Why the end of PlayStation hardware will be best for all
By James Cornelius
While a lot of PlayStation fans would be horrified by the concept of Sony Computer Entertainment becoming a software-only company, there a several sound commercial reasons for this change in strategy. In fact, I would go as far as to say that such a change could strengthen the PlayStation franchise.
Online there have been suggestions that the PS4 won’t come until 2010, as well as suggestions that a recent management change will refocus Sony’s focus to software. The reality is that Sony so busy dealing with PlayStation PS3 that it’s doubtful that it has locked itself into a position at this point in time.
While a refocus to software would be considered controversial, and would no doubt raise the ire of some PlayStation fans, it is quite sound when you consider the following three factors:
- The hardware/software model is archaic and restricts consumer options
- Hardware is difficult to design and manufacture
- The real value of PlayStation is in the games themselves
The hardware/software model is archaic and restricts consumer options
The Amiga was one of the best computers of the mid 1980s, but the problem was, if you bought an Amiga you couldn’t (easily) use PC software, or Mac software for that matter. In fact in those days there were dozens of different proprietary systems around. You bought the system and then you were stuck with having to buy software for that particular machine (sound familiar?). And guess what, all platforms except PC and Mac died because they never got to a critical mass.
Now that the world has more or less adopted a de facto standard in the form of PC architecture, with different manufacturers producing the hardware, consumers can buy whatever software they want for their particular computer (they can even go with Linux if they like). Even Apple, which is still a software and hardware company, has moved its formerly proprietary system to what is essentially a PC architecture.
The computer industry has moved away from proprietary hardware, and now consumers are better off. Consumers actually have more choice, because what’s important is the software that use, and not the hardware. And somehow, I don’t think things are that different in the games console world.
Hardware is difficult to design and manufacture
Building hardware takes time and resources, and even if you’re an accomplished manufacturer such as Sony, physically making enough machines to meet demand is difficult and expensive. Just witness all the problems that Sony has had supplying enough PS3s. In fact, according to some reports, Sony losses money on each PS3 sold. Businesses all around the world are focusing on doing what they’re good at, and outsourcing or eliminating extraneous activities that just get in the way. Sony should do the same.
The real value of PlayStation is in the games themselves
Yes, the PS3 is a fantastic piece of engineering, but ultimately the real reason why people buy a console is to play games. And it’s the games that make the real difference, and this is exactly where Sony can add the value to the gaming experience. This is where the magic of a gaming experience comes from; not the hardware. I guarantee you that whatever technological superiority PlayStation 3 has in terms of hardware will be replicable using bog-standard parts in a cheap-and-cheerful computer in less than a year.
PlayStation fans don’t feel threatened. The age of proprietary computers has long passed, and it’s only a matter of time before the age of proprietary consoles also passes.
Related:
Entry was posted
on Wednesday, December 6th, 2006 at 9:09 pm
under
Read more entries by James Cornelius.
Stumble It!
December 7th, 2006
…, … Wow… Um, you went really far… I grant that people are more focused on the games than the consoles, but don’t you think/realize that the capability of games are related to the capability of the hardware? In fact with consoles, I blieve that people pick games on game play for sure, but they also look and feel is significant which depends on the hardware.
December 7th, 2006
It’s a little too early to start playing Taps isnt it?
December 7th, 2006
I want Playstation or any console to come up with a solution in which they can play all types of PC games, then people would ditch buying a computer instead of a console for their gaming needs. And Playstation does not lose because they release their own unique set of games for the console which is not available for other systems(although there are some games for ps that are also for pc)
December 7th, 2006
I just can’t see the home game console venue going the same way computers have. The main reasons we ended up with non proprietary computers today are – IBM using a more ‘open architechture’ (please excuse my spelling) – and allowing M$ to be able to resell their software to other venders. Originally IBM wanted the BIOS to be proprietary, but eventually Compaq (I believe) reverse engineered it – using a couple legal loopholes – and overnight clones were born. Now IBM has suffered so much that they don’t even make PC’s anymore.
I just can’t see the same (or similar enough) circumstances coming true with home game console hardware. Unless – M$ decides to license the software that makes the XBOX work, then some other company might decide to build a clone. I say M$, because I doubt that SONY or NINTENDO would be willing to do that at all. Or, if someone were to build a very cheap home console based on a LINUX kernel. I don’t know – it just seems kinda far fetched.
1 last thing – “The hardware/software model is archaic” – can anyone say iPod or Zune? It’s not archaic. For some products it makes sense to do it that way, you (the manufacturer) have better quality control that way.
December 7th, 2006
Mr. Happy, you’re kind of on the correct path. A non-proprietary gaming system, as the article suggests, already exists… it’s called a computer. What is the difference between a computer and a gaming system anyway? Not much. Not a thing.
Seems like an obvious oversight.
December 8th, 2006
James,
If anything is just going the other way arround. You can not just do software and wait for someone to buy it if there is no hardware where to used. Microsfot KNOWS that. Is not MS the king of software, why they did not developed games only for PCs after all they rule that market.
IS NOT THE SAME EXPERIENCE AND IT WILL NEVER BE. In addition, if you just do software(games) what is your advantage in the market place? Anyone can do that, but when you control the plataform you control Royalties and much more.