Of course, Microsoft and Nintendo never had a such a PR disaster as the PS3 either, but the below is still very wild.

From Game|Life:

Sony Gives Bravia TVs to UK PS3 Buyers
In what has to be the most awesome PR move ever, Sony UK boss Ray Maguire gave 46-inch Bravia W flat panel TVs to all 125 people waiting in line to buy a PS3 at the Virgin Megastore. Holy. Flaming. Cow.

Maguire was uncharacteristically humble for a Sony rep when he explained the reasoning behind the giveaway:

PlayStation 3 is about the new generation of high definition. There are some people in that queue for whom the HD part is the more difficult part of the equation, and I think it's a way of just saying thank you. People waiting for 36 hours and sleeping overnight is absolutely unbelievable - it shows the affinity people have for the brand, and it's really humbling.

Is there anything to say to this other than, "Wow"?

Posted by Susan Arendt 8:40:06 AM in Console Games

I don't know what to say...

Except don't the TV's cost more than the PS3's themselves (somehow)?

Nice.  Not a single doubt I would fess up for a PS3 on the spot if I had the opportunity to be in that position; not for "affinity of the brand," but for one of those sweet Bravia sets.

PS3 might actually have a chance at its currect price if that were a standard bundle.

Yeah, those TVs cost a lot more than the PS3s.  A quick search of BestBuy.com shows 46" Bravia's ranging from $2500 to $3800 depending on which version you get.  Cost is probably around 50% of that, so maybe Sony stood to loose around $1500 or so per set.  At 125 sets, that's around $187,500.  If Sony gets 10 million impressions from this, that converts to a CPM (cost per thousand) of $18.75.  According to Nielson, the average 30-second primetime U.S. TV spot in 2005 had a CPM of $21.45.  I'm sure the program manager probably tried to quantify intagibles like halo branding and goodwill as well, but even without those, it probably wasn't a bad investment (assuming they got a high number of impressions).

Hmmm, I don't know. Will Sony really profit from this stunt? Right now I'm thinking I'll just wait until Sony offers me a Bravia with my PS3! Seriously though, I'm not sure this will help them sell PS3s, but then again one should never underestimate the stupidity of people and the power of commercialism.

cheers,

-avatar!

It's considered stupidity plunking down $600 for a retail-priced game system AND get a TV valued at $2500 for free?  I think most would agree that that would be one of the smartest buying decisions one could ever make.

Angela, I think he questions how a very small number of people getting free tvs are supposed to convince others to buy a PS3.

Well, considering how Sony has jilted the overseas buyers, I'm not surprised that they're trying to kiss up to them.

That said, I wish I had one of those TVs...

Exactly!

Hm, if that's the case, then yes, that would border on full-on stupidity.  I wouldn't entirely dismiss the notion that such a PR stunt could sway folks into getting a PS3..... it's definitely gotten people talking, at any rate.

I think they felt bad that people actually spent that much time waiting for a PS3 :-P

Ahh well, still good for them!  I wonder how many of them were just buying consoles to sell them, though...

Yeah, 'no such thing as bad publicity'.  It screams 'desperation' to me though, especially how Sony seems to mistreat the Europeans.  I wish I had a source for European hardware sales numbers.  I'm curious how things will go there.

I work in an indie game shop and I can tell you that the numbers are bad. We sold 6 on launch day, and precisely none over the weekend. As far as I've heard the other shops in the area tell a similar story. It's just too damn expensive.

I think that sentence sums up the situation nicely. Now, if Sony would have made the Blu-ray optional (as Microsoft did for their HD DVD), then the machine would have been significantly less expensive, and Sony would have done well. Instead, they decided to push their Blu-ray technology upon everyone, and now they're getting their just dessert.

cheers,

-avatar!

See also (to a lesser extent): UMDs.

I also think the price of games is a factor for the PS3 as well. I mean if your paying $50~70 a pop for a game well, I think more gamers are going to be more cautious and selective on what they're spending money on. Let's not forget you spend $600 on the system you still need a game!

Pushing the Blu-Ray technology was simply a bad move, when the PS2 came around it was pretty obvious the DVD was going to be the next standard as far as movies and games were concerned. This is/was not the case with Blu-Ray.

It is situations like this really show Sony's biggest failing: failure to learn from the past. Sony more or less came out on top in the last two generations of gaming with the PS1&2 despite not having the most technologically advanced machine on the market for the majority of their life spans. Hardware has never been the company's strong suit as it was lining up desirable titles, so why now focus on the hardware so much when it's *games* that win wars, not CPUs and unproven technology.

A lot of companies (even Square-Enix) are starting to realize the Playstation brand is not longer a fail-safe haven and if anyone is barking up the right tree I think it's Nintendo - and I'm not even a big Nintendo supporter.

Had been in some "popular" electronic chain store today, the way how the ~60 PS3 units are sitting there (forming two rather intimidating towers) since the release is a rather staggering view, especially considering Wii units are always instantly sold out in the very same store. (Even the Xbox 360 units are fewer, but those likely aren't as ridiculously overstocked like the PS3 ones apparently are atm.)

And to add to Blu Ray's problems, it's still not clear whether it, HD-DVD or whatever is going to dominate (or even if DVD's will end up being displaced...I have no plans on rebuying everything on another format). By the time it may get to that point, this war will be 4-5 years old. I remember a GI interview with Kaz Hirai where he was asked "What if Blu Ray isn't the wave of the future?". His response: "How can that be?". It doesn't mean a darn thing for videogamers (except maybe ones that NEED a more frivilous HD set-up, but I'm certain that's a minority).

And the worst thing is, people have been saying for YEARS the entire thing quoted above. At some point, Sony has to take notice of the Wii (and 360, to a lesser extent) and address that Nintendo is going to kick their ass with massively inferior technology if they don't do something about it.

Wow. I have to say that is an extremely pompus response.

Anyway, is the jump in quality from DVD to HD-DVD/Blue-Ray as great as the jump between VHS to DVD is? If it isn't, do people really want to shell out for another format (basically I'm repeating what goldfish siad here) for what may be a small jump in quality compared to past jumps?

I just find it dumbfounding how we're already talking about the successor to the DVD and the CD has been around much longer with practically no word on what is next when it comes to it.

That you may be but it bears repeating. I wouldn't mind having a nice HD-DVD player or a Blu-Ray player as part of a games console. It would be a nice extra.

However, a nice extra should not in any shape or form be used as justification for a ridiculous price point.

Successor to the CD seems to be portable digital media players.  I don't bother with my car's cd player or the radio since I've gotten my Creative Zen.  I have all my music in digital form.

With the next-generation of tvs, you can notice high definiton over standard definition.  Just as we went from RF to RCA to S-Video to Component to, now with HDTV, we get DVI/HDMI/VGA.  Even though digital distribution is underway, what with XBLA, VC, and Sony Store for gaming and XBLVM and iTunes for video and, the latter, music, it appears the internet hasn't really kept up with HD, it took way too long for me to download the HD V For Vendetta from XBLVM.  They key to blu-ray and hd-dvd, as well as now that there is a push for network television going hi-def, is to get people to get HDTVs.  If planned obsolescence of your old tv doesn't get you, then having it incompatible with much will.

I can say that Blu-Ray's problem is that the blu-ray discs are too expensive---Eragon on blu-ray for $30?  What is Sony thinking?  Rebuying everything is an eventual process anyway, but there are most likely key titles you'd like to see in glorious hi-def.  Or, at the least, it would be nice if they'd start releasing tv shows on blu-ray/hd-dvd to take advantage of the disc space.

What's interesting to me is Sony's underlying insistence that physical media is on its last legs, to be phased out - particularly with regard to games - yet here they are pushing a new format on us again, with the intention of having us restart our film and TV collections again in a physical format.

I think DVDs were also super high priced when they first came out, as one would expect. There is no doubt that blue-ray and HD DVDs will go down in price.

Now, you do bring up a very interesting point by saying "Rebuying everything is an eventual process" ...hmmm, I don't know if I agree with that. For instance, I have Gargoyles Season 2 Volume 1 on DVD. Would there be ANY reason to purchase it on blu-ray or HD DVD? No, there is no reason whatsoever!! In fact, I don't plan on switching any of my DVDs to blu-ray nor HD in the forseeable future. The ONLY positive point I can think of in "upgrading" DVDs to blu-ray or HD is to save space. So if they released Gargoyles Season 2 on 1 blu-ray disk instead of the current 4 DVDs, then I might get it only to save space (although to be honest, Disney packaged it very well so it only takes up slightly more than 1 regular DVD, however that's not the case with most sets). Most of my DVDs would not look better in blu-ray nor HD, at least there would hardly be any noticeable improvement. In fact, I think that blu-ray and HD can only really take advantage of recent movies that were actually filmed in HD (someone correct me if I'm wrong) therefore you'll never be able to watch Casablanca in HD...

cheers,

-avatar!

Yep, I'm with you on that. There are a few dvds in my collection that would benefit from a clearer picture but not many. There'd be very few I'd consider buying again just for a slightly sharper picture.

Well, there are potential CD successors like Super Audio CD and DVD-Audio, they just aren't catching on. I doubt BD or HD-DVD will be much different.

Depending on the equipment used for filming as well as digitalising the frames movies filmed in 35mm can potentially reach the resolution of a 12 megapixel camera so there's still plenty room. Typical TV shows are out tho for obvious reasons.

Heh, I don't mean an inevitable process, just that if it is something done it would be done so eventually, since older movies won't all be released for a long time.  The DVD format is 10 years old now.  They already know people rebuy movies on DVD for various reasons; the same will be true for upgrading to better video/audio quality... especially as people start getting better tvs and sound setups (both MS and SCE are pushing for that as well as Hollywood and television).

I know what you're saying. To me the difference between DVD and blu-ray/HD is minimal. The difference between VHS and DVD is huge! I'm not talking so much picture quality (although that's important too) as simply the physical format. It's SO much more convenient to store and watch DVDs then video tapes! I predict that downloading movies will be big in the future. People will purchase HDTVs and then download movies (in high-def). I think that will be significantly more popular than actually purchasing blu-ray/HD DVDs. Of course I could be wrong... but personally I see no reason to "upgrade" my current DVDs.  Of course if someone released a compilation which originally took up 10 DVDs and they put it on one blu-ray, and the blu-ray was priced reasonably, then I would "upgrade" simply to save space. Otherwise, I see no reason.

cheers,

-avatar!

Many things here:

-I'm in the digital distribution will replace everything camp.  Sure, there will always be some sort of retail boxed presence, but as network speeds and penetrations continue to rise, middle income and higher segments will move farther and farther away from traditional meida distribution channels.  It's really not a question of if, it's just a question of how soon.

-Most movies, TV shows, etc. on DVD can benefit from being remastered in Hi-Def for the simple reason that much of them don't look as good upscaled on HD sets as they do in their intended resolution (480p).  So, while you may be fine watching your current DVD collection on your current TV, it may not look so great on your gorgeous new HDTV.  That's the reason for replacing things with HD discs.  I'm not saying it's worth it or that the difference is really great or anything (probably no to both of them), but that's the rationale.

-While the PS3's cost is probably the biggest thing holding it back, I think it's worth nothing that Sony's repeated public arrogance pissed a lot of people off, the games don't look any better than X360 games, and there really aren't any good games coming anytime soon.  On the plus side, at least the PS3 seems to be more reliable than past Sony efforts -- I've heard very few stories of defective PS3s (vs. an entire internet full of people on their 3rd 360).

Well, the BBC says Sony sold 600,000 of their 1 million unit launch allocation in Europe with 165,000 in the UK.  Apparently this makes the PS3 the second best-selling system at a Euro launch behind the PSP.  Of course, we all know the PSP went on to be crushed by the DS, so launch performance doesn't really mean all that much in the long run.

^  60% sell-through at launch?  Is that supposed to be impressive?  I'm honestly not sure.

GAF releases weekly Japanese hardware sales numbers and also the NPD numbers for NA.  I never see GAF, IGN, or anyone report on-going EU numbers.  Why is that?

Well, I don't think it's fair to judge launch successes by percent sell-through.  Sony launched with a lot more hardware than Euro launches usually see, so I wouldn't have expected a sell out.  I think a 600k start is pretty good for Europe, but again, it's just the launch, and now that the diehards have their systems, how will things go from here?

The diehards and the idiots buying them for eBay. I'd say a serious number of those will be returned. It's odd because, in Ireland and the UK, the figures go totally against anecdotal evidence. Now anecdotes are nothing more than that but sales figures are often extrapolated from a very small sample set so it's entirely possible they're wrong too.

I have a hard time believing the figures to be true.

Whether they are or not though, I think it's a good thing that they had more supply than demand. The 'giving a shop only 4 units so you can claim you're sold out' is a pain in the ass and isn't a practise that should be encouraged. It doesn't matter what percentage they sold if the number of units is high. If I want a console (which in this case I don't), I want to be able to just walk in and buy one. Sony, to their credit, gave me that option.

Of course we had to wait many months for that privelage.

Why not? A sell out should happen as long as there's a high enough demand. We now already see that if at all there's a demand equalling the shipment size the demand is at least not urgent. I don't see what's positive about that.

That's sounds rather basic. Demand as in, everyone who might ever want a PS3 buys one on day one? Is that what you're expecting?