weve all heared of the PS3 release, sony have been beefing up their advertising and media coverage since the plans hit the table, but from the beginning, i believe, it was their plan to release the console in short supply on purpose, knowing full well that they would easily sell every single one. knowing that there would be a huge demand for this item, i think that large companies should have a quota placed on them by governments, of a minimum amount available for sale in an effort to prevent this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/17/AR2006111700325.html

No. It is simple supply and demand. They keep the supply low at first so demand is high. It gets them free advertising and enables them to charge a premium price and get it. As time goes on and demand decreases they lower the price and get the people at the next "price point" to buy one.

Why a government should have any say in how a company sells/markets/manufactures a product is beyond me.

did you not read the link? all of those events described were caused by sony's strategy, people could have died - and when a company trading inside a country decides to make actions which will endanger the lives of the people of that country then it is the governments duty to step in and tell them to either play fair or find somewhere else to trade.

Caused by Sony's strategy? Oh we should punish companies for making products so good that people really want to buy them? Sony didn't shoot/rob/assault/threaten those people. People get shot/assaulted/etc. because the item is worth alot of money. If somebody assaults an eldery man for his gold ring should the jewelers who sold him that ring be responsiable for producing such a valuable item?

It seems unfair to force a company to over-supply and make less profit because some OTHER individuals realise the value of their products and are prepared to break the law in order to aquire them. Sony has not harmed anyone, it was the attackers and nobody else is responsiable. Sony didn't give them their weapons. People are mugged every day for their money, obviously the government is responsiable for producing the item that influenced the robbing - money.

It is simplistic in the extreme to actually describe this as an intentional strategy by Sony (goes for any other manufacutrer too for that matter).

It is NOT POSSIBLE for Sony to produce enough units to have a worldwide launch with enough units to satisfy the initial demand (without delaying lauch for so long it becomes a mute point). The practically of satisfying demand in Japan alone from day one would delay the remainder of the world by 6 months at a guess.

To suggest that a company should not bring a product to market unless there is enough product to satisfy demand at a price that people would like to pay is crazy. Just consider the logistics of the excercise.

Sony has not harmed anyone, it was the attackers and nobody else is responsiable. football teams are not responsible for the actions of their fans when they riot, and yet it is still the team that gets fined. when firms start reaping punative actions for their shortsightedness or their greed, they will think twice, free trade is the most dangerous idea on the planet

It seems unfair to force a company to over-supply and make less profit because some OTHER individuals realise the value of their products and are prepared to break the law in order to aquire them i never said "over supply" the problem here is that sony hasnt even scratched the demand for this product yet, read that there was one store which had 8 ps3's and a crowd of 350 gathered for them - that store shouldnt have had any, because it could not cater to an unruly demand.

It is NOT POSSIBLE for Sony to produce enough units to have a worldwide launch and youve gotten onto what im talking about, if they dont have enough, then it shouldnt have been launched, this item has been rushed out before christmas just so that sony could make an over inflated profit on these items, when in actual fact this item is not ready for release, it is up to the government or the WTO to say to these companies "you are not entitled to corner this market because you cannot cater to it" you wouldnt have an incompetant doctor on A&E same thing, if that person cant do the job, they shouldnt be there in the first place, this item cannot cater (to an acceptable extent hence my suggestion of minimum quota's) to the demand, so it shouldnt be there.

To suggest that a company should not bring a product to market unless there is enough product to satisfy demand at a price that people would like to pay is crazy not as crazy as you think, but they didnt out price customers either, this was affordable if expensive, this item if released in such short supply should have had a far more excessive price tag attached to it, a simple rule of economics, if demand outstrips supply, you increase the price to drive off some of that demand.

So selling the PS3 at a higher price would stop people from robbing people for their PS3s?

I think you confuse things. Football clubs have the means to impose security measures in their premises to prevent riots. A company, however, cannot be liable for the idiocy of people outside their own premises.

The fact that there are people so stupid as to queue for days to buy something is astonishing. Specially considering that the same thing will be available later on, and at a considerably reduced price if one waits enough.

Blaming Sony for what people would do to obtain their products would be like blaming car manufacturers for accidents caused by speeding.

[ November 19, 2006, 19:26: Message edited by: Colthrun ]

Agreed with Colthunrn, its hardly Sony's fault that people are so ****ed up that they react with voilence about a soldout console...man I find such people sad.

It's silly to blame Sony for this. Good on them for creating something that was so amazingly popular.

Things sell out all the time. I went to the Warehouse to buy a barbecue on the weekend but the model I wanted had sold out. I should have turned around and smashed somebody in the face, but, alas, I didn't think of it until I got home.

In circumstances like this each individual is responsible for their own safety...and each assailant is to be held accountable for the violence which occurs. Sony has nothing to do with your safety or the actions of those who would rob you. If you stand outside all night long with five to six hundred dollars - you have placed yourself in a dangerous situation and you should not be surprised if the ugly side of human nature bites you in the ass.

I think this incident just shows the values of people...There's no reason to blame Sony....While the units are limited and unable to suffice demands...Still they could wait and get themselves a Ps3...I know 2 or 3 people who bought it already....

You're nuts to wander around with $600 in your pocket. Nobody carries cash these days, especially not that much.

While I'm not going to say Sony should be held fully responsable for the actions of its customers, I do think some responsability should be there. The first time this happened (Tickle-Me Elmo as far as I know), I could understand the company saying 'We had no idea people would get this crazy!' The second time, you should have at least guessed, and taking an action that you fully realize (by experience no less) is likely to cause bodily harm and even death to others, even if not directly through your own actions, is irresponsable.

Its like yelling 'FIRE!' or 'BOMB!' in a crouded theater. Your actions probably didn't directly hurt anyone. You may well have not personally trampled people, you may have even helped them up after others did, but you are still responsable.

Sony should have at least made some attempt to minimize the impact of this, something like releasing appropriate numbers in only the biggest cities, and only supply the smaller cities when they have enough.

So many companies have worked this into their corporate strategy, and it has happened so many times, that one has to come to the conclusion that the effect is intentional, if not the main goal. They knew it would happen and apparently did nothing to prevent it, or even to mitigate it's effect.

Yes, it was partially Sony's fault for deliberately causing a situation that triggered this. But in all fairness, I don't think think we can hold them responsible for what other people did. They've already apologized for their part, and one can only hope that they'll learn from this and won't do it again. Realistically, though, I somehow doubt it.

As much as I hate Sony, they've got nothing to do with the stupidity of their consumers.

Even if a corporation sets up a circumstance, it is the individual who must decide whether or not to participate. Nobody was forced to stand in line for hours on end with five hundred dollars in their possesion. I've been busted up for as little as a $15 dollar basketball...no one *anywhere* in public is safe with five hundred bucks in their pocket.

Anyone who participates in such idiocy must accept responsibility for placing themselves in harm's way. Kids who are too young and/or innocent to have the wisdom to understand the potential danger of such situations need to be guided by their parents.

Keep in mind that the consumers were also aware of the problems which "tickle-me-elmo" caused. Still, they lined up and directly through their own actions placed themselves in a situation that they knew, through experience, could turn ugly.

In a situation like that, the people in the line camping out to get the unit are likely prepared to spend up $1000 or more for the unit, the games they want and taxes included. If even 1 of those in the lineup has it in cash, the mugger has hit his jackpot. Sony (nor the stores for that matter) didn't tell them to bring cash, and they certainly didn't invite the muggers.

And I'm sure that the store, nor Sony, invited the guy that stole 5 units at gun point from the truck.

Sony didn't do that, but I'd say that the launch was botched, citing that they could have sold 3 or 4 times as many units at that $650 price tag on release day. They'd still run out...

A better solution would be at the retail level, by accepting pre-orders and booking appointments for people before the store opens to have all te chances to ask questions and buy the unit and games without the crowd and the muggers. Hiring a few extra security hired for a couple days wouldn't hurt either...

i may have worded the title wrongly, while it may imply that i think sony are completely responsible for the incidents i dont think that it is all sony's fault, but i also believe that it is a companies responsibility to realise that people are stupid, and in this instance sony have played this stupidity purposely and look at the impact, you cannot buy better advertising.

I think you confuse things. Football clubs have the means to impose security measures in their premises to prevent riots. they get fined even if it happens outside their grounds

Its like yelling 'FIRE!' or 'BOMB!' in a crouded theater. Your actions probably didn't directly hurt anyone. You may well have not personally trampled people, you may have even helped them up after others did, but you are still responsable.
far better explained then i was doing, thanks

Another point is, sony dont own the shops, they only provide some off the items sold there. So shouldn't the shop be blamed for opening up the sale with to few units in the store? I meen the shopkeeper could clearly see that there where more people outside then he had ps3, yet he chose to let them line up and open the shop, well knowing that people apparently was desparate to get a silly consol.

or should we rightfully blame the stupid people, who value a consol over other peoples health and life. who are willing to wait outside and run amok about something so stupid as a consol. its not like its lifesaving medicin or anything. the fact is that these people did not care about any other then themself and they where willing to use voilence to get this.
as much as we humans like to blame someone else, preferely something faceless like a private coporation, there is really only one to blame, themself.

Gun companies should be held harmless for gun violence, but Sony is responsible for gun violence at places where PS3 is sold -- WHAT?!?

I believe the video gaming industry need to be help to a higher standard than they have been, but not this.

I'm not saying that Sony did not deliberately under-release the product, and it certainly seems that demand far outstripped supply. However, even if Sony produced two or three times the quantity that they did, it STILL wouldn't have been enough to meet demand. To say they should delay the release until beyond the Christmas season is lunacy, not to mention bad business.

I have no idea how many PS3s were produced, nor what the current demand is, so I'll just pull numbers out of thin air here. Say there is an immediate demand for 10 million PS3s. But Sony only has the manufacturing capacity to produce 1 million PS3s prior to Christmas. At $500 each, Sony would be losing out on $500 million worth of sales for the Christmas season by withholding the release - that doesn't make sense.

I also do not think that this is part of Sony's marketing strategy, because it already announced the console would sell for $500. Whether they produced 1 million, 3 million, or even 9.5 milliion, they still wouldn't have enough to meet demand, and they still will get $500 each for the products they sell. Therefore, it is only logical to think that Sony would produce as many as possible and get them on the store shelves before Christmas. That they cannot meet the demand doesn't matter - it is in their best interest to get as close to that demand as is possible.

or should we rightfully blame the stupid people, who value a consol over other peoples health and life. who are willing to wait outside and run amok about something so stupid as a consol. its not like its lifesaving medicin or anything. the fact is that these people did not care about any other then themself and they where willing to use voilence to get this. go ahead and blame the people, but there is no way to control the people, in essence what you are saying and what sony are doing is advocating anarchy.

I have no idea how many PS3s were produced, nor what the current demand is, so I'll just pull numbers out of thin air here. Say there is an immediate demand for 10 million PS3s. But Sony only has the manufacturing capacity to produce 1 million PS3s prior to Christmas. At $500 each, Sony would be losing out on $500 million worth of sales for the Christmas season by withholding the release - that doesn't make sense. im not talking about the business side of things, it makes sense from a health and welfare point of view. everyone here seems to prefer free trade at the cost of law and order...

I am still flabbergasted that anybody can seriously blame Sony for this! In most urban areas, anybody who hangs around outside at strange hours carrying money is running a risk of being a victim of crime. That's not a good thing, but *I* know not to run that risk, so I don't do it.

That's as crazy as blaming a company that makes a car that can go more then 30kph.

"Ooh the car company should reasonably expect that people might want to drive fast and hit each other. They are so evil! They should only make slow cars, the greedy corporate pigs! I suspect that their strategy is only to make money."

You can see what he's saying though, Harbs. Sony have deliberately created this situation, knowing full well what they were doing. They're creating a mad hysterical circus around the PS3 release and getting free advertising that no amount of money could get otherwise.

I can see both sides of the argument to be honest.

Well of course they are deliberately creating excitement. That's good marketing. But they're not using mind altering drugs to chemically induce people to abandon all common sense. I still think you're a moron to go and stand out in the street with $500 in your pocket when everyone knows you're queuing up to buy some electronics.

The people who did the robbing and beating up should still be thrown in jail, because they are criminals, but Sony are doing nothing more than what every single sensible company in the world does (the ones that want to make money, that is).

Things sell out ALL the time! What Sony has done is so un-radical and un-unusual (hmm), it's laughable to single them out for any negative publicity.

just so that sony could make an over inflated profit on these items, :lol: Thats funny because sony actually loses money on each console it makes, as does every other console company.

And don't tell me I need a source, it is well known in the gaming world... plus, I have Wired right next to me ;)

Thats funny because sony actually loses money on each console it makes, as does every other console company As to this universal truth, it needs a little clarification. They make their money selling the games and the rights to develop games for their console. Nobody is in a business to lose money.

I can see both sides of the argument to be honest i see both sides too, but its more fun to argue the unpopular one

Thats funny because sony actually loses money on each console it makes, as does every other console company. at first, yes, the development costs still hang in the background, it wont take them long to recoup that though, like with airbus and the A380, they estimate that they need to sell 120 at £600mil each to break even, but they had orders for 60 before the prototype even made it off the ground. it wont take them long to recoup those losses especially since there's an estimated 380% mark up on those machines.

The people who did the robbing and beating up should still be thrown in jail, because they are criminals, but Sony are doing nothing more than what every single sensible company in the world does (the ones that want to make money, that is). the same could be said for "inciting religious hatred" or "motivating terrorism" its not the person saying "kill all americans" doing the killing, so why is he singled out?

Ok, if you've just walked out of the store with your brand new PS3 and someone shoots you to steal it and sell it on the black market for money, it isn't Sony's fault that the PS3 is worth so much and Sony shouldn't be held accountable for making a valuable product.

If the thief instead did it so that he could have it for himself (or give it to his kid or whatever, but personal use), then Sony should be held partially responsable, just like the guy yelling 'FIRE!' in the theatre is.

The thief goes to jail for shooting you and stealing from you either way, and in the first case for trafficing in stolen property, but Sony also takes blaim in the second case because they knew it would happen and did nothing to try to prevent it.

On the other hand, if Sony restricted its initial release to major cities in an attempt to prevent this, hired extra guards for their shipments and maybe even the stores, or did anything else that could reasonably be seen to eliminate or at least mitigate the ensuing violence, then they at least made an attempt and I'd say they get off the hook.

Bah. This is like blaming Porsche when your 911 gets stolen. They shouldn't have made it so shiny and fast. They should have known that it would be a target for thieves.

Your argument makes no sense. Its simple business...the irrational behaviour of consumers is in no way due to Sony's business practice.

Non-issue!

it needs a little clarification. They make their money selling the games and the rights to develop games for their console. Nobody is in a business to lose moneyI didn't say that, I said they lose money on the console itself. They make all their money on game rights, various new addition products (fancy controllers), and once the technology becomes less expensive, they break even on the consoles.

Ok, if you've just walked out of the store with your brand new PS3 and someone shoots you to steal it and sell it on the black market for money, it isn't Sony's fault that the PS3 is worth so much and Sony shouldn't be held accountable for making a valuable product.[quote]

but dont you see that the only reason this has happened is because there isnt enough? you dont hear reports today of people buying an xbox and getting shot for it, theyve created a product that people want (or think they do, ive read magazine reports that its not much cop and the release titles are crap), and created not only a base market but also the tout market, without that demand theyve created with the outstripped supply, that market wouldnt exist.

[QUOTE]The thief goes to jail for shooting you and stealing from you either way, and in the first case for trafficing in stolen property, but Sony also takes blaim in the second case because they knew it would happen and did nothing to try to prevent it. sony knew that both cases would happen, because theyve created both situations with their market strategy, what theyve done is close to gathering up 100 people, sticking them in a ring and saying "the last man standing gets the 1 console that we have".. and because all this was just a marketing ploy for media coverage theyve told them "and we're going to film you killing eachother too"

This is like blaming Porsche when your 911 gets stolen. They shouldn't have made it so shiny and fast. They should have known that it would be a target for thieves. technically, it is porche's fault, they didnt put sufficient anti theft devices in place, if i bought a £60000 motor, i would expect that any thief that managed to get into should never be able to start it

Your argument makes no sense. Its simple business...the irrational behaviour of consumers is in no way due to Sony's business practice.
i personally think that arresting someone for standing up in a crowd and shouting "kill all white people" makes no sense, he's not harming anyone... directly

I didn't say that, I said they lose money on the console itself for the first year maybe, but if the product continues to sell they make a profit.
lets say for example, being that sony not only produce the consoles but they also own the factories that produce the components it costs on average £25 to actually produce the phycsical entity of each PS2... and estimate something like £500mil development costs, they then pass the product on at wholesale for lets say £80 and stick a rrp of £120 on the thing. the shop makes a profit of £40 and sony make a revenue of £80

if sony sell 1mil consoles they make a revenue of 80 mil minus 25mil production leaves a short term profit of £55 mil if the profit of 1mil consoles is 55mil then the net profit of selling lets say 200mil over 4 years world wide is £1bil - the development costs leaves them with a long term profit (after 4 years) of £500 mil

in the short term, your right, but in the long term, sony make a killing

Did sony tell the thief to go steal the persons money? no. ergo sony did not act like the man telling a person to kill.

did sony tell anybody to hurt other people to get thier product? no.

Sony has in no way advocated the use of voilence or thievery to get thier product, so its not even partly thier fault.

Thier is a law against thieving, thier is a law against advicing and/or ordering people to break the law. thats why people who tells other people to kill/steal etc. are targeted and thrown to jail. Sony has done neither.
Thier is no law that says that certain items may not be stealeble,therefor porsche or sony or any other company can not be held responceble when someone chose to steal thier product.
its simply not thier fault, how could it be?

Your the one that didn't secure your object, its not the companies job to think for you. if you are to stupid to insure yourself or your items, or actually make sure what security measures the item comes with and/or how its insured, its your own god damn fault if anything happends to it.
in the case of thievery the thief should of cause if caught pay any damage and loss issues regarding the items.

But thier is no way the producent of an item can be held responceble for you loosing it to a thief.

Did sony tell the thief to go steal the persons money? no. ergo sony did not act like the man telling a person to kill.

did sony tell anybody to hurt other people to get thier product? no.

Sony has in no way advocated the use of voilence or thievery to get thier product, so its not even partly thier fault.
That assumes you're comparing Sony to someone who verbally encites a riot. If you compare them to the one that yells 'FIRE!' in a crouded theater, it works better. The guy never said you should all trample each other, or that it's every man for himself, he just said there was reason for you to want to leave when doing so means hurting other people. He caused a panic without due cause.

Likewise Sony hasn't told anyone to be violent, just told them all that there's a reason they want this (perfectly legal) and that only a few would get it (iffy) which combined to cause panic that would certainly lead to harm and violence.

Your the one that didn't secure your object, its not the companies job to think for you. if you are to stupid to insure yourself or your items, or actually make sure what security measures the item comes with and/or how its insured, its your own god damn fault if anything happends to it. Are you saying people should ensure their PS3s? Are you saying they should take 'security measures' to make sure they get into and out of the store unharmed? That sounds like you think everyone should be carrying a gun to me. I could be putting words in your mouth, I know, but that's what it seems like to me.

All Sony have done is make something and sell it. The product itself does not cause any harm (it's not blowing up in people's faces).

Anybody who feared for their safety should have just NOT gone to the shop to buy one on opening day. If you buy it a week later, then you are no worse off than if Sony had released it a week later with more stock available.

It's only an electronic gadget, people!

Yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater is a poor analogy to the Sony debacle. When you yell fire, you cause a situation where people fear for their lives. Sony created no such panic...most people would kill to save their own life, but not to procure a PS3.

It also differs in the fact that if the theater patrons knew in advance that there was a fair chance someone could yell 'Fire!' and cause a crowded theater to stampede, then each moviegoer could choose for themselves whether or not to attend.

Sony may have set up a *potentially* hazardous situation on purpose(I don't know for sure that they did). However, the fruition of that potential into chaos depended *solely* on the participation of the consumers. If they did not congregate with large sums of cash to buy valuable items at a known time and place, they would be far less likely to be targeted by armed men. Just because Sony invites you to act like an idiot does not mean you must accept the invitation.

You know, this actually may have been a failed attempt by Darwinism adherents to cull the herd. :)

That sounds like you think everyone should be carrying a gun to me. I could be putting words in your mouth, I know, but that's what it seems like to me.How about common sense. Use a bank card or credit card for your purchase, don't go alone to such a situation (like having a large friend/relative with you), and don't dawdle in getting out with your stuff.

well honestly it seems securing anything to you NOG meens to use force. by having an insurence, my items are secured, in a manner of speaking. if a robber breaks in to my house, steal my valueble ps3, i get either the money for a new or a new one.

If i get robbed on the street, for cash. I rpety much lose it (it has to be over 2000kr which is roughly 400$, before anything is covered) but if i lose my creditcard, i call my bank and stop all transactions. and if you read again i never wrote take securit measures, i wrote check what securety measures the item comes with, for instance, what locks are on a car, does it have a car alarm, does my insurance cover it.

So in no way did i imply using force.

Secondly comparing a possible fire, where people fear for thier life, to the sale of an entertaintment item, is silly. they are on so different levels. If people have to be told that a ps3 isn't lifesaving, isn't an object they have to run amok for, its hardly sony faults. there is something completely wrong in thies peoples heads.

How about common sense. Use a bank card or credit card for your purchase, don't go alone to such a situation (like having a large friend/relative with you), and don't dawdle in getting out with your stuff. Earth-shatteringly sound logic from Gnarfflinger there. The only thing I could add to that might be "..and try waiting a few weeks until the rush dies down and the new shipments come out."

Earth-shatteringly sound logic from Gnarfflinger there. The only thing I could add to that might be "..and try waiting a few weeks until the rush dies down and the new shipments come out."You sound surprised, Harbs. Check out the NHL 2006-07 thread in the Colloseum. I'm a Leafs fan, and occasionally I make sense to the resident Montreal Canadiens (longest, bitterest rivals).

I also assumed that you just had to have the BS3--er PS3, sorry, the day it came out. If you must do something like that, use your head a bit...

I also assumed that you just had to have the BS3--er PS3, sorry, the day it came out. If you must do something like that, use your head a bit... In New Zealand you'd just pre-order it and that means you wouldn't have to wait in a queue the night before and you're 100% likely to get one... unless the stores had a policy of having some just on the shelf and not allowing them to be pre-ordered (although I would picture that to simply be mad business practice). If that is the case then any liability is with the store and not Sony.

Saber makes a good point-- I can see exactly why Sony would want to make very few consoles, (ignoring the fact that it invokes a frenzy in gamers everywhere, as we all seem to want what we cannot procure). If Sony makes a set amount on advertising from the publishers that wish to make game(s) for them, and they are losing money for every console they sell, then it makes sense that Sony would want to sell as few units as possible, as they would make a far greater profit. This would buy them time in the long wait for the cost of producing PS3s to go down, after which Sony would no longer be losing money, and equalibrium would be restored, equating in far greater earnings than they would have procured otherwise. I stand fully behind HB in this case-- the only thing Sony is guilty of here is following a brilliant marketing strategy.

I steal ps3s and sell them on ebay