[goMac]

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/03...l_shock_patent

Discuss(TM).

[production_coordinator]

Don't our phones use the same "technology" to vibrate?

[legacyb4]

I wonder if that's for the U.S. only or if that includes the rest of North America?

[Teronzhul]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

Don't our phones use the same "technology" to vibrate?

The patent is not specifically on the motor and rotation, but on doing so as videogame feedback. There are several patents and they seem mostly to center around hardware/software interaction rather on the hardware components themselves.

Anyway, Sony can suck it

[I Bent My Wookiee]

Anyone who doesn't already have a PS2 doesn't want to buy one now that the PS3 is around the corner.

[RGB]

Based on the latest news, it's an awfuly long corner...

[I Bent My Wookiee]

Originally Posted by RGB

Based on the latest news, it's an awfuly long corner...

8 months is nothing in the electronics world.

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by I Bent My Wookiee

8 months is nothing in the electronics world.

It may be just long enough for Microsoft to get the lead in xbox 360 sales that it has been seeking.

[baw]

Originally Posted by Tuoder

It may be just long enough for Microsoft to get the lead in xbox 360 sales that it has been seeking.

Too bad the 360 sucks.

[Hawkeye_a]

A little too late if you ask me. if they had gotten through the legal proceedings a year or 2 ago, it would have made a difference. but now, its almost negligable i mean they got a 50 million lead over Microsoft or Nintendo already, so 8 months worth of sales isnt going to dent that number.

On the other hand, if Sony has to pay up.....that 400 mil it made from hardware sales of PS2s could quickly evaporate. leaving it with a rather gloomy outlook for investors, which could lead to the company going belly up, since it's portable music and home electronics divisons have all but lost in the free market.

Needless to say, if i had money to invest, i wouldnt be putting it in Sony, after whats been going on i nthe company over the past few years.

[Aiglos]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Needless to say, if i had money to invest, i wouldnt be putting it in Sony, after whats been going on i nthe company over the past few years.

Except that SCE has been making huge amounts of money. Their Bravia line of HDTVs I hear are quite spectacular as well. With the introduction of the PS3 looming, you'd be a fool to ignore Sony.

[meelk]

Originally Posted by Aiglos

Except that SCE has been making huge amounts of money. Their Bravia line of HDTVs I hear are quite spectacular as well. With the introduction of the PS3 looming, you'd be a fool to ignore Sony.

lol. no. they make a lot of money, but they DONT make a lot of PROFIT, and profit is the only thing that at the end of the day actually matters. Sony has been floundering badly as a company for several years now.

[Aiglos]

Originally Posted by meelk

lol. no. they make a lot of money, but they DONT make a lot of PROFIT, and profit is the only thing that at the end of the day actually matters. Sony has been floundering badly as a company for several years now.

SCE has been making a profit, just Sony Inc hasn't. SCE is a subsidary of Sony, they focus on the games and entertainment division. Last I checked, the PS1 and PS2 afforded huge profits for Sony. Which is why currently most of their attention is on the PS3.

[meelk]

Originally Posted by Aiglos

SCE has been making a profit, just Sony Inc hasn't. SCE is a subsidary of Sony, they focus on the games and entertainment division. Last I checked, the PS1 and PS2 afforded huge profits for Sony. Which is why currently most of their attention is on the PS3.

Yes, I know what SCE is, I ran a video game store (unfortunately) for 4 years. Last years "huge" profit was 6%. Nintendo had a 20% profit by comparison.
Sony is floundering as a company, end of story.

[Hawkeye_a]

The PS2 was profitable.....by very little, apparently it helped keep sony in the black. But now.....a gloomy portable music and home electronics business, coupled with an overly expensive console that they will have to sell at a loss to compete, isnt a tempting proposition for investors.

Then you have the managment shake up, the massive layoffs and the ....umm... mediocre sales of the PSP compared to the competition, the fact that the XB360 has a 12 month lead over the PS3 and no online strategy for the PS3/PSP thus far.

No thank you.....ALL signs point away from putting money into this company. Microsoft has it's other divisions it can draw from to break even or even be profitable. Sony doesnt (cause no other division is profitable). they might push a lot of home consoles, but at the end of the day if they cant break even or turn a profit it wont matter as they will have to shut its doors.

Comparing the PS3 to the NRS is quite easy. the NRS is cheaper and easier to manufacture and to sell with good margins (just hardware). Couple that with a hugely succesful online strategy, a broad outlook on the market as opposed to the limited demographic the PlayStation brand is geared towards(i think i read somewhere that 96% of PSP owners were males between 18-35, which means the other 4% are males younger than 18 and olcer than 35 ), and you have good returns and happy investors. What sweetens the deal is the first party software from Nintendo which will only boost sales and therefore profit for Nintendo. Look at the NDS as an example.

You have the mighty titan sony preoccupied with beating it's chest, and then you have this cunning little company that ends up crossing the finish line with style.

Too bad dreams/promices of a "matrix" and ultra graphixx(mostly FMVs anyway) cant save them.

[Aiglos]

OK, so what I'm hearing is, PS3 is teh dooMED! and we should all get 360s? That doesn't make sense.

[meelk]

Originally Posted by Aiglos

OK, so what I'm hearing is, PS3 is teh dooMED! and we should all get 360s? That doesn't make sense.

The PS3 will do well for the sheer fact that its fully backward compatible all the way to PS1, Sony however, isnt going to put much of a dent into demand until well into 2007. They are talking about shipped 6 or 7 million units between the US/Japan at Holiday 2006.
Thats a drop in the bucket compared to how high demand will be, couple that with more than likely hardware related issues and its going to be a nightmare for Sony this Christmas. Look for the Invariable "if they could have only met demand" articles from CNN.
Top it off with software thats been under development on dev kits which were only small percentages of full system capacity and the consumer is going to be left underwhelmed.
I mean cmon, look at this: http://media.ps3.ign.com/media/814/814614/imgs_1.html
what a joke. Dont expect any compelling software until Christmas 2007, if that.
I still expect Nintendo to deliver the Revolution at $200(most likely) to $250 this fall, have a couple first party games and a nice back catalog you can download to the systems flash. They will couple this successfully with Zelda:TP that while designed for the gamecube will have added functionality(read - you can play the whole game) with the revolution controller when the game is used in a revolution.
Sony WILL do well, but its entirely up hill till 2008 in terms of quality. People paying through the nose this christmas for a PS3 are idiots.

[Dakar]

I think it's going to be GTA that make or breaks whether I buy a PS3.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by I Bent My Wookiee

Anyone who doesn't already have a PS2 doesn't want to buy one now that the PS3 is around the corner.

That's incorrect. My brother and I are waiting for the PS3 to come out so that we can get a PS2 at a decent discount. We don't like Sony, but we would like to get a PS2 to get access to the huge title library.

[I Bent My Wookiee]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

The PS2 was profitable.....by very little

Please show us some numbers to back this up. You don't sell 100 million systems and not make much money off it.

[I Bent My Wookiee]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

That's incorrect. My brother and I are waiting for the PS3 to come out so that we can get a PS2 at a decent discount. We don't like Sony, but we would like to get a PS2 to get access to the huge title library.

Guess it sorta sucks to be you then. BTW Sony said the cost of the PS2 will remain at the price it is today at least till the PS3 comes out. Even then I don't think it will drop for another 6 months. If saving $50 is worth waiting over a year for that is your choice.

[meelk]

Originally Posted by I Bent My Wookiee

Guess it sorta sucks to be you then. BTW Sony said the cost of the PS2 will remain at the price it is today at least till the PS3 comes out. Even then I don't think it will drop for another 6 months. If saving $50 is worth waiting over a year for that is your choice.

undoubtable $99 ps2 at E3 in may.

[I Bent My Wookiee]

Originally Posted by meelk

undoubtable $99 ps2 at E3 in may.

"March 14, 2006 - Continuing his lengthy speech at today's PlayStation 3 business briefing in Japan, Ken Kutaragi went on to quell rumors about a PS2 price drop as the company plans to continue selling it at its current price of $149 for some time.

Being that 32% of US homes have the system, as well as 41% in Japan and 33% in the UK, along with the ever-increasing sales of those staggering numbers, the company sees no reason to cut the price at this point. Kutaragi expects that the electronics giant will ship over 10 million PlayStation 2 systems in 2006.

SCE sees PlayStation 2 business continuing for another four to five years, and will continue production maintain and support accordingly."

http://ps2.ign.com/articles/696/696049p1.html

For the record the cost of the original Xbox went UP after the 360 shipped.

[Dakar]

To be fair, Sony can't possibly say that they would be cutting prices later this summer -- that'd just kill sales till the anticipated price drop. It's to their advantage to lie.

[starman]

In all seriousness, should I pick up some extra PS2 controllers?

[meelk]

Originally Posted by I Bent My Wookiee

"March 14, 2006 - Continuing his lengthy speech at today's PlayStation 3 business briefing in Japan, Ken Kutaragi went on to quell rumors about a PS2 price drop as the company plans to continue selling it at its current price of $149 for some time.

Being that 32% of US homes have the system, as well as 41% in Japan and 33% in the UK, along with the ever-increasing sales of those staggering numbers, the company sees no reason to cut the price at this point. Kutaragi expects that the electronics giant will ship over 10 million PlayStation 2 systems in 2006.

SCE sees PlayStation 2 business continuing for another four to five years, and will continue production maintain and support accordingly."

http://ps2.ign.com/articles/696/696049p1.html

For the record the cost of the original Xbox went UP after the 360 shipped.

For the record: no, it did not. Where ever you shop must have been priced wrong, or gouging you.

Sony will say that today, and plans will change by E3. With PS3 being fumbled sony will be desperate to draw attention to itself and away from Nintendo and MS, who should both have a powerful showing this E3. Sony saying the PS2 will continue to be lucrative for 4 or 5 years is ridiculous, a point proven by near non-existent sales of PS1.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by I Bent My Wookiee

Please show us some numbers to back this up. You don't sell 100 million systems and not make much money off it.

-The Game Cube finished last with 18.8 million sales and the Xbox surpassed it by a little over a million with 19.9 million sales and finally, the PS2 murdered each system with a whopping 70 million sales

-Not only were they[Microsoft] last place in this category[profit], but they lost $551 million dollars in the last four quarters. Surprisingly, Sony was runner up with a $400 million dollar profit, which leaves Nintendo at the top with an immense profit of $1.03 billion dollars.

-Nintendo shares went up by 11.3%, while Microsoft dropped 3% and Sony lost 2.1%. This proves that investors trust Nintendo and believe that they have a lot of potential.

For lack of a better source at this point in time: http://www.revolutionportal.com/1/article/53.html

A more general report: http://www.businessweek.com/ap/finan...h_down&chan=tc

Microsoft might have money to burn by selling its wares at a loss, but Sony does not have the money to do the same imo.

Cheers

PS>>given sonys involvement in videogames, portables, home electronics and movies, its hard to tell where the profits and losses come from.

[I Bent My Wookiee]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

-The Game Cube finished last with 18.8 million sales and the Xbox surpassed it by a little over a million with 19.9 million sales and finally, the PS2 murdered each system with a whopping 70 million sales

-Not only were they[Microsoft] last place in this category[profit], but they lost $551 million dollars in the last four quarters. Surprisingly, Sony was runner up with a $400 million dollar profit, which leaves Nintendo at the top with an immense profit of $1.03 billion dollars.

-Nintendo shares went up by 11.3%, while Microsoft dropped 3% and Sony lost 2.1%. This proves that investors trust Nintendo and believe that they have a lot of potential.

For lack of a better source at this point in time: http://www.revolutionportal.com/1/article/53.html

A more general report: http://www.businessweek.com/ap/finan...h_down&chan=tc

Microsoft might have money to burn by selling its wares at a loss, but Sony does not have the money to do the same imo.

Cheers

PS>>given sonys involvement in videogames, portables, home electronics and movies, its hard to tell where the profits and losses come from.

You managed to answer without answering it. WHERE have you shown the PS2 was only slightly profitable?

[I Bent My Wookiee]

Originally Posted by meelk

For the record: no, it did not. Where ever you shop must have been priced wrong, or gouging you.

For the record, yes it did. Personally I bought mine years ago but seems Amazon, Buy.com and wal-mart now charge more:

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/02/06/wh...cost-more-now/

[I Bent My Wookiee]

Originally Posted by meelk

Sony saying the PS2 will continue to be lucrative for 4 or 5 years is ridiculous, a point proven by near non-existent sales of PS1.

"Recent figures show yet strong PS one sales with more than 3.31 million hardware and 32 million software shipments during the fiscal year 2003. PlayStation has broken all records of conventional game consoles in homes, not only with the first 100 million hardware shipment record, but also with a long platform lifecycle and broad expansion within the worldwide market."

http://www.gameinfowire.com/news.asp?nid=4396

[meelk]

Sony is making a profit, but their profit is never *that much* on the PS2 branding. Like I said, I believe last years total was 6%. Its certainly never enough to float Sony corp for long by itself.
Heres a nice Q1 results page. You'll find this same report in various places, its directly from sony.
http://psp.gamedaily.com/game/news/?gameid=4356&id=9079
However, this was more than offset by the R&D costs associated with developing the PS3 and money spent on advertising the PlayStation brand, making for a ¥5.9 billion ($52 million) operating loss.

If it makes you feel better, MS has taken between 4 and 5 billion dollar losses so far on the Xbox brands.

[meelk]

Originally Posted by I Bent My Wookiee

"Recent figures show yet strong PS one sales with more than 3.31 million hardware and 32 million software shipments during the fiscal year 2003. PlayStation has broken all records of conventional game consoles in homes, not only with the first 100 million hardware shipment record, but also with a long platform lifecycle and broad expansion within the worldwide market."

http://www.gameinfowire.com/news.asp?nid=4396

2003?
pssst: its 2006. Dont bring me **** from 2003 to help your arguement.

[meelk]

Originally Posted by I Bent My Wookiee

For the record, yes it did. Personally I bought mine years ago but seems Amazon, Buy.com and wal-mart now charge more:

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/02/06/wh...cost-more-now/

"Cost more" is relative to including a game.

[I Bent My Wookiee]

Originally Posted by meelk

"Cost more" is relative to including a game.

If you feel better that way. Either way you get less for more money

[I Bent My Wookiee]

Originally Posted by meelk

2003?
pssst: its 2006. Dont bring me **** from 2003 to help your arguement.

Actually since the PS2 came out in 2000 and my numbers were from 2003 it shows the PS1 was still selling like hotcake THREE years later.

Burn.

[meelk]

Originally Posted by I Bent My Wookiee

Actually since the PS2 came out in 2000 and my numbers were from 2003 it shows the PS1 was still selling like hotcake THREE years later.

Burn.

and since has entirely dropped off the face of the planet? psst: 3 years isnt 5.
oh, and btw:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl.../ai_ziff110451
burn?
You should learn to differentiate cumulative from yearly.
"Recent figures show yet strong PS one sales with more than 3.31 million hardware" 3.3 million units in a year isnt "hotcakes" its "end of life".

[I Bent My Wookiee]

Originally Posted by meelk

and since has entirely dropped off the face of the planet? psst: 3 years isnt 5.

Pssst. you said 4-5 years. In year 4 it sold 2.77 million units with a total of 40 million.

Not only that but the PS3 will play 100% of PS1 games and 100% of PS1 games will be ported to the PSP. In other words the PS1 is still alive in current hardware and will be till the PS3 is replaced in years.

[meelk]

Originally Posted by I Bent My Wookiee

Pssst. you said 4-5 years. In year 4 it sold 2.77 million units with a total of 40 million.

Not only that but the PS3 will play 100% of PS1 games and 100% of PS1 games will be ported to the PSP. In other words the PS1 is still alive in current hardware and will be till the PS3 is replaced in years.

actually even the PS2 doesnt play 100% of ps1 games, there are a limited number that are incompatible. Granted that number is small, but your facts are still wrong
3 million units in a years time for any console is death. I dont know why you are trying to push 3 million as some grand number when its simply not.

As for backwards compatibility: who cares in this arguement?
And the "100% of ps1 games will be ported to psp" thing...no. I know they have plans in place for downloads of old content, but Sony doesnt own the entire playstation library, so your whole arguement is moot. Its up to the companies involved if they want to make that content 1)playable on psp, 2)downloadable via sonys as yet to be announced plan for delivery.

[I Bent My Wookiee]

Originally Posted by meelk

actually even the PS2 doesnt play 100% of ps1 games, there are a limited number that are incompatible. Granted that number is small, but your facts are still wrong
3 million units in a years time for any console is death. I dont know why you are trying to push 3 million as some grand number when its simply not.

As for backwards compatibility: who cares in this arguement?

Uh the point is PS1 games are and will play on current hardware for years to come with support from sony.

That is far from a dead system.

[meelk]

Originally Posted by I Bent My Wookiee

Uh the point is PS1 games are and will play on current hardware for years to come with support from sony.

That is far from a dead system.

oh please. thats the dumbest damn definition of a system having any kind of retail life that ive ever heard of. argument over, I cant stand that kind of pure stupidity. Thats like saying the NES is "alive" because youll be able to download nes games to the revolution.

[legacyb4]

Make that GT-5 (or whatever the moniker will be for Gran Turismo)!

Originally Posted by Dakar

I think it's going to be GTA that make or breaks whether I buy a PS3.

[Dakar]

No a big fan of Gran Turismo. Too much laps = difficulty, no damage, no crashes, and yes, the simulation part requires a little too much effort for me to enjoy.

[goMac]

I guess when the Revolution comes out the NES, SNES, and n64 won't be dead systems either, because the Revolution can play games from those systems too. Whee!

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

That's incorrect. My brother and I are waiting for the PS3 to come out so that we can get a PS2 at a decent discount. We don't like Sony, but we would like to get a PS2 to get access to the huge title library.

Did you read the article?

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by I Bent My Wookiee

You managed to answer without answering it. WHERE have you shown the PS2 was only slightly profitable?

Alright i guess ill have to dumb it down significantly for you.

Sony sells 100 million PS2, makes roughly $400 mil profit. thats 400/100 = $4 per console sold.

Nintendo sells roughly 20 million GameCubes and rakes in roughly $1.08 BILLION. Thats 1080/20 = $54 per console sold.

Now here's the tough part...... $54 is greater than $4 by 1350% (approx)

Therefore. the profit Sony has made is significantly less.

Understand ?

[starman]

Originally Posted by meelk

oh please. thats the dumbest damn definition of a system having any kind of retail life that ive ever heard of. argument over, I cant stand that kind of pure stupidity. Thats like saying the NES is "alive" because youll be able to download nes games to the revolution.

No, he's NOT saying that.

Used PS1 games are a HOT item at my local Gamestop. Hell, _I_ keep looking for games. I recently bought a PS1 with the built-in screen. The PS1 is a great system. My nephew still plays his.

But what's this about PS1 games being ported to the PSP?