The Franchise

Looks like my option 1 was correct in that they are targeting this thing as a high-end system and not a mass-market device. Plus it'll be expensive.

I have to disagree with some of you on your opinion that people will not buy an overpriced, integrated systems that is not top-of-the-line. I think this system is aimed at the "Bose" crowd (sorry but that's the best analogy I could come up with for what I wanted to say) who don't necessarily know or care about what is the best technically as long as it looks good and does it's job without a fuss. If people shell-out $3K + for a home-theater in-a-box then they surely will eat this device up in limited quantities. Just my opinion.

Trigger

Nobody spends 3K on a home theater in a box... more like 300 - 800. Nobody's gonna buy this thing - 500 pounds for a tivo/dvdr/ps2 is a joke... Not only do you have to find someone willing to spend that kind of money, you'll have to find someone who doesn't have but wants a tivo, a DVD burner, and a PS2. I don't give a crap about tivo and when I get a DVD burner, it's gonna be in my PC so I can dub movies. Waste of money getting a DVD burner that won't copy movies.

spankyj

Not to be a devil's advocate - but why couldn't it?

There is a hard drive in the system. If the system is setup correctly, there's no reason to think a DVD couldn't be copied.

Trigger

If by "setup correctly" you mean "hacked and modified" then I guess you're right. If you can't simply hook up one Sony VCR to another Sony VCR and copy a rented video tape - what makes you think you can take this thing out of the box and copy a DVD?

The Franchise

Actually people do buy HT in-a-box systems for $2K-3K. Bose's top line system is around $3K and it doesn't even have component video out or prog scan for the DVD player!! Generally people who buy stuff like that care about form over function. I think PSX will do well with early-adopters of set-top boxes. When PS2 came out, people scoffed at the DVD player built-in, but it probably "sold" a lot of people on the fence because of the added functionality. This is way beyond that, but similar in concept and smaller in scale.

For the DVD burning, I think they'll have it like iTunes where you can only make so many copies of a downloaded song or movie. Sony doesn't want you copying their movies.

Trigger

Actually - including DVD function in a game console was a stroke of genius - that's what helped it sell so well in Japan. It didn't cost any more than consoles have in the past and you can kill 2 birds with one stone - DVD was the hottest new medium since the invention of the CD too. Tivo and DVD burning aren't quite as hot - DVD burning is still priced too high for general consumers and Tivo isn't really all that hot yet either. Certainly not the must-have item that DVDs have become (or even were at the time). If the PS2 came out costing 800 bucks or more, it certainly wouldn't have sold anywhere near as well as it did. It would've been a huge flop. Also - since this is a Sony Electronics product, it's more or less destined to be a failure.

fujishig

Hmm... do they even have a TIVO service in Japan?

Trigger

They're certainly not as into watching TV as we are.

Groucho

Given the high price point, I predict a flop...indeed the first flop to carry the "Playstation" name.

rayw69

Does anyone else find it amusing that because this unit functions as a PS2 as well as the other functions, that some people DROP their price expectations on it?

If a week ago, Sony announced a DVR with 120GB hard drive, DVD recording capability, USB 2.0/mem stick/ethernet support, without the ability to play games, we'd probably all expect it to cost $600+.

But if it plays PS2 games as well, maybe it costs $300!

Trigger

Good point - that's because most people here are most interested in its ability to play PS2 games... further proving that DVR/HD/DVD recording/USB2.0/memstick/ethernet etc... is all secondary niche technology that isn't quite ready for mainstream.

And 300 bucks is the most we're willing to pay for a game console - no matter what else it does.

jeffdsmith

Hasn't anyone seen this for what it is?

For years Sony (and now MS) have been proclaiming that they want and will create a set-top box that acts as a central hub for entertainment in your home. (Among other things)

What I see them doing here is testing the waters. As many of you say, "the market is not ready for it". Perhaps Sony has decided to see just how much the market is ready by releasing this.

So I propose, that rather then actually trying to turn a profit on this device, Sony is rather determining how far they should take the PS3 at launch. What features should they include, what features should they leave out? What should it support in the future?

Market analysis will provide a picture of the maket, but nothing serves as better research then putting a product out and seeing what consumers make of it. I think that's Sony's goal. They would rather lose some money now then a whole lot more latter. Besides, who is going to remember this thing in 4 years when we are in the middle of the next "battle."

*Side note: Bose Blows.

Ralph Wiggum

This definitely should prove to an interesting barometer for exactly what Sony will do with PS3. I'm curious how receptive the public is to the set-top box.

Trigger

Again, SCE (Sony Computer Entertainment) and Sony Electronics aren't the same company... they are merely under the same umbrella. SCE lending their PS2 technology to this device is simply a favor... one they are getting paid for certainly. SCE is the main breadwinner for Sony and Sony Electronics is one of their biggest losers. There's no chance they'll put this product out at a loss - none. This is a Sony Electronics product and they can't make up any loss in hardware costs with software revenue - even tivo subscriptions or recordable media sales won't make up for any loss - even if they sell it for 10 bucks less than it costs to make... tivo and recordable media don't have huge profit margins.

Anyway - Sony Electronics success or failure on this won't have much bearing on SCE's plans for the PS3... the PS3 will cost 300 bucks and it'll probably have a hard drive and a network adapter and a faster this and that and it'll be backward compatible, so the controller will be basically the same. Maybe it'll have tivo function, but don't bet on DVD recording unless they want to give users the keys to the safe - If they released something like that, some electronics wizards would find a way to hack it or make a mod chip that would make it possible to actually use the PS3 to make copies of PS3 games. Bye bye to software revenue. That would be the dumbest thing ever. SCE isn't that stupid... Sony Electronics may be.

Also - the idea of a set-top do-everything box has been around for decades - I read a WSJ article years ago about how the original NES was designed with other functions in mind - Nintendo was planning on making it an entertainment hub where the family could do their shopping and whatnot (back then, shopping on the TV wasn't as common as it is today). Since consoles adopted optical disc media, they've become multifunction devices - both the PSOne and the Dreamcast could play music CDs. This is all a natural progression - Things are eventually headed this way and someday we'll have a device that does all this and more, but not this... not 1000 bucks... not the PS3 or Xbox2.

Josh H

But how many of these sell. I can't imagine that the market of "rich people that know nothing about home theater and dont' take the time to research it first" are very big.

I'd think most people willing to spend $3K on a home theater system will take the time and do some research first (and in the process learn that no "home theater in a box" will out perform stand alone components).

jeffdsmith

Trigger, you are correct about the company enities being seperate. However, to suggest that they would refuse to work together is saying a little much. In my job as well as other industries I see competitors work together every day for their own personal gain. Saying that Sony can not possible trancend it's own enity for assitance is a little bit ignorant don't you think?

Regardless, I see and understand your stance on the issue.

rayw69

Any "market research benefits" that SCE could gain from this would be a windfall. As mentioned above, SCE and Sony Electronics are hardly the same company.

Apart from that, it doesn't make all that much sense to bring to market a product that sells for well below cost, solely in order to determine whether a product further down the line will sell at above/near cost. The question isn't whether the public will accept new features with a console. It is whether they will pay for them.

If they released this thing for $300 tomorrow, I'd buy it right away. I'm not anywhere near interested in a PS2, but give me the other functionality for $300 and I am sold. The fact that it plays game is just gravy. The PS2 retailed for $300 when it launched. Sold a gazillion consoles at that price. Now Sony wants some market research to see if people will pay $300 for a PS2 and a TON more features which, in the current marketplace, are worth far more than PS2 functionality? Does anyone think you need to do market research to answer that question?

If they priced this thing at ~$600, then maybe you could argue they were doing some market research.

Trigger

You're asking me if I think I'm being ignorant?

Anyway - no - I don't think SCE and Sony Electronics are getting in bed together here for the greater good... SCE doesn't need to research things through Sony Electronics - they already own the winning formula and they run their business well. I also think you're overestimating the importance of this device - I don't think it will be much of anything except a novelty to talk about and for a few rich people to own.

jeffdsmith

Yes I suppose I was. It was much more of a rhetorical type of question though.

mytzplyx

Yah, my friend bought one in Hawaii and brought it over here in Japan. Its modded for U.S. and Japanese games as well as multi-region for DVDs.

Trigger

Besides - it's already been reported to cost 500 pounds (about $825 USD) which also could be considered market research since that's gotta be close to BEP. Besides - anyone here ever look at Sony Electronics prices? You pay too much for crappy stuff. Any home theater enthusiast will tell you to stay away from Sony equipment at almost any price range. Lots of features, crappy components, overpriced... you're paying for the name.

Tivo - 200
Hard Drive - 60
DVD-R - 175
PS2 - 120
Design - who knows? Depends on how many units they sell.
Operating System - who knows? Depends on how many units they sell.

This could actually hurt Sony Electronics if this product doesn't sell within their expectations (which I predict it won't).

jeffdsmith

Now that I will def. agree with.

Joshic

Not true. Real home theater enthusiasts will tell you that Sony has a few gems in the rough.

Sony tube TVs are the best available. Look around at various home theater enthusiast forums, such as the direct-view TV forum at avsforum.com. They will tell you that the best tube TVs are Sonys.

Sony's ES line of A/V receivers are quite good for their price range.

Sony makes a few good headphones; the MDR-V6 is a fantastic closed headphone for the price.

Sony's HD receiver (SAT-HD200) is one of the more trouble-free HD receivers available.

spankyj

I guess I'm in the minority regarding Sony products.

I am far from being a "high-end" user - but to date - I've never had any trouble with any of the Sony products I've owned. Actually, still have everything Sony I've ever bought. (None of its broken yet )

Hell, I just listened to my 10 year old walkman on the way to work today. It's as good as new.

joshd2012

What this arguement boils down to is price, not quality. When Sony released the PS2 in Japan, it was the cheepest costing DVD player on the market, so everyone bought one. If they do the same thing with the PSX, making it relatively inexpensive for its purpose, than people will jump at this too. If it is too expensive, high-end enthusiast will jump on, but sales won't be strong.