|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on Jul 31, 2016 8:33:02 GMT -5
that is legit one of the stupidest ideas I have ever heard.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Jul 31, 2016 9:06:41 GMT -5
So imagine you buy a car from a company, say Ford. Eight years down the line, the engine dies. You tow it to the mechanic who tells you that Ford designed the cars to die so that you would have to buy a new car every eight years. Are you going to say "Well, geeze, I enjoyed this car, I'm going to go buy a new Ford today!"? No, you're going to say "Screw these guys, I'm going to buy a Honda." This idea would be fantastic for Sony's competitors. "Hey, our opponent's consoles are designed to lose functionality over time, ours aren't!" The way you get people to buy into a new console is to provide value for it. To do that, you ensure that the product is good and that the games for it are worth justifying the purchase of a console, and/or you provide some other form of functionality that the public is interested in like the Wii did with motion controls. You don't derease functionality. Microsoft tried that with the X-Box One and the used game restrictions, and even if after they backed off of it and tried to convince people of some of the cool things they could do, it killed their rep and console sales for that generation. This idea would be that, but exponentially worse. The thing you don't seem to take into account is that consoles are a luxury item, they're not a necessity. If a console dies, a person doesn't have to buy a new one, and they certainly don't have to buy their gaming from the company that sold them it before. You can't force the purchase of a luxury item, and trying to instill planned obsolescence into a luxury item will just kill your market for the majority of customers. No one needs a console to play a game, they have options to play almost every game out there. When you have a consumer making that purchase, you don't want them to regret it by making their console intentionally die, because there are other ways to spend that money that won't make a customer regret it. And that's assuming that this is a problem Sony has in the first place. Continuing to support a console for longer periods of time makes financial sense, it adds value to the purchase and promotes further buy in. It also allows them to make money on sales of games and peripherals and other functions of that console. They know there are people who won't buy a new console from them, for those consumers it makes sense to continue trying to milk them by keeping the console they have running. Nailed it more thoroughly than an earlier post of mine on a similar theme. People aren't going to decide to upgrade, they're going to decide to abandon your brand.
|
|
|
Post by xCompackx on Jul 31, 2016 9:26:36 GMT -5
I don't know anything about that, and I'll give you the benefit of doubt, because I don't want to look it up. I'll just say if a company need to make their prior product models literally obsolete in order to sell the new one, they need a better business model. Basically, from Windows 3.x to 98 SE, Microsoft generally had no problem convincing people to keep getting the newest version. Then XP comes out in 2001. Normally a new version of Windows came out every 3 years, so the public wasn't really stuck/ingrained with a particular version. However, this time, it takes 5 years to make Vista, and Vista sucked really bad. By the time Windows 7 came out in 2009, XP had 8 years to basically be ingrained in the public's general usage, and would be harder to let go than any other Windows version in history. Microsoft already guaranteed to support XP until April 8, 2014, so people have an additional 5 years to get comfortable with the old Windows from late 2001. Then the day finally hits, and the public is stuck with a then 12+ year old Windows that is too old, yet too hard to abandon. The danger is, the longer the PS3 goes, the more people will be invested in it, and the harder it will be to get rid of it once it is too old. This would be Sony's chance to jump ahead of the curve while there's still time. If people are still using the PS3 when the PS5 (and maybe even PS6) comes out, then that's 3/4 concurrent generations that Sony has to support/public has to deal with. It's not like consoles in the 80s/90s, which existed on their own merit and weren't dependent on the future. This is a more interconnected console world. Just to clarify something here, you're comparing two wildly different scenarios by comparing XP's discontinuation to a proposed PS3 discontinuation. Like, by the time April 8th, 2014 occurred (or really, by the time Windows 7 was released), Windows XP was horribly vulnerable and prone to some nasty malware. I mean, Microsoft was practically begging people to update to 7 because of how broken XP had become. What you're suggesting here isn't because of any security concerns or anything like that, it's just "We don't want you playing this anymore because we have a newer product".
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Jul 31, 2016 11:31:23 GMT -5
So imagine you buy a car from a company, say Ford. Eight years down the line, the engine dies. You tow it to the mechanic who tells you that Ford designed the cars to die so that you would have to buy a new car every eight years. Are you going to say "Well, geeze, I enjoyed this car, I'm going to go buy a new Ford today!"? No, you're going to say "Screw these guys, I'm going to buy a Honda." This idea would be fantastic for Sony's competitors. "Hey, our opponent's consoles are designed to lose functionality over time, ours aren't!" The way you get people to buy into a new console is to provide value for it. To do that, you ensure that the product is good and that the games for it are worth justifying the purchase of a console, and/or you provide some other form of functionality that the public is interested in like the Wii did with motion controls. You don't derease functionality. Microsoft tried that with the X-Box One and the used game restrictions, and even if after they backed off of it and tried to convince people of some of the cool things they could do, it killed their rep and console sales for that generation. This idea would be that, but exponentially worse. The thing you don't seem to take into account is that consoles are a luxury item, they're not a necessity. If a console dies, a person doesn't have to buy a new one, and they certainly don't have to buy their gaming from the company that sold them it before. You can't force the purchase of a luxury item, and trying to instill planned obsolescence into a luxury item will just kill your market for the majority of customers. No one needs a console to play a game, they have options to play almost every game out there. When you have a consumer making that purchase, you don't want them to regret it by making their console intentionally die, because there are other ways to spend that money that won't make a customer regret it. And that's assuming that this is a problem Sony has in the first place. Continuing to support a console for longer periods of time makes financial sense, it adds value to the purchase and promotes further buy in. It also allows them to make money on sales of games and peripherals and other functions of that console. They know there are people who won't buy a new console from them, for those consumers it makes sense to continue trying to milk them by keeping the console they have running. Nailed it more thoroughly than an earlier post of mine on a similar theme. People aren't going to decide to upgrade, they're going to decide to abandon your brand. Hell look at what happened to Microsoft with the Xbox one when they were deciding on how you could access the media they bought (no disk sharing, needing to be online, etc. etc.) they pretty much had to immediately do a 180 and remove all of that because NO ONE was going to buy it with their forced bullshit. A console with a forced obsolescence date? People would flat out end up boycotting the company as a whole. Basically, from Windows 3.x to 98 SE, Microsoft generally had no problem convincing people to keep getting the newest version. Then XP comes out in 2001. Normally a new version of Windows came out every 3 years, so the public wasn't really stuck/ingrained with a particular version. However, this time, it takes 5 years to make Vista, and Vista sucked really bad. By the time Windows 7 came out in 2009, XP had 8 years to basically be ingrained in the public's general usage, and would be harder to let go than any other Windows version in history. Microsoft already guaranteed to support XP until April 8, 2014, so people have an additional 5 years to get comfortable with the old Windows from late 2001. Then the day finally hits, and the public is stuck with a then 12+ year old Windows that is too old, yet too hard to abandon. The danger is, the longer the PS3 goes, the more people will be invested in it, and the harder it will be to get rid of it once it is too old. This would be Sony's chance to jump ahead of the curve while there's still time. If people are still using the PS3 when the PS5 (and maybe even PS6) comes out, then that's 3/4 concurrent generations that Sony has to support/public has to deal with. It's not like consoles in the 80s/90s, which existed on their own merit and weren't dependent on the future. This is a more interconnected console world. Just to clarify something here, you're comparing two wildly different scenarios by comparing XP's discontinuation to a proposed PS3 discontinuation. Like, by the time April 8th, 2014 occurred (or really, by the time Windows 7 was released), Windows XP was horribly vulnerable and prone to some nasty malware. I mean, Microsoft was practically begging people to update to 7 because of how broken XP had become. What you're suggesting here isn't because of any security concerns or anything like that, it's just "We don't want you playing this anymore because we have a newer product". That too an OS and a video game console are two very different things. And again millions of people bought an 2600, NES, SNES, Playstation, PS2, etc. etc. etc. it didn't stop people from buying the next console when it came out and had games that people really wanted to play that weren't just "remastered" versions of last generation titles.
|
|
Jiren
Patti Mayonnaise
Hearts Bayformers
Posts: 35,163
|
Post by Jiren on Jul 31, 2016 11:36:53 GMT -5
Also because Sony have a fear of Backwards compatibility* we have to stick with the previous consoles to play the great games from the past, Every now and then I still pop on the PS2/3 to either play on a game I like or a game I missed out on during it's life.
I'd be pretty damn pissed if I couldn't do that.
*I'm joking
|
|
|
Post by Hot Noodle Truck on Jul 31, 2016 18:00:01 GMT -5
With how long the PS2 hung around and the money that was most likely made by still keeping it out there, there's no way Sony would do something that crazy. There's still a strong PS3 user base and that whole backwards compatibility thing keeps a lot of people from outright switching to the PS4.
I'll upgrade to a PS4 or X1 when they actually put out some games that are worth buying a whole new system for. Or I should say, games that I'd be interested in, which outside of Witcher 3, Fallout 4 and Elder Scrolls Online aren't many.
|
|
|
Post by Gerard Gerard on Jul 31, 2016 18:26:00 GMT -5
Not to pile on the already controversial premise, but how would you sell this notion to those us in possession of a Sony-refurbished, launch PS3 with all its wonderful backwards compatibility with relatively modern perks?
|
|
|
Post by Rolent Tex on Jul 31, 2016 18:31:36 GMT -5
So can we just all come to an agreement here? Get the pitchforks and get this man for introducing that idea into the universe!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2016 18:57:05 GMT -5
Nope. I paid a few hundred bucks for the system and you're offering a $60 value to kill it. Not to add to harshness of the thread, but you really don't seem to have a great grasp of consumer relations. But the system is only worth about $60 now, isn't it? Maybe less. Weird thing is, I was expecting a massive flood of PS3s on the used market then the PS4 was released. Less than 60 bucks?! Wiis are barely worth $40 now due to a bad reputation and a shoddy library. PS3s and 360s are still worth well over $140 due to them having Blu-Ray playback, massive libraries of games, good third party support, and multimedia capabilities. I don't mean to question your intelligence but people aren't going to buy consoles if they are deliberately made to brick. And they don't want minimal turnaround on their investments either.
|
|
|
Post by xCompackx on Jul 31, 2016 19:10:17 GMT -5
But the system is only worth about $60 now, isn't it? Maybe less. Weird thing is, I was expecting a massive flood of PS3s on the used market then the PS4 was released. Less than 60 bucks?! Wiis are barely worth $40 now due to a bad reputation and a shoddy library. PS3s and 360s are still worth well over $140 due to them having Blu-Ray playback, massive libraries of games, good third party support, and multimedia capabilities. I don't mean to question your intelligence but people aren't going to buy consoles if they are deliberately made to brick. And they don't want minimal turnaround on their investments either. Funnily enough, PS3s in particular will probably stay expensive for a while since they do offer Blu-Ray playback and have such a massive library of games (games that will last longer due to the Blu-Ray scratch coating, mind you). I mean, eventually they'll stop releasing updates and newer movies won't work due to newer DRM, but that'll be a long way off, I'm sure.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2016 19:14:06 GMT -5
Also, my job is to post stuff online for consumers to purchase, and things that always sell well are video game consoles.
People still want to play Atari. Imagine if Atari, in addition to taking forever to release the 5200 and making bad investments on a weekly basis, told people that the 2600 would stop working the day the 5200 was released. Would people run in droves for the 5200? No, they'd go to Commodore 64 or the NES, or even buy a DOS computer faster than they already did.
I know you must love the way cell phone companies essentially invalidate smartphones to the point an original iPhone can't even do a quarter of the things an iPhone 8S can, making people upgrade by default, but consoles are a luxury item and the average gamer can spend $500 or more annually for games, but they can't just buy something new on Day One. Most people have to save up to it, and sometimes waiting is the beat course, as was with the 3DS or Xbox One.
Your thought process is that something is obsolete the instant a successor is available.
Finally... Who would accept a bricked console?! Most used game stores are picky as it is with accepting items where if it has an extra scratch or smells off, its immediately rejected.
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Jul 31, 2016 19:15:57 GMT -5
But the system is only worth about $60 now, isn't it? Maybe less. Weird thing is, I was expecting a massive flood of PS3s on the used market then the PS4 was released. Less than 60 bucks?! Wiis are barely worth $40 now due to a bad reputation and a shoddy library. I've seen 50, also that the Wii U is fully backwards compatible probably makes them less attractive too.
|
|
|
Post by xCompackx on Jul 31, 2016 19:30:18 GMT -5
Less than 60 bucks?! Wiis are barely worth $40 now due to a bad reputation and a shoddy library. I've seen 50, also that the Wii U is fully backwards compatible probably makes them less attractive too. I bought a replacement Wii a couple of years ago for $42 from a third-party seller on Amazon. Came with a Wii remote as well. Crazy how cheap they got.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2016 23:14:29 GMT -5
But the system is only worth about $60 now, isn't it? Maybe less. Weird thing is, I was expecting a massive flood of PS3s on the used market then the PS4 was released. Less than 60 bucks?! Wiis are barely worth $40 now due to a bad reputation and a shoddy library. PS3s and 360s are still worth well over $140 due to them having Blu-Ray playback, massive libraries of games, good third party support, and multimedia capabilities. I don't mean to question your intelligence but people aren't going to buy consoles if they are deliberately made to brick. And they don't want minimal turnaround on their investments either. A goodwill here in town had a wii with everything for about $20. The reason why Wii are so cheap now is that 1.) Nintendo sold a shit load of them, outselling both the PS3 and 360. 2.) Wii u is backward compatible. If anything I see people get wii so they can have a system that can play GameCube games.
|
|
AFN: Judge Shred
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wanted to change his doohicky.
Member of The Bluetista Buyers Club
Posts: 18,221
|
Post by AFN: Judge Shred on Jul 31, 2016 23:27:26 GMT -5
I cannot, for the life of me, believe no one has posted a certain Billy Madison clip yet.
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Jul 31, 2016 23:29:46 GMT -5
I cannot, for the life of me, believe no one has posted a certain Billy Madison clip yet. You mean the one that's on the first page? Or do you mean the one about peeing your pants being cool
|
|
AFN: Judge Shred
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wanted to change his doohicky.
Member of The Bluetista Buyers Club
Posts: 18,221
|
Post by AFN: Judge Shred on Jul 31, 2016 23:40:13 GMT -5
I cannot, for the life of me, believe no one has posted a certain Billy Madison clip yet. You mean the one that's on the first page? Or do you mean the one about peeing your pants being cool Well, if it is on the first page it isn't displaying for me *shrugs*
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Jul 31, 2016 23:45:25 GMT -5
You mean the one that's on the first page? Or do you mean the one about peeing your pants being cool Well, if it is on the first page it isn't displaying for me *shrugs*
|
|
AFN: Judge Shred
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wanted to change his doohicky.
Member of The Bluetista Buyers Club
Posts: 18,221
|
Post by AFN: Judge Shred on Jul 31, 2016 23:56:37 GMT -5
Well, if it is on the first page it isn't displaying for me *shrugs* In the quote it works, I got back to the first page it is a blank entry. I dunno mang.
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Aug 1, 2016 3:53:45 GMT -5
Benderlaughharder.f4v
|
|