
July 10th, 2009
Jofa,
Actually, there is no better alternative for HD streaming than Netflix, especially considering it is an addition to present disc renter’s subscription at no extra charge. If you like to rip discs (not for me), you can watch the HD stream instantly and then determine which ones you just have to have take up your hard drive space.
Add those to your blu-ray disc rental queue and then you can rip to your heart’s desire. Shipping is very fast, but personally, I just like having 12,000 movies/shows on tap available to watch instantly at any time of the day in SD (mainly older shows) to HD. The quality is much better than any other streaming service currently available on the internet.
July 10th, 2009
kevo
It’s Soth Park Series 11 Episode 13:
Guitar Queer-o.
(just in case you wanted to go & find it to keep)
A total classic.
(Stan’s dad at the start is fantastic…..’dad, what are you doing?’………’real guitars are for old people and gay’.)
July 10th, 2009
The trouble with xbox selling the cheap arcade model for sony is that these gamers will then become loyal to the brand and upgrade
July 10th, 2009
haha thanx HH
July 11th, 2009
Con, it seems to be working so far.
July 11th, 2009
Upgrade by purchasing gear for sure.
I’m not really so sure about loyal tho. Look at how Sony has lost an install base of a gazillion (slight exaggeration). Gamers are fickle, look how nintendo dominated, then sony, now nintendo again coupled with sony being pushed into the spot nintendo held last generation.
July 11th, 2009
Suck my balls carl
July 11th, 2009
“Suck my balls carl”
Does CON actually read what he is replying to?
July 11th, 2009
Maybe it was like an involuntary touretts thing.
CON
Are you cruisin for some testicular lovin?
This doesn’t seem the site for that kind of thing matey.
July 11th, 2009
Wake up people! The ps3 came out less than 3 years ago at $599. It has been reduced to $399. Sony is losing too much money on their console and so Sony’s shareholders will never allow another price drop.
Everyone who is holding out for a ps3 price drop before buying one is actually hurting Sony right now. Go out and buy one! Support your platform. In all likeliness, in this kind of economy, Sony will pull the plug entirely on the PlayStation brand before they reduce the price any further. Then Microsoft will rule with Nintendo? That is scary. Buy a ps3 and support your company. The price aint coming down again ever.
July 11th, 2009
oh i don’t know, there’s been some kinky shit said here.
I’m going to go chase the dragon, I nearly got him last time.
July 12th, 2009
“Sony will pull the plug entirely on the PlayStation brand before they reduce the price any further… buy a ps3 and support your company… The price aint coming down again ever”
lol
July 12th, 2009
BTW
The only stuff I can find about MMOs is that it’s only a problem for Xbox because Arcade Xboxes don’t have HDDS.
Can’t say as I’m bothered either way anyways.
July 12th, 2009
Didn’t stop PS2 with FFXI.
July 12th, 2009
Ah right and thank you for reminding me CarlB.
So even the HDD-less Xboxes angle is a load of BS.
July 12th, 2009
I don’t care what you say, a HDD less xbox is going to be an impediment to the ones that do have one. The programmers will will always have to consider the xbox’s without HDD’s and program accordingly or just program for the one’s with HDD and alienate the “have nots”
July 13th, 2009
In saying that, I have not yet seen the MAJOR advantages of loading games on HDD like on the ps3.
July 13th, 2009
512mb on board now is more than enough to play all disc based games. The majority of games do not require hdd’s, and for those who want to just play a game without having to wait for an install or take up space on their hard drive, disc play is an advantage.
July 13th, 2009
howard_stringer@am.sony.com
July 13th, 2009
“Didn’t stop PS2 with FFXI.”
the difference here is that M$ has a policy when developing game for the 360. every has to be playable on all the of their console. thats why the disc install is OPTIONAL instead of being madatory like they do on the PS3.
but as games grow bigger, some games will need to have an install as the DVD9 is not enough for some games.
and The x360 CPU is not strong enough for some of today’s MMO. That would explain FFXIV only on the PS3.
July 13th, 2009
“wait for an install”
Lets be honest, a 5 minute, one off install, is a silly thing to get upset about (not saying you are) If it did it every time you went to play the game, I would be on board with that argument.
July 13th, 2009
Yeah gotta agree spidey. In fact I install ALL my games on 360. Yes I only have 20 gigs of space, but thats enough for two games at a time (or if you happen to be playing star ocean, 2/3 discs).
July 13th, 2009
“DVD9 is not enough for some games” – Lost Odyssey (4 discs) and Baldur’s Gate (6 discs) were still great experiences and sold well for what they were. Just as FF7 was on PS1. If disc size does become a real problem, it will not be until next gen, by which time a solution will have been incorporated.
“That would explain FFXIV only on the PS3″ – still under consideration and not scheduled for release until next year, which will probably wind up to be the year after or later. Even if it is only on PS3 (and PC), it probably doesn’t mean the cpu is not powerful enough. More likely that MS didn’t want to pay the asking price or work out server issues for an MMO which may not give them a huge advantage in console sales (has either of the past two MMO’s done that well?).
July 13th, 2009
I didn’t say it was a major advantage. In fact I’ve only recently been hearing it as a minor inconvenience from PS3 users, together with limited downloads, the time it takes for firmware upgrades, etc.
Personally I now install all my disc games before playing them, but I could see those who bought an arcade appreciating being able to play the disc they bought in a disc player. I got along for a long time on 360 just fine before they incorporated hdd installs as an option. I only mentioned it because it is a widely spread fallacy that Arcade owners are screwed from playing the majority of the 360 library because they do not have a hdd.
July 14th, 2009
First time I’ve heard that Arcade owners are screwed… The only time its been mentioned hear afaik is the whole ‘forza thing’.
Not calling you out, it just astounds me that its the case.
July 14th, 2009
They are not screwed, because the developers are aware they have to keep them in mind, when making their games.
They have to program to the lowest common denominator, which is a HDDless console.
July 14th, 2009
In saying that, they do a pretty good job, because the game quality is till top notch. The question is ….. can they keep it up with the game sizes getting bigger and bigger as time drags on ?
July 14th, 2009
“They have to program to the lowest common denominator, which is a HDDless console”
Sorry, but is having a hdd option really holding developers back at this time? I don’t think so. As far as I know, many of the latest greatest bleeding edge spec pc games still come on and can play from discs, while game saves still take up only a small space, well enough to fit within 512MB and have plenty of room to spare.
July 14th, 2009
I shudder at the thought of playing a PC game from the CD/DVD. Loads times must be fantastic. EndOfSarcasm
July 14th, 2009
That does bring up a point though SW, if it isn’t any detriment, why doesn’t pc gaming play from cd/dvd, it would save a shite load of space?
It does help, ie – UT3 and being able to have mods on ps3 for one.
But as I said earlier, it is no major drama, as they are coping just fine now.
July 14th, 2009
@CarlB
You Said:
“As far as I know, many of the latest greatest bleeding edge spec pc games still come on and can play from discs, while game saves still take up only a small space, well enough to fit within 512MB and have plenty of room to spare.”
As an avid PC gamer, I haven’t played a “Bleeding Edge Spec” PC game that was capable of running off the disc in at LEAST 5 years, probably longer (Hell, I can’t even remember the last game that could play off the disc). Some games had only partial installs, and would source the disc for other info, but the installs were still sizable. Disc requirement in recent years have been for DRM purposes only. You are usually a lot more informed in what you talk about, so please educate yourself on PC gaming or don’t talk about it at all. Don’t be a presumptuous Ivan/Roca (IROC perhaps? haha).
July 14th, 2009
Does anybody know why some games on PS3 are install only? Might it have something to do with a slow read speed on Bluray disc drives? Oh, now I see:
multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/04/01/the-mystery-behind-playstation-3s-sometimes-mandatory-installations-as-far-as-we-know/
July 14th, 2009
“Disc requirement in recent years have been for DRM purposes only”
Thanks for clearing that up Jofa (and subsequently confirming that not having hdd is not holding back the quality of any present games), I admit, I haven’t been keeping up with pc drm, but thank you for updating me on why the installs are mandatory.
July 15th, 2009
I think you misunderstood me.
Installs are mandatory because disc access and transfer speeds are pathetic compared to HDD. The only reason a disc is needed in the drive is for the program to confirm you physically own the media (this is what installing a crack bypasses).
I will use SFIV as a great example. I used the optional install on my PS3, only after putting up with loading times for about a week. My brother, with a 360 arcade, does not use an install. Loading times between character selection and the start of the fight on his 360 are about 35sec. The loading times for the same function on my PS3 were IDENTICAL before I utilized the optional install. With the 5min install, the 35 second loading time has dropped to 15seconds. SFIV installed on my PC (Mandatory Install) is IDENTICAL to my PS3 with install on the HDD.
Have you ever played an emulated PS1 or PS2 game on a powerful computer? Even with an ISO on my harddrive, running in a virtual drive, the emulated PS1/2 game will have the EXACT same loading times as playing them on the console, directly off the optical media.
My point is, that loading times are not always based on ACTUAL loading times, and they are coded to be a set duration. I mean, if BD on PS3 is so shitty compared to DVD9 on 360, WHY ARE THEY IDENTICAL?
Because they are not functional durations, they are extended so that varying levels of hardware will experience identical performance (Brand new VS 5y old PS2 for example, or 360 vs PS3).
July 15th, 2009
I should clarify, PC only titles will see loading time differences between hardware profiles. This equality I mentioned is in the nature of console ports.
July 15th, 2009
options are great.
July 15th, 2009
I prefer to have the choice.
July 15th, 2009
I prefer to have the most enjoyable gaming experience possible.
July 15th, 2009
I can’t believe we’re all still moaning over what equates to 5 minutes out of your life while you install a game.
Jeez, get back from the store, throw it in the drive and go take off your shoes and grab some kind of cold liquid.
Now, if you are in a household that frowns upon shoes in the house(like mine), then I suggest you take off your shoes first, place the game in the slot/tray and go change out of your pants into something more comfortable (unless you’re already the ‘sports pants’ kinda guy/gal). I find shorts refreshing when in doors, or just ‘hang free’ in some boxers.
July 15th, 2009
Agreed SW
July 15th, 2009
Uh, I know this is an old discussion, but I wanted to point out that the PS2 version of Final Fantasy XI was packaged in with the PS2 hard-drive add-on that was REQUIRED to play the game. I’m sure on some level, both Happy and Carl HAD to have known this.
So… yeah, no hard-drive, no MMO.
-Arvis
July 15th, 2009
*muses*
….unless I’m confusing that add-on with the online adapter…?
Hell, I can’t say for sure now…
-Arvis
July 15th, 2009
? Sorry SW, but who is moaning? I just asked a question why some PS3 games require a mandatory install and stated my pref. DRM is the only thing that came up. I’m not happy about it, as I plan on purchasing a PS3 anyway, but I’m not “moaning” about it either. In any case, I can see why they would have it mandatory now, especially considering how many games are said to be pirated on 360/PSP.
I can’t believe we are still moaning over what equates to having to buy a $30+ hard drive as an upgrade to what is obviously meant to be a starter system, that is already priced $200 below it’s nearest competition. Over an hd that isn’t even required for 95%+ percent of the available games.
“Jeez”, get back from the store and pop in the 20gb/120gb if it upsets you so much.
July 17th, 2009
carlb – i think the better question is why ps3 fanboys whine about changing disks which takes 10 seconds to do, but think it’s alright to sit thru 5 minutes of loading times per game…
hypocrites….as usual…