digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

TIME magazine deems PS3 a bust

joystiq.com — "The PS3 is hideously expensive--it goes for up to $600--and Sony manufactured only a piddling few hundred thousand for the U.S., fewer for Japan. Plus it's hard to write games for; the launch titles were lame. You know you're in trouble when you get beat by something called a Wii."

Who dugg this? Made popular Dec 19, 2006

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

166 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Toon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+97Of course! It's the royalties from the Super Mario Bros. Super Show that are fueling this article, not the facts. I mean, what is this "Time" magazine anyway? Sounds made up to me. Shouldn't a magazine have a name having to do with reading, like "Words"? "Words" is a much better name for a magazine. Time has nothing to do with reading except that it's boring and it takes a long time.

    I'm sorry for rambling. I have to get back to watching my Super Mario Bros. Super Show DVDs on an endless loop until they wear out and I'm forced to buy them all over again.
  • rlutterb, on 10/12/2007, -16/+105Perception is reality, and there are a lot of sources lesser than TIME that perceive PS3 as a bust... really.
  • Nobi-Wan, on 10/12/2007, -25/+111I'll chime in here for another perspective:

    This time last year I bought two Core Xbox 360's and was able to sell them within a week for double to triple their retail. I was able to snag a PS3 on launch day and listed it on Ebay. It never sold. I have then resigned to posting it on Craigslist EVERY DAY since November 17th and still NO ONE has bought it.
  • noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -7/+82I stopped trusting times after they put a root kit in my mailbox.




    ... Sony did that? Oh. *****.
  • MouseCircus, on 10/12/2007, -12/+87What the hell is this?

    You're attempting to discredit Time magazine in defence of Sony? ...There's many things I could say here, but this is beyond stupid. I won't even bother with it.
  • zyxwiley, on 10/12/2007, -1/+62"TIME magazine deems PS3 a bust"

    WTF? Why don't you link to the TIME article instead of this joystiq.com crap?

    The REAL article: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1570831,00.html
  • noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -2/+32That would be like showing up at the scene of a major car crash 2 hours late and waiting for the cars to miss each other.
  • enforcerpsu, on 10/12/2007, -11/+40owned by Time? Wow the PS3 really is getting crapped on...I mean, its an excellent system and has so much to offer to gamers. Oh wait...its a blu ray player? What do you mean the chipset is for servers and not gaming systems? $600?? damn.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+31If you think $ 600 is bad, it is going to cost $ 830 at launch here in the UK.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+31Here's the problem(s):

    1. Not many people own HD sets yet that will take advantage of the HD output so it's a moot selling-point.
    2. Blu-Ray isn't a format that has taken off yet the way DVD did when PS2 came out
    3. PS2 is still a ***** AWESOME SYSTEM! What incentive do we have to upgrade?
    4. Launch titles all suck.
  • estvir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23Yeah, well it's going to cost $1000AU here (I converted it at xe.com and it comes to $781USD) and that's with no games, extra controllers or anything.

    We don't even have a launch date any more anyway, like it matters.

    Bloody hell we get raped with prices over here. :(
  • staticneuron, on 10/12/2007, -5/+22Yeah, time is .... wait this sounds familiar.

    Time magazine, Sunday, Dec. 17, 2006



    "TO PLAY'S THE THING

    The big story in computer games this year was HOW TO BLOW A HUGE LEAD, by Sony. Its PlayStation 2 was the champ in the last round of the console wars. This time Sony bet on a chip called the Cell and a disc format called Blu-ray. They're probably awesome, but how would anybody know? The PS3 is hideously expensive--it goes for up to $600--and Sony manufactured only a piddling few hundred thousand for the U.S., fewer for Japan. Plus it's hard to write games for; the launch titles were lame. You know you're in trouble when you get beat by something called a Wii."



    Time magazine, Monday, Oct. 30, 2000

    "Even before this Thursday's official launch, Sony has lost goodwill, not to mention sales, for PlayStation2 with its glitchy product rollout. The company's recent announcement that it was cutting the number of PS2s available on launch day by 50% was a cruel blow to parents who had promised Junior one of the first units. And it is a headache for the 20,000 retailers selling PS2s--many of which began taking orders six months ago. The stores are bracing for hordes of irate customers."There will be people lined up in front of the doors," sighs Dan DeMatteo, president of Babbage's Etc., the nation's largest specialty video-games retailer. Babbage's has prepaid orders from five times as many customers as it will have units for this week.

    Sony won't explain what went wrong. Sony Computer Entertainment president Kazuo Hirai will say only that PlayStation2 is a "very complex machine that requires a lot of components." But the guessing in Japan is that the company botched the production of graphics chips.

    No modem is included with PS2, which puts it behind Sega's Internet-ready Dreamcast. But PS2 does have one feature parents will appreciate: it is backward compatible, meaning it can play the original PlayStation's 800 existing games.

    But many of the most eagerly anticipated titles, like Metal Gear Solid 2 and the Bouncer, won't be available until spring at the earliest.

    The early word on the playing experience--outside of Sony's launch party--is not particularly enthusiastic. "There is nothing on the PS2 that I've seen that gave me that jaw-dropping feeling I got with the Sega Dreamcast last year," says Dan Clark, 29, CEO of a New Hampshire credit union and an active gamer. Madden NFL 2001 is good, he says, but no better than games currently available on Dreamcast.

    Part of the reason for the underwhelming array of games, gamemakers say, is that PS2 is hard to program for. "The PS2 is definitely more powerful than Dreamcast," says John Carmack, the multimillionaire, ponytailed master gamer behind legendary shooters like Doom and Quake. "But it's less convenient to extract performance from it."
    "The PlayStation2 doesn't live up to Sony's hype," says Carmack. "It's just a next-generation machine, and they were acting like they'd invented the steam engine."

    But the biggest prize of all lies in turning gaming consoles into broad-ranging entertainment centers. Sony acknowledges this future by calling PS2 not a game console but a "computer entertainment system." And Sony, with its wealth of consumer-electronics devices and enormous movie and music businesses, may have the most to gain by branching out. Count on it to use PlayStation2 in the future as a platform for an array of synergistic nongaming applications, from editing digital movies made on Sony camcorders to downloading Sony-brand music and music videos.

    "PlayStation2 seems to be no more than a DVD player that can play games," grumbles Mike Roberts, an 18-year-old gamer from Missouri who says he won't be buying a PS2. "It should be the other way around."



    Deja Vu anyone?
  • aegis9975, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19Well, if you want to nitpik, Time-Warner owns Joystiq (part of AOL Weblogs) which this story is linked to, and are promoting Time magazine which is part of the same corporation. Time-Warner is are also a huge member of the patent holder in 6C patent pool that gets massive royalties from every HD-DVD player and media sold and have a vested interest in its success.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Don't hold your breath!
  • Stonedonkey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14"Bloody hell we get raped with prices over here. :("

    Not if you don't buy it : )
  • Ignignokt01, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13That's after conversions right? Wikipedia lists it as $680 (after conversions) for the Premium in the UK. That's still a lot more though than the $599 here in the U.S.
  • mateo60, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12I hate reading articles about articles.
  • elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12I stopped trusting Time after they named ME as the most influential person of 2006. That's just a downright lie.
  • HardSide, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15My opinion is that I wanted to get a PS3 big time, I've been waiting it since the announcement of it. I love all the RPG Games that will come out for it. Unfortunately, well not really a bad thing, i got a Xbox 360.

    It failed, and in my opinion:
    1) Too expensive, why buy a $600 dollar console when I can get a Xbox for 300-400
    2) PS3 does not support 780i on TV's, those without HDTV's are screwed/ripped off, or blind sided.
    3) With the 600 dollars, you still have to buy all the cables.
    4) It's very very very hard to find to buy it.

    When will it not fail:
    1) When the price drops
    2) When more games come out for it, specifically those that arent on Xbox 360
    3) When more of the console are avaliable worldwide.


    Honestly I'll still but the ps3 just for the backward compability, and for the fact that it will have a larger selection for Japan RPG Style games.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Yes, that includes conversions and VAT (we have to pay 17.5 %). The Wikipedia value excludes VAT.
  • HardSide, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@coheedcollapse

    You can't talk about PS3 without talking about the RPG Games it comes with...I mean come on, hack sign/final fantasy was the only reason i even wanted the console, then obviously i saw the other games. But anyway my point is, i was just suprised you know? I'm paying $600 dollars for a console, and no cables...come on. I'm not asking for a miracle here, and I know im being selfish, but you don't buy shoes without shoe laces.

  • evil-doer, on 10/12/2007, -13/+21look out everyone, the sony fanboys are digging you down!
  • noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7It's going to be a nuke, to use a highly inappropriate term for it, do you know how into the DS those people are. I think there was a story about the most-loved game series in Japanese history (it is illegal to release it on a work day becaus etoo many people call in) has dropped the PS3 and will be a DS exclusive.

    Sony ought to just reroute the PS3's back to the US to try and soothe the people they pissed off by releasing only half their stated number of units.
  • pooper, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10No doubt the launch has been a complete disaster, but lets just wait and see how the PS3 pans out next year..
  • mt066, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Haha, yeah Bode Miller can suck it. I was so sick of hearing about that guy by the end of the Olympics
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@Itazura

    Let me guess - You bought a PS3, tried to sell it on EBay, got royally pissed, and are now in denial.
  • Satanimator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Umm...........I have a PS3 and a 1080i television and it works just fine. Not sure what you're talking about.
  • coheedcollapse, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12I agree with a majority of your points, but I have problems with #2 and #3. Those without HDTV's are not screwed or ripped off - they just play their games in 480i - those with OLD HDTV's aren't exactly ripped off, but unfortunately some games which are produced in only 720p default to 480 when played. It sucks they didn't put a hardware scaler in, but the relatively small amount of people who actually have this problem probably doesn't make it worthwhile (especially if it adds to the cost that so many people are freaking out about).

    And #3 I can't really complain about (but I can see how it can apply to the general public). The only reason I could see this as a big problem is because Sony really pushed the fact that their system was made for HD viewing. A HDMI cable is around $30 at most (unless you're an idiot and you run out and get Monster Cables). I got mine for $5. I just don't see how cost effective it would be to include every kind of Hi-Def cable (DVI, Composite, HDMI) when a large majority of console owners would never use one or the other.

    The rest I can understand totally. I didn't think $600 was a lot to spend on something that I'll be playing for years to come and use as a total media center (Linux driven), but many people when faced with the option to pick between 360 and PS3 will use that as a big selling point.

    Also, I'm glad you included the positive side. That's ridiculously rare on Digg. That and the fact you mentioned Japanese RPG games...can't wait till a freaking Shin Megami Tensai comes out on the PS3 - that'll be incredible.
  • dagamer34, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@RPharazon

    Please read this: http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=212
    Just because you "sold out" doesn't mean you had a successful launch. Plus, there are STILL people lining up at stores for Wiis and it's been out for a MONTH. Demand for the PS3 has turned south. Everyone who wanted one probably already got one and people who wanted to get rich quick buy selling one on eBay got out $600+ instead and a system they never intended on playing in the first place.
  • telapan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Time always has the best reviews.
  • pauleku, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6While the games on the Ps3 are all but spectacular, I wouldnt go as far as saying its a failure. Wait a year and it will have better games to play on it. I personally wont buy one because the 360 game look just as good (or better) and run ever better (ex: call of duty 3). I cant justify spending 600 on it. Although, it is important to look cost - wise at this:

    360 Core: 300
    Wi-Fi : 100
    Hard Drive : 100
    Total : 500

    Ps3 Premium: 600
    Wi-Fi : Included
    Hard Drive : Included
    Total: 600

    And the Ps3 includes a BIGGER HARD DRIVE. Its more expensive, but the hard drive is 3x the size of the xbox's.

    Im not loyal to Microsoft or Sony (i have a ps2 and an xbox and have for a long time). But this generation, at least with things as they are, Im more likely to buy a 360 and perhaps a psp to accompany my ds. I dont have any intention of getting a ps3. Ever.
  • HarryTruman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8You have one chance at a first impression. Sony blew it, and though their fate isn't sealed yet, they will suffer from the terrible choices that went into this system.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Well if Hitler can been man of the year then you should be ok... or is there something you should tell us about?
  • macslut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I guess one could say that Sony failed to produce enough PS3 to meet demand for the holiday season or by some arbitrary date they were supposed to have started shipping. Likewise one could say that the PS3 isn't what they hoped it would be, and compare it to the Wii or Xbox, but whether the PS3 is a failure in the marketplace hasn't been played out yet, and won't be for a long time.
  • supersteve, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6i could buy 50 PS3s if I wanted too. I just don't like what sony is doing. I take it very personally when they decide that blu-ray is the next great thing that i need and they force people to buy it with their ps3. The only reason PS3 is out right now is so Sony can compete with HD-DVD. Sony thinks if they release an over priced gaming machine with blu -ray now they can win the HD war. NEWS FLASH. In a year HD-DVD players will be cheap. and blu-ray even cheaper (casue no one wants one) and PS3 will still be $600. Beta failed, UMD failed and now blue-ray will fail.

    ***** Sony and everything they stand for. I use to like Sony but now i HATE them and it's personal. They also raped my sister and killed my father

  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Does the name Neo*Geo hold any meaning to anyone here?
  • Satanimator, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Also have RFOM, plays just fine in 720P. Do you mean 480? (no such res as 420, unless you're referring to your favorite time of day)
  • Crass22, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Great, years down the line when the developement costs to make games for playstation go from double digit million dollar figures to single digit figures theyll be ready to launch the next generation of consoles.
    Way to fail.
  • darkdigg3r, on 10/12/2007, -12/+16I'm just waiting for Sony to apologize for their mistake.
  • krische, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5They actually aren't that hard to find, unless you don't want to use ebay. I bought the $500 PS3 on ebay last week. I bought it for $580 + $40 shipping. Not too bad coming from ebay if you ask me. If you don't want to use ebay, wait around until march-april, I'm sure you could find one then :)
  • Pix869, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9What took them so long?

    That sounds like the conversation I've had hundreds of times at school with my friends, before the PS3 even CAME OUT..

    Why would I pay $599.99 For fail?
  • JDoggqx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Interesting point, staticneuron. But this time Sony doesn't have the price advantage over its competition*, nor the extra year to refine its product roll out. A year from now and the PS3 may be in the position the Gamecube was last generation. A solid system, with almost no support fighting tooth and nail for market share.

    Of course I'm sure these would sell if they dropped the price to $99 like Nintendo did for the Gamecube. I just don't think Sony would survive those kinds of losses.

    *I exclude the Dreamcast from this discussion because the Sony PR had effectively killed it by that point.
  • coheedcollapse, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Good point Hardside. I guess it would've been nice to have cables included and all.

    Crass, on the other hand, you need to do your studies before talking. The PS3 actually has a PS2 INSIDE of it. I've heard that that graphical anomaly only appears through HDMI for some odd reason and it has to do with the way the PS3 is outputting the image. Sure I saw the video that claims that it happens in every graphical medium, but I've experienced otherwise. Hooking up my PS3 with component cable to my original TV right after I hooked my PS2 was the only proof I needed that FFXII looked exactly the same on both systems, since then I've just been using PS3 to play my PS2 games, so I couldn't tell you how it is with other games, but I can't complain - it looks the same to me.
  • iluvhatemail, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9i dont own a PS3, but I think it's very premature to be calling it a failure already. Based on the specifications alone everyone has to admit its a powerful gaming machine. I'm going to give it a few months before I get biased about it and I would recommend you all do too so you don't accidentally stick your foot in your mouth. Sony is a behemoth of a company unlike Sega was in it's position so give them time.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Good investment = a good return in money.
    Buying a home = a good investment
    Putting money in a matching 401k = a good investment
    Buying a PS3 for $600 and having to wait a year or more to play good games = not a good investment. If you would have taken that $600 and bought into a good mutual fund by the time a good game came out (1+yrs) for that system you could have enough money to by the system and a few games.
  • Lobut, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Wow,

    From

    "It amazes me how personal people take things. Sony didnt do anythign to you guys."

    to

    "You know the wii controller technology is going to be copied sooner or later." ... "Sadly the Wii will have the tard version."

    Hmm, you should take some time to reflect upon your own comments. It seems you take things very personally as well.
  • chicbicyclist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@jmarskoder

    Well, mainstream people still greatly outnumber you and other self professed techies. So the appeal of these complicated sounding jargon is going to be severely limited.

    And your closing sentence sums up my point rather succinctly.
  • stappawho, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I wouldn't call the PS3 a bust. The launch was a bust, but it's far too early to claim winners and losers. Hell, the PS2 launch was also a disaster but it seemed to do ok.
  • JayD16, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2They also named "You!" Man of the Year... Time might have just took an early holiday and is phoning stuff in.
  • pauleku, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Its not whether you can afford it or not. A lot of people COULD get a PS3, but decide not to because they (like me) dont see the benefit in spending the extra money. Its called being money-savy.

    As far as your Wii comments: the wii is outselling the ps3 by a 4:1 margin. So dont say its the "tard version". Clearly people like it and want it. If you feel otherwise, dont buy it - it wont hurt anyone. I agree that nintendo COULD have made the Wii to look better, but then it would cost a lot more. The Wii was meant to be a budget machine and making one that costs 400 bucks isnt a budget machine.

    Nobody will copy the wii controller. Even if sony or Microsoft made a similar product (which would surley violate patents), it would be a gimmick, like the eyetoy, and would only be used for a few games. The sixaxis, which is the worst decision sony could have made, is total crap. It feels like total crap and nobody cares about tilt in a ps3. The technology sony is using is 10 years old. Nintendo is using brand new tech that is much more creative and inventive. It wont be copied. Sony is too arrogant to think it is a good idea.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 164 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...

© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.