To: Sony

Not as cool as a newer, better PSP would be...

Re: PSPGo

Ah, Sony.

When the PSP came out in 2005, I was one of the people who jumped right on it. I couldn’t help myself. The system was beautiful, and it had some really cool games that made my GameBoy Advance and Nintendo DS games look like toys. To this day, I’ve been a PSP booster.

But the PSP Go baffles me. It’s a little smaller than the PSP-3000, and it looks kind of cool. But why would I ever need this device if I’ve already got a perfectly good PSP? It doesn’t do anything different. It has fewer features than the PSP I’ve already got, and it can’t play any of the games I already own. Its control scheme looks like it would cause my hands to cramp up. And, most important of all, it’s about $80 more than I’d spend if I replaced my original PSP-1000 system with one of those shiny new PSP-3000 models. $250, for a system with fewer features than the one I’ve already got? You have got to be kidding me, Sony.

Clearly, your marketing team was asleep during their marketing strategy classes, because the whole concept of the PSP Go is flawed. You want to repackage a 4-year-old handheld and sell it as geek chic. But in doing so, you’ve made it incredibly impractical to own. It’s a device that relies on digital downloads to play games… and yet it can only download on the wifi 802.11b standard, which ensures slow download speeds. Hrm. You’ve only made about 100 games available for download, and yet you’ve missed many obvious titles, such as Dissidia: Final Fantasy, Lumines and Metal Gear: Portable Ops. Hrm again. The games are being sold at full retail with no associated bonuses, which means that they’re going to be more expensive than their used counterparts. Hrm once more. Did you marketing team sleep their way through economics as well, somehow concluding that during a recession, people spend more money on items than they might otherwise?

What really galls me is that you put out a press release this week announcing that hardware sales for the PSP are up 300%. What that really means is that you’ve shipped out new hardware to retailers for the Christmas rush. It has nothing to do with what consumers are buying. You want people to think that the PSP Go is the must-have item right now. Maybe a few will fall for it. But I have yet to see a line for PSP Go hardware forming at any stores I’ve been in. The guys and girls at my local store are telling me that no one’s very interested. Why should they be? It’s like taking a McDonalds happy meal, putting it on a fancy plate, charging a dollar extra for the presentation and then slapping on an extra fee for the toy, soda and fries. The happy meal was fine the way it was. There’s no reason to try to make it into something better.

Speaking of which, where’s the PSP upgrade that consumers really want — the one with two analog sticks, four shoulder buttons, and switchable faceplates? The one that can use 802.11g and that has a kicking web browser. The one that has a battery that lasts more than a few hours, and that can play downloadable PS2 games? I’d pay $250 for that system, even if you stripped out the UMD drive and vulnerabilities to homebrew. And if I could use it to access PSN Home and to stream the videos on my PS3 over the Internet and I could hook it into my TV like I can with the PSP-3000, then yeah, I might even pay more.

All I can conclude is that you aren’t listening and don’t care what I have to say. That’s fine, Sony — you’ve always been too cool to let your customers push you around. But you’re going to pay the price for that as the years go by. In the 21st century, the most dangerous move you can make as a company is to treat your customers like they’re not important.

You’re lucky I love my PS3 so much. At least you’ve finally got yourselves straight where that console is concerned. Too bad you had to lose so much ground to Microsoft while you skimmed the market with a ridiculous price point and lackluster software. You might recover during this generation, but you’ve made yourself vulnerable, Sony… and it’s going to be hard for you to keep things up when the next generation of consoles is due and you’re still trying to pay off all the money you sunk into blowing the PS3 launch.

Good luck. You’re going to need it.

-Sean J. Jordan

A stripped-down PS3? No thanks.

I’m in the market for a Playstation 3 now that the prices are dropping, and I’ve sold off a lot of my old consoles (which I never use anymore anyhow) so I can buy one. More than once, I’ve been asked, “so, are you going to get the Slim?” (That is, for those who don’t know, the new, smaller, more energy-efficient model that Sony is replacing the old models with.)

But the thing is… the PS3 Slim is actually a lot LESS of a value than the earlier models. The original 60GB launch system (launched in 2006, at $600) had way more features than the current models do. It had four USB ports, a bunch of memory card readers, backwards compatibility with PS1 and PS2 games and the ability to install Linux on the system without needing any modifications. Pretty cool, right? But as the system has evolved, it’s lost two USB ports, lost its backwards compatibility, lost its memory card readers, and finally, with the Slim, lost its ability to run Linux. All of this has been in the name of cost-cutting, but the truth of the matter is that Sony is actually reducing features in order to re-tighten their control on their hardware. They wanted the PS3 to be the “home computer system”. Now, they’re back to marketing it as a game console.

And honestly, it’s a really peculiar situation, because it shows that Sony really doesn’t get marketing at all. Instead of adding features to later models, as pretty much any electronics manufacturer would, Sony has continued to strip down and limit the PS3. They’ve even stopped pushing the Blu-Ray capabilities in favor of pushing the fact that it plays games slightly better than the Xbox 360. Sony has basically regressed to being a competitor in an old category rather than trying to hold on to the new territory it was delving into. I think they’re going to recover now that they’ve priced the PS3 appropriately and started developing their games library, but I think the PS3 is always going to be remembered as a mediocre console, not as the powerhouse it should be.

Oddly enough, Sony’s probably is not too different from Nintendo’s problem in the late 1990s. Nintendo was riding a huge wave of success from the SNES, which is, for my money, the best home console system ever made. Sega had been nipping at their heels with the Sega Genesis and the upcoming Saturn, and Sony was getting ready to launch its PlayStation, which came out of a failed partnership between Sony and Nintendo that was supposed to result in a CD-ROM attachment for the SNES. CD-ROM wasn’t quite ready for prime time (the discs loaded slowly, and analog sticks needed for 3D games were still not a standard feature on controllers), so Nintendo decided to launch another cartridge-based system, first named the “Ultra 64,” and then later, the “Nintendo 64.”

I remember the first year the Nintendo 64 came out — it was a disaster. There were only about 12 games available, and all of them were garbage except for Super Mario 64. The N64 didn’t come with all the extras (games, 2 controllers, zappers, etc) that the older consoles had; it was just a system and a single controller. And that controller — the weird, trident-shaped design that never quite felt comfortable in your hand, with an analog stick that was easy to break, and four tiny yellow buttons that served little practical purpose — was one of the first things that was clearly wrong with the N64. Nintendo, in its zeal to be different, had done something weird and awkward. And what’s more, it set the stage for something that continues to be true of Nintendo consoles — third party games tended to be terrible on the N64. If you ask people which N64 games they liked or remembered, they’re bound to cite a game made by Nintendo or by Rare (who at the time was a partner of Nintendo).

Apparently, the console was very hard to program for due to limited storage and memory. 3D objects were easy for the system to render, but there was little memory available for textures. Full-motion video and voice clips took up too much space, making the system a poor choice for RPGs. The control scheme was not really appropriate for fighting games, and the system did 2D really badly. Essentially, the N64 was a victim of its own ambition; it was trying to be a 3D game console before 3D game consoles were ready for prime time. I’d still rate it as Nintendo’s weakest console system, despite the fact that it sold much better than the Gamecube. But the Gamecube was superior in every way, and the reason it didn’t do as well was because people were soured by the N64 and Nintendo’s stubborn refusal to give them the sorts of experiences they could get on the PS2 and Xbox. Nintendo had developed a “kiddie” image – its products were little more than toys in the eyes of gamers. And commercials like this one didn’t help to shed that:

So, I made the statement that Sony’s PS3 is very similar to the N64. But on the surface, that doesn’t appear to be correct. Sony launched a console that was far more powerful (and capable!) than the N64, and it geared itself towards older gamers, not younger ones. Sony lacks the power of Nintendo for making first-party games, but it has some great third-party support. The controllers are comfortable and standard, and the system itself is pretty impressive, even in its stripped-down state. So how, you might wonder, can I draw a comparison?

It’s all in the marketing. Both Sony and Nintendo were riding the wave of two very successful consoles, and both decided that it was time to focus on the product, not the customer. Nintendo did it by launching a system that underperformed at traditional console functions and that didn’t do its new functions very well. Sony did it by launching a system that was intended to be used as something other than a console and then saying, nonchalantly, “oh, it plays games, too.” Both Nintendo and Sony supported their systems with ridiculous marketing strategies that tried to communicate technology over functionality, and both launched their consoles expecting people to buy on brand name alone.

The Nintendo 64 is actually remembered as a better system than it was because Nintendo was able to support it with some great games down the road. That helped to take the sting out somewhat to those who’d bought the system hoping for the same level of fun they’d enjoyed with the SNES. I’m actually not sure if Sony is going to be able to pull that off with the PS3; Sony’s never been good at first-party software, and most of its best first-party titles have been aimed at a specific niche. I’m guessing what takes the sting out of the PS3 is its ability to play Blu-Ray and its free online service… but I’m not sure that these features are as useful to the majority of gamers as Sony seems to think.

So, we’re left with a console cycle where Sony is going to take a bath. The early adopters have the system; the lower price point means that the early majority will start picking the system up. But they’re going to be disappointed when they realize they’ve got a system that’s not as good as the one they could have bought a few years back, and they’re going to find that the Xbox 360 actually has the better software library right now. The only way Sony is going to be able to turn this into a victory is if they can communicate the cool of the PS3 — and though Sony’s very good at being “cool,” I think they’ve given up too much ground this generation. If Microsoft’s third Xbox or Nintendo’s next console are in any way impressive, it’s likely that Sony’s going to really get hurt in the next cycle of consoles (which should begin in 2011 or 2012).

How did Nintendo come back? By re-inventing itself and focusing on The Marketing Concept with the Wii. They’ve been wildly successful because they figured out how to talk to gamers again and deliver what casual gamers wanted. Sony’s going to have to go through its own reinvention. I wish them luck.

Why is this system selling so poorly? Bad marketing, that's why.

2008 was a banner year for Sony — they won the format war with Toshiba and cemented Blu-Ray as the next generation of storage media, they released two killer app games for their Sony Playstation 3 game console (Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots and Little Big Planet) and they saw two great pieces of software push PSP sales in Japan (Final Fantasy VII: Crisis Core and Final Fantasy Dissidia). The PS2 continues to sell strongly around the world. They continued to perform well in other consumer electronics markets as well with their TVs, digital cameras, and music players. Sony has always been good at making cool products, and from a design standpoint, they’re still going strong.

So why is Sony suddenly posting a $1.1 billion loss? I’d argue it’s because they’re so good at design that they neglect their marketing. And I’m not just talking about their advertising, either, but their entire philosophy of how products are developed for public use.

Sony’s always been a company that’s pushed innovative new products out to the marketplace. In the 1980s, Sony made a killing on portable electronics with its Walkman brand tape players. Sony also lost a pretty well-publicized format war against VHS with its superior, but less popular, Betamax format tapes.

Since Sony first launched the Playstation in the 1990s, it’s been the king of console systems, and by all rights, its beautiful Playstation Portable and Playstation 3 should be murdering the competition right now. But Sony’s having a really hard time with both systems, and though the PSP sales have been picking up lately, the PS3 continues to lag behind the Xbox 360 and the Wii. It’s not for lack of graphical power; the Ps3 is far more powerful than either system, and capable of a level of graphical prowess that outstrips the capabilities of most peoples’ televisions right now. It’s just that Sony’s done a terrible job of convincing people that they actually need all that power in a game console, particularly when there aren’t a lot of games that make the PS3 look like it’s worth the added expense.

I’d say it’s because Sony put the cart before the horse this time around and focused on technology instead of focusing on giving gamers what they actually wanted. Part of the problem, you see, is that Sony simply assumed that gamers wanted more power. And if they asked gamers via market research, “do you want more power in your console?”, they were probably assured that yes, gamers did. Who wouldn’t?

But what Sony didn’t understand was that they had to deliver something more than just a powerful piece of machinery. For starters, they had to deliver software. Sony was so used to being the market leader that they neglected this time around to line up good, exclusive titles. They were very lucky that the PS2 had hits like Grand Theft Auto 3 and Metal Gear Solid 2 early on, because the first year of software for the PS2 was dreadful. They were also lucky that Square came out with Final Fantasy X in the third year and that Capcom introduced Resident Evil: Code Veronica X and Devil May Cry early enough in the cycle to attract attention.

Sony was also very lucky that they decided to include a DVD player in the PS2, since people were purchasing the console around the same time they were upgrading their home systems to include a DVD player. It made sense to pay a little bit extra to get a PS2 that could play DVDs right out of the box, and Sony reaped the benefits of that decision.

But with the PS3, Sony’s been reacting to all sorts of problems, and often, in the wrong way. For starters, the original version of the system included backwards compatibility, memory stick slots and multiple USB ports. Sony’s since dropped these frills in favor of a system with fewer options. The PS3 can play Blu-Ray out of the box, but Blu-Ray doesn’t look much better than DVD on most peoples’ TVs, and there’s almost no noticable difference without an HDMI cable. Sony’s been promising a free online experience for awhile now, but they’ve failed to deliver, while the pay-to-play Xbox Live service continues to go strong.

Sony keeps insisting that people want its products, and that things like a soft economy are holding purchases back. That could be. But it’s more likely that Sony has just done such a bad job of marketing that they haven’t persuaded people that they actually need Sony products any longer. Sony hasn’t followed the basic premise of the marketing concept, which is to develop a relationship with your customer. Instead, they’ve focused on transactional marketing, selling gadgets that can do things, but that don’t necessarily do the things that people want them to do.

Sony’s marketing communication strategy, too, is horrible. They have to have one of the worst ad firms on the planet, and they never seem to answer the question of WHY people would want their products. They avoid talking about features and benefits, and instead try to focus on being cool. That’s a crummy strategy, and it suggests that Sony is stuck in the 1980s still, because people don’t buy Sony products because they’re cool anymore. People buy them because they’re reliable and they’re quality. If they happen to be cool, so much the better. But since the gap is quickly being closed between lower-end and higher-end products, Sony’s got to do more than just tell us how cool they are. They’ve actually got to start caring what people think about their products.

Here’s what I’d recommend for their two game consoles:

I love my PSP, and I usually take it with me wherever I go. It's that awesome.

Sony PSP: Anyone with a Homebrew-enabled PSP will tell you how potentially amazing this little game console is. The Nintendo DS might be innovative, but the PSP is gorgeous, with amazing graphics and awesome abilities. The problem is that Sony is too concerned about controlling the thing, and they keep locking users out of the cool functions because of fears of piracy. This is incredibly short-sighted, since one of the best things the PSP can do is play old PS1 games flawlessly. That’s right — with a homebrew-enabled PSP, it’s possible to play Final Fantasy VII, VIII or IX, or Xenogears, or Metal Gear Solid, or Tekken 3, or Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, or any number of classic PS1 titles. You don’t even need a disc — they play right off the memory stick. And the best thing is, these aren’t ports – they’re the original games.

And what’s Sony doing about this? Nothing, from what I can tell. They don’t seem to want to get into encouraging people to use their beautiful hardware to play old games. Instead, they want people to play the rather mediocre games that come out every year for the PSP. Are they absolutely nuts? Digital distribution would cost them very little to set up (they’re already doing it for the PS3!), and it would add a ton of padding to their bottom line since they’d just be selling digital copies of old games. This strategy has worked well for Nintendo and Microsoft; what is Sony waiting for?

Also, Sony has done a really crummy job of touting one of the coolest features of the PSP: streaming video. Using the RemotePlayer, you can actually stream video from your PS3 to your PSP, even if you’re not home. This has all sorts of awesome potential, but Sony doesn’t seem to want to talk about it. They might think everyone knows about it, but believe me when I say that most PSP an PS3 owners don’t know the half of what either system can do. Sony is really missing out here.

Sony PS3: Aside from telling Sony to work harder to develop better first party software, the real problem with the PS3 is that it has the right set of features for the wrong group of people. Does Sony actually think people are ready to upgrade to Blu-Ray? Many just upgraded to DVD a few years ago, and most don’t have TVs that are capable of 1080p. There was talk at one point about using the PS3 for digital distribution of films and TV shows, but Sony’s done a really poor job of that as well, despite the fact that they own large libraries of movies.

Clearly, Sony needs to cut the price, but more than that, they need to make a case for why people need this overpriced gizmo. More killer apps would help, but putting backwards compatibility back in the mix and using the Internet to throw a bunch of cool free add-ons to the system would also be nice. Maybe Sony should start allowing homebrew developers to create legal apps for the system, or maybe Sony should focus on releasing classic PS1 games for free for PS3 owners. Whatever they do, they need to bring back the idea of the “Playstation gamer,” communicating with their players and making them feel some pride in the platform.

As it stands, the PS3 is a beautiful piece of equipment that just doesn’t do very much because of the lack of software and options available. That’s a shame, because it could do so many cool things… if Sony would quit trying to insist that it’s the ultimate game system / Blu-Ray player.

Fortunately, 2009 is going to bring in a lot of changes at Sony, and maybe, just maybe, they’ll improve their marketing budget. (I hope they’ll fire their ad firm, too.) It’s much-needed; there’s no reason Sony products should be lagging as much as they are. But it just goes to show that if you put all your effort into making a product and forget about the customer, you lose in the end.