PS3 to be $400 (unofficial)

[Muscelli]

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/06/28/news_6128295.html

please kill me :eek 2:

[Chuplayer]

Metal Gear Solid 4 had better come out on the Revolution, too.

[tritium]

Yep, another system I won't buy at launch. Well above my spending limit.

[Mr.FoodMonster]

Hmm... I think I should wait and see what turns out to be actual release games. Thats whats going to decide it for me.
(PS3, ONE game, Memory Card will equal 500ish... yikes)

[PDorr3]

well thats something i wont have at launch, unless there is one killer game i must have. in the case of the 360 i am buying it at launch solely for elder scrolls 4 oblivion.

[CitizenSnowman]

Have they announced a price for the 360? Sorry ive been out of it for a few weeks.[/quote]

[goatdan]

Apparently, the price for the 360 will be $299.

The most interesting thing to me about that article was Kutargi claiming that people lined up overnight for the PSP and they sold out on their first day. While that is true -- in Japan -- they also didn't make nearly enough product to satisify demand, thus forcing people that wanted it immediately to wait like that.

If the Revolution is going to be a lot cheaper, I think Nintendo should start dancing in the streets. The price of the PS3 will be very high and will therefore turn consumers off, and it isn't like Microsoft has got too many Japanese gamers excited yet. It seems that this could be a huge opening for Nintendo...

[Muscelli]

Apparently, the price for the 360 will be $299.

The most interesting thing to me about that article was Kutargi claiming that people lined up overnight for the PSP and they sold out on their first day. While that is true -- in Japan -- they also didn't make nearly enough product to satisify demand, thus forcing people that wanted it immediately to wait like that.

If the Revolution is going to be a lot cheaper, I think Nintendo should start dancing in the streets. The price of the PS3 will be very high and will therefore turn consumers off, and it isn't like Microsoft has got too many Japanese gamers excited yet. It seems that this could be a huge opening for Nintendo...

I hope nintendo has good marketing for this gen, really...that would kick so much ass
http://www.neo-geo.com/ubb/huggies.jpg

[zmweasel]

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/06/28/news_6128295.html

please kill me :eek 2:

To clarify, this article discusses unofficial speculation by Merrill Lynch Japan; Sony has NOT officially announced a PS3 price point. MLJ also assumes that the Xbox 360 will sell for $299, but that price point hasn't been officially announced, either.

That being said, MLJ are gin-u-wine economic experts, and their numbers look pretty damn solid to me.

-- Z.

[QBert]

Those are some insane numbers! @_@

Oh and die Sony die.

[Mattiekrome]

*runs to wal-mart to buy super discounted PS2 and XBOX games on launch day*

I just dont play enough to really put that much $$$ into a system at launch (well not anymore at least)

[atomicthumbs]

Well... There is no way in hell my woman would let me get one for that price. No way in hell.

Yeah. She rules the checkbook... Wanna fight about it?!

[Tony Montana]

Thats actually not that bad a price, I was expecting it to be more for the PS3 and more than 299 for the XBox 360.

[retroman]

i will still get one...but that still sucks

[Nez]

Time do what I've allways done. Wait a couple of years for good games to come out, then drop to GH or under $20. Then find a decent used system. So for me the next gen is a good 2 years away.

[kevincure]

As Zach said, unofficial. I know a bunch of people doing corporate research - unless you have past links with a company (say Zou Marketing/Nike China) it's impossible to get data that accurate.

The $494 per unit seems plausible, and even a 40000+ yen launch in Japan, but I can't see Sony USA putting a 400 dollar product out the door. Better just to sell at a bigger loss for the first six months but not meet full consumer demand so that when everyone finally buys the system, Sony's loss isn't as great. So, yeah, basically what happened in 2000.

[TeddyRuxpin]

[opinionated prediction]
Watch the Revolution be the lowest cost and outsell 360 and PS3 at lauch due to lower cost.
[/opinionated prediction]

Nintendo tries to keep it's prices down as much as possible which is at least one reason why they've survived so long.

GC has been $100 for quite a long time while XBOX & PS2 are still over $100. Seems to me that GC titles probably carry more resale value than PS2/XBOX games.

My reasoning is, if someone mods their PS2/XBOX system and can copy/DL games, why keep the real ones? They can get some quick cash for them at a pawn shop. Not the case with GC. You're pretty much stuck using only legal games for it.

Seems to me that probably helps game sales since they don't run rampant online for free. But at the same tmie, it's probably hurt the GC system sales overall. You have to give Nintendo credit for avoiding widespread piracy on the GC though.

[Aussie2B]

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it was $500.

However, even at $200, it would be too much for my broke ass. Only a tri-Ace game can convince me to fork out hundreds for a system, and in that scenario, I'd likely be importing a Japanese console. I STILL don't have a US PS2 since Sony is being such a tight ass about dropping the price. A $100 PS2 is LONG overdue, in my opinion. The original PlayStation came out in '95, and by '99, it was 100 bucks. The PS2 has been out since 2000, so... WHERE'S MY DAMN $100 PRICE DROP? XBox needs another price drop too. :/

So yeah... who the hell knows when I'll get into the next generation... I may have to wait well into the coming generation before I can seriously get into this current one.

[zmweasel]

Nintendo tries to keep it's prices down as much as possible which is at least one reason why they've survived so long.

Could you cite a few examples of Nintendo's low-price strategy, other than the (incorrect) one you offer below?


GC has been $100 for quite a long time while XBOX & PS2 are still over $100. Seems to me that GC titles probably carry more resale value than PS2/XBOX games.

The GC was dropped to $99 remarkably soon after its launch because it wasn't (and still isn't) selling as well as the PS2 or Xbox. If the GC was #1 in the North American market instead of #3, it wouldn't be at a $99 price point. The PS2 and Xbox fly off the shelves at $149.

As for resale value, GC titles are produced in smaller quantities than PS2 and Xbox titles, and the GC has a harder-core audience than the other systems--not that the resale value of used games benefits Nintendo (or any other hardware or software manufacturer) in any way.


Seems to me that probably helps game sales since they don't run rampant online for free. But at the same tmie, it's probably hurt the GC system sales overall. You have to give Nintendo credit for avoiding widespread piracy on the GC though.

So the GC isn't selling as well as the PS2 or Xbox because of piracy? That theory isn't supported by software sales, since there are far more best-selling PS2 and Xbox titles than GC titles, when you're arguing that shouldn't be the case.

-- Z.

[Anthony1]

If the PS3 can really play Blu-Ray High Def movies, without any special add on, then $400 is a freaking bargain.

Personally, I don't see how it would be possible. Not this spring. Maybe November 2006. Maybe.


Blu-Ray DVD movie players are supposed to come out this X-Mas, and they are going to cost in the neighborhood of 1 grand.

So how the hell do they put that in the PS3, along with all of the other PS3 technology, and then sell it for $400? Even if they don't launch in the U.S. till November 2006.


As for it being way to expensive, sure, nobody is looking forward to parting with $500 on launch day (system + one game + tax). But if Killzone really looks like that demo, and Killzone is available that day, then I will rob a bank to buy one if I have to.

[Mianrtcv]

$400.00. What's the expression I'm looking for... hmm... Oh right GTFO. Yes hardware is expensive. Yes it's launch day. No I can't be there. Too much $$$$. There are still many decent games I don't have to sacrifice that money for. Titles are $20 and under more and more. You could start a sweet collection for many systems for that coin. JMO.

[anagrama]

Didn't we hear the exact same speculation before the PS2 & XBox?

[Sothy]

well thats something i wont have at launch, unless there is one killer game i must have. in the case of the 360 i am buying it at launch solely for elder scrolls 4 oblivion.

Same here man.

OBlivion will be badass.

[chrisbid]

my console spending limit is 200 dollars, i guess it will be awhile before i buy a ps3 :/

[BrokenFlight]

Why do things seem to be so much cheaper in America? How much was the PS2 on launch over there? It was £300 here so roughly $500 (actually $540 in todays money). I predict the PS3 will be £300 for its first year as well.

I'm going to get a PS3 as soon as GTA 4 come out, if not sooner. That's the main reason why I'm a PS fanboy.

[kevincure]

Part of the reason is that you guys build in a VAT, so it's gonna be 20% or so more in any case. We don't use VAT in the US.

The other reason is that you guys get screwed. Price discrimination, my friend. Almost everyone thinks US consumers are more price sensitive that Euro consumers. One last reason is that distribution and retail is a much more efficient sector in the US, but that's changing very quickly as EU catches up and it's not really a major part of the cost anyway.

[Sylentwulf]

I imagine I'll still have about a year's worth of catching up to do on my ps2 by the time the ps3 comes out, plus the fact they'll be releasing ps2 games for a good 6 months after launch. I'll buy it when it hits $200 probly (which is still high for me, I usually wait till $150 or $100)

[Sylentwulf]

I imagine I'll still have about a year's worth of catching up to do on my ps2 by the time the ps3 comes out, plus the fact they'll be releasing ps2 games for a good 6 months after launch. I'll buy it when it hits $200 probly (which is still high for me, I usually wait till $150 or $100)

[kaustik]

I love launch days. It means I can finally start catching up on all the games I missed the previous few years at a reasonable price. I'll let all of those that want to drop that kind of cash be my beta testers for a few years. By then I will know what games are really garbage/hype and I can join the frey with a used console purchase.

[spider-man]

The only way I'll buy the ps3 at that price would be if MGS 4 or DMC 4 were to be launch titles (thankfully, they don't seem to be launch titles, giving the developers much needed time to make the games the best in their respective series).

[sabre2922]

It will be a small miracle if the PS3 releases for $399 or less considering that sony says it will play everything from PSone games to Blu-ray movies just about any current disk format except HDdvd in fact.

Doesnt really matter to me though since there are like over 500 PSone and PS2 games I have yet to acquire playthrough and finish ;) it will be a looong time before Ill be looking to upgrade unless I give in to the temptation of getting an Xbox360 early on or around its launch date :embarrassed:

[john_soper]

If the PS3 can really play Blu-Ray High Def movies, without any special add on, then $400 is a freaking bargain.

I'm with you, hi def movies are going to rule. They're probably going to make the filtered down broadcast hi-def look cheesy (except for PBS and Discovery channel).
Sony is playing the console and hi-def game to win, things are going to get interesting.

[Rogmeister]

I'm not sure I'm ever going to even want another system. I do know that if I ever do get another system, I'm not going to pay more than $200 for it. For now, the systems I have now (and their selection of games) are enough for me.

[Crush Crawfish]

I'm with the guys who are waiting. I know I'll eventually buy a PS3, but $400 is way too much. I'll wait a few years for price drops on the system and games. My PS2 and Gamecube still have plenty of life in them, and I still don't own an xbox. I'll probably end up buying a revolution on launch day though.

[Rogmeister]

I've really not even been following any of the information though I have seen a bit on the new XBox. Have they announced if the new Nintendo system will use regular sized discs or will they still use the small ones?

[Slimedog]

Unless you've got cash to burn, I don't see why anybody buys on launch day. I buy everything used and probably won't get the next gen consoles until after the first price cut. There is still plenty of great stuff out and coming for the current gen to keep me happy for a looooong time and this way I don't get stuck with a Thompson drive of the engineering equivalent thereof.

Just by used and let some other sucker take the value hit of peeling off the shrinkwrap.

[Griking]

If I had an extra $400 to blow I'd probably pick up a new video card for my PC over a PS3. The games are cheaper and I bet that the PC version of Obvilion looks just as good or better than any PS3 game at the time.

[lendelin]

First, these price tags are speculations. We just don't know. If I had a dollar for every time educated guesses by economic experts were wrong, I'd be a rich man.

Second, it is mute to speculate about the price for the PS3 BECAUSE the price and sales numbers of the 360 will in part determine it. The initiative is with MS. If they sell for $300 and the sales numbers in the first six months or in the first year are impressive or stay below expected sales, Sony will adapt. Additionally, Sony will be flexible when it comes to the price for the three different markets, Japan, USA, and Europe, all in part influnced by the success of the 360 in these different markets.

[Tony Montana]

[opinionated prediction]
Watch the Revolution be the lowest cost and outsell 360 and PS3 at lauch due to lower cost.
[/opinionated prediction]

Nintendo tries to keep it's prices down as much as possible which is at least one reason why they've survived so long.

GC has been $100 for quite a long time while XBOX & PS2 are still over $100. Seems to me that GC titles probably carry more resale value than PS2/XBOX games.

My reasoning is, if someone mods their PS2/XBOX system and can copy/DL games, why keep the real ones? They can get some quick cash for them at a pawn shop. Not the case with GC. You're pretty much stuck using only legal games for it.

Seems to me that probably helps game sales since they don't run rampant online for free. But at the same tmie, it's probably hurt the GC system sales overall. You have to give Nintendo credit for avoiding widespread piracy on the GC though.

Wow, thats about all I can say about this.

The Gamecube and has been the cheapest because that is the only way they could get people to consider buying it. The selection and quality of games, with a few exceptions, is [i]at best poor.

[Rogmeister]

My question is how sturdy the PS3 will be. I use my PS2 the least and have had no problems with it but I always get the impression it just wouldn't handle abuse as well as the XBox which is heavy which gives it the impression it's a tank. Of course, as always, the software will depend what I buy...though, again, it won't be right away.

[poopnes]

The PS3 will launch at $299. Pure and simple. Not only is this Sony's entry into the next-gen, but its also their entry into high-def DVD's. The more PS3's they sell, the more Blue-Ray has an advantage. It's their "trojan horse". Plus I'm sure the 360 will be $299 by the time the PS3 launches. I'm still not sure if the 360 will be $299 at launch. I know they want that installed base, but they also are the only one's playing the game right now.

[AMG]

If in fact the PS3 does retail at $399, then I will pass one at launch.

My limit is $299 for any new console. I'll just grab the PS3 at a later date.

[RCM]

Kutaragi did say something to the effect that the PS3 was going to have a high pricetag and that Sony won't drop the price along its lifespan in the same way they did for previous systems. PS3 is supposed to be a computer right? A computer that doesn't ship with a HD is amazing to me.

I wouldn't be shocked if the $399 price point sticks. THe PS3 has a rough battle ahead with the 360. I get the impression that MS is going to pull out all the stops to combat the PS3. I'll call it now, MS has the edge in North America and Europe while Sony and Nintendo beat MS handily in Japan. Although 360 won't do as bad as Xbox.

I call the Revolution Nintendo's farewell tour. They've lost ground in each generation. Will this trend continue? All signs point to yes. The NES was the real revolution, not this mystery machine.

Don't give me that "Nintendo is still profitable though." If not for the Gameboy line and Pokemon Nintendo might have had to say goodbye sooner. If the Revolution is an even greater failure than Gamecube this is probably it as far as home consoles. You can all PM with hatemail.

THE ONE, THE ONLY-RCM

[Aussie2B]

I call the Revolution Nintendo's farewell tour. They've lost ground in each generation. Will this trend continue? All signs point to yes. The NES was the real revolution, not this mystery machine.

Don't give me that "Nintendo is still profitable though." If not for the Gameboy line and Pokemon Nintendo might have had to say goodbye sooner. If the Revolution is an even greater failure than Gamecube this is probably it as far as home consoles. You can all PM with hatemail.

I think you're more likely to get hatemail for starting another "OMG so-and-so company is going to die soon!!1!" topic rather than because you're suggesting Nintendo is on its last leg. People here are getting tired of that kind of stuff, regardless of what company is being discussed. Ever since Sega got out of the hardware business, everyone wants to be the prophet of a coming apocalypse.

Anyway, has the GameCube really done any worse than the N64? As far as I can tell, it hasn't. Sure, they don't have the market share that they did with the NES and SNES, but a very different industry exists now.

[zmweasel]

Anyway, has the GameCube really done any worse than the N64? As far as I can tell, it hasn't. Sure, they don't have the market share that they did with the NES and SNES, but a very different industry exists now.

In North America, the GameCube has indeed done worse than the N64, selling fewer hardware units and possessing a smaller market share. But the NA market has seemingly grown to the point where Nintendo can survive in third place.

-- Z.

[RCM]

I call the Revolution Nintendo's farewell tour. They've lost ground in each generation. Will this trend continue? All signs point to yes. The NES was the real revolution, not this mystery machine.

Don't give me that "Nintendo is still profitable though." If not for the Gameboy line and Pokemon Nintendo might have had to say goodbye sooner. If the Revolution is an even greater failure than Gamecube this is probably it as far as home consoles. You can all PM with hatemail.

I think you're more likely to get hatemail for starting another "OMG so-and-so company is going to die soon!!1!" topic rather than because you're suggesting Nintendo is on its last leg. People here are getting tired of that kind of stuff, regardless of what company is being discussed. Ever since Sega got out of the hardware business, everyone wants to be the prophet of a coming apocalypse.

Anyway, has the GameCube really done any worse than the N64? As far as I can tell, it hasn't. Sure, they don't have the market share that they did with the NES and SNES, but a very different industry exists now.

Na, Nintendo isn't going to die anytime soon. I'm not saying that. But the Rev could very well mark the end for Nintendo brand home consoles. That doesn't mean the big N will fold.

As for the "regardless of what company is being discussed" thing. Nobody really discusses MS or Sony. Nintendo is the low man on the totem my friend.

I don't know the the installed base of GC vs N64. One thing the N64 did having going for it was it was able to compete with Sony for a time. At first it looked as if N64 was going to be Nntendo's return to pure dominance. Obviously didn't happen. Looking back its as if the GC was almost DOA. It's incredible.

NES held a vast majority of the videogame market. Nintendo's share was slashed significantly with the SNES. Slashed again for the N64 and again for GC. They keep tumbling. Sorry for getting off topice people.

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[Aussie2B]

As for the "regardless of what company is being discussed" thing. Nobody really discusses MS or Sony. Nintendo is the low man on the totem my friend.

Actually there has been topics about Microsoft dying in the next generation, Microsoft beating Sony, other various companies dying, etc. Everybody these days wants to make some big claim, usually based on what they HOPE happens (or out of pessimism, what they hope doesn't happen but worry will).

Anyway, while it's understandable that Nintendo would have a smaller market share than they did in the days of the N64 (since now they have BOTH Sony and Microsoft to deal with, instead of just Sony [competition from the Saturn was virtually nonexistent]), has it really been a SIGNIFICANT difference in hardware and game sales from the N64 days? The GameCube will end up with roughly the same number of games as the N64, right? That's one way in which they're quite similar.

[zmweasel]

Anyway, while it's understandable that Nintendo would have a smaller market share than they did in the days of the N64 (since now they have BOTH Sony and Microsoft to deal with, instead of just Sony [competition from the Saturn was virtually nonexistent]), has it really been a SIGNIFICANT difference in hardware and game sales from the N64 days? The GameCube will end up with roughly the same number of games as the N64, right? That's one way in which they're quite similar.

The Nintendo 64 sold through nearly 33 million hardware units worldwide.

Through March 2005, the GameCube has sold in 18.5 million hardware units worldwide.

That is a significant drop.

The GameCube won't surpass the N64 in hardware sales. It won't even come close. If we generously estimate a final count of 22 million GameCubes sold through, the N64-to-GC drop is 33%.

Is 22 million units sold through a success or a failure? Depends on your definitions.

To address your second point, the GameCube already has a larger library than the N64, but it's not a fair comparison, since the GC's discs are cheaper to manufacture (and pose less financial risk to third-party publishers) than the N64's carts.

-- Z.

[Aussie2B]

With the way stores treat the GameCube, you wouldn't think it has more titles than the N64. :P A lot of stores have had barely any titles for quite some time now.

On the rarity guide, the N64 nearly fills up three pages, while the GameCube is on its fifth. So I'm guessing the GameCube will end up with roughly 200 more titles than the N64? Not a huge difference to me, but then again, it is somewhat close to double the N64's library.

Sadly, though, there's still less on the GameCube that interests me than on the N64. :/

[Anthony1]

I wouldn't be shocked if the $399 price point sticks. THe PS3 has a rough battle ahead with the 360. I get the impression that MS is going to pull out all the stops to combat the PS3. I'll call it now, MS has the edge in North America and Europe while Sony and Nintendo beat MS handily in Japan. Although 360 won't do as bad as Xbox.

I call the Revolution Nintendo's farewell tour. They've lost ground in each generation. Will this trend continue? All signs point to yes. The NES was the real revolution, not this mystery machine.

Don't give me that "Nintendo is still profitable though." If not for the Gameboy line and Pokemon Nintendo might have had to say goodbye sooner. If the Revolution is an even greater failure than Gamecube this is probably it as far as home consoles. You can all PM with hatemail.

THE ONE, THE ONLY-RCM


Wow bro. You are dead on.

My sentiments exactly.

[squidblatt]

Unless you've got cash to burn, I don't see why anybody buys on launch day. I buy everything used and probably won't get the next gen consoles until after the first price cut. There is still plenty of great stuff out and coming for the current gen to keep me happy for a looooong time and this way I don't get stuck with a Thompson drive of the engineering equivalent thereof.

Just by used and let some other sucker take the value hit of peeling off the shrinkwrap.

You expressed my sentiments exactly. Used is the way to go. Plus, I got screwed with a Tompson and no way am I going to be a sucker again.

[GizmoGC]

I still can't beleive Sony would launch the PS3 at $400. Wouldn't the parts be considerably cheaper when it does in fact ship (Since PS3 is over a year away, I would assume parts/chips would drop in price which means a cheaper PS3). Im still 50/50 on an Xbox 360...Still gotta see the price and luanch titles. Revolutuon will be a for sure thing for me. I have yet to ever be dissapointed in Nintendo. All of Nintendo's first part games have been awesome, I can't say that about Sony and Microsoft. If Nintendo is able to pop out 5-6 quality titles a year, it warrants a purchase from me.

[Bronty-2]

I have a hard time believing it too. Didn't this just happen with the PSP? ie. rumoured $400, actual $300?

[SuperNES]

i just saw it on attack of the show, and it is official, the ps3 will be $399.99. (aka $400)

[RCM]

i just saw it on attack of the show, and it is official, the ps3 will be $399.99. (aka $400)

I checked around and found nothing. Even if the PS3 base unit is $399 you're still probably going to have to buy an HD which totally blows.

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[Ed Oscuro]

If it's $399, perhaps the parts will be super high-quality? Hmm...it will be a whole new type of drive, as well (though compatible with DVD and CD).

[Anthony1]

$399 for the PS3 is actually a dirt cheap price for it, considering all the technology inside it.


You guys have to understand that this thing is also going to play Blu-Ray High Def DVD movies. Standalone Blu-Ray High Def DVD movie players are going to cost around a grand each this X-Mas. These standalone players aren't going to do anything but play the movies, and they are going to cost a grand!


Even by the time the PS3 launches, (which in my opinion won't be earlier than August 2006 in the U.S.) standalone Blu-Ray DVD movie players will still likely cost around $500 or $400, and again, that's just to be able to play the movies. That has nothing to do with any other technology that the PS3 will include.


So the fact that the PS3, is going to be able to play Blu-Ray High Def movies, plus games, and only cost $399.99 is actually pretty amazing. So the value is there for anybody that can appreciate movies in High Def. At some point in time, we are all going to need Blu Ray DVD players anyways, so why not get one super heavily discounted in our PS3 systems?






Now, the greater question of course, is would Sony be better off approaching this whole thing like Microsoft is doing? Microsoft isn't going to have a High Def DVD drive in the 360 (at least initially) to keep the costs down so that they can launch the 360 at the (relatively) consumer friendly price of $299.99.


Microsoft knows that if they included a Toshiba HD-DVD drive in their 360, they would have to dramatically increase the price of the 360.

The current theory is that you will be able to update the DVD drive in the 360 to HD-DVD at a later date, and that at some point, brand new 360 units will have the HD-DVD drive built in, but Microsoft wants to keep the price at $299 or less, so that means no HD-DVD drive initially.

Sony has different motivations. They feel that putting a Blu-Ray player in their PS3 is the ultimate trump card (against Toshiba and HD-DVD), and that they will be able to use the PS3 as a trojan horse to solidify the Blu-Ray format and to win the format war for them. The royalties from controlling a new media format would give them much greater revenues than the PS3 could ever accomplish by itself, so they are using the PS3 to give Blu-Ray a huge boost in the battle with HD-DVD.


Of course, this is a huge gamble for Sony, and the stakes are ridiculously high. Because they are using the PS3 as a trojan horse for Blu-Ray, it requires that they are going to have a Blu-Ray drive in the PS3, and that makes the price higher than it would otherwise have been. Sony is gambling that consumers will pay more than they are normally accustomed to paying for a "supercomputer" cough "video game system" cough.

This is why they keep calling the PS3 a "supercomputer" and it's not just a video game system, and that games are only part of the equation.

The reason they are saying that, is because they know that consumers will have to come to grips with paying $399, rather than the normal $299 launch price, and they are trying to give these consumers a reason to think about the PS3 differently. People have a hard time paying over $300 for a "toy". So Sony has the task of walking the tightrope between it being a game system and being much more than a game system. They know that Hardcore gamers don't like to hear that it's anything other than a game system. They also know that casual consumers have a hard time spending over $300 on a "toy". So they are going to have to walk a fine line. They have to convince the hard core gamers that the PS3 is first and foremost a kick ass game system, but on the other hand they have to convince the casual consumer that the PS3 is so much more than just a toy for video games.


The bottom line is that Sony is taking a major risk by using the PS3 to try to win a Media format war, but they decided to do this, so they are going to have to deal with the consequences of it.

If the PS3 sells as well as the PS2 did, despite the increase of the price, then the gamble will have paid off for Sony. Blu-Ray will likely be the more popular format, with more Blu-Ray players being in consumers hands (via the PS3) then Toshiba's HD-DVD.


But if the price of the PS3 is just too rich for the casual consumer, and the casual consumer sees the XBOX 360 and games like Gears of War, and they are happy enough with that, and the lower price of the 360, then Sony could end up not only losing huge ground in the gaming market, but also losing huge ground in the more important (for them) media war between Blu-Ray and HD-DVD.


It's really going to be a very interesting thing to see how all of this plays out. Money talks and bullshit walks. We know this. No matter how incredible the PS3 might be, there is a certain point where consumers will say, "I'm sorry this is just too damn expensive".


The question is, is $399 that point?



The jury is out on that. Sure, in the past, systems have failed miserably when they have launched above $299, but then again, none of those systems had a game like Killzone 2. If Killzone 2 is real, and it really looks like that, then consumers might just be willing to forgive Sony for the price and understand that ultimately it's worth it to pay more for such superior technology, plus the fact they can now rent Blu-Ray High Def DVD movies at Blockbuster.


Well just have to wait and see how this plays out, and unfortunately, "Joe Sixpack" is the guy that's going to ultimately decide all of this.

[Ed Oscuro]

$399 for the PS3 is actually a dirt cheap price for it, considering all the technology inside it.

You guys have to understand that this thing is also going to play Blu-Ray High Def DVD movies. Standalone Blu-Ray High Def DVD movie players are going to cost around a grand each this X-Mas.
My problem is that if those systems are substantially the same as the PS3, I fear that corners will be cut on production in addition to the Sony loss on each console sold. That and perhaps this is yet another indicator that Sony electronics are overpriced ;D