If the PS3 was priced at $500 would price be of a concern?

[zerohero]

Just a quick question for today. If the PS3 was gonna have a launch price of $500, would price still be a concern?

[Joker T]

The 20 GB version is $500.

Yes I still think it would be a concern, that much money for a stripped down version is insane.

[Mayhem]

Yes. Aside from the 3D0 and NeoGeo, what other hardware has launched over $400?

[jajaja]

Yes. Aside from the 3D0 and NeoGeo, what other hardware has launched over $400?

You mean in USA or Worldwide? PS2 at launch costed over $800 at launch here. I think Xbox was $600. PSX was about $500. Still they sold very well. So the PS3 pricetag wont matter much, atleast not over here. The PS3 will also cost about $800 here at launch, the same as PS2. PS2 have sold over 100 million and are still selling well. So the PS3 will sell good anyway. Pricedrop always come.

Wasnt SegaCD and 32X very expencive too?

[Richter Belmount]

does anyone remember when it was hard to swallow 300 for a ps2 at launch?

[Towlie2110]

lol Nintendo has had a successful next gen sequel since the NES.

[jajaja]

lol Nintendo has had a successful next gen sequel since the NES.

I dont really consider N64 and GC as a huge success. N64 games were too expencive compared to the PSX games and PS2 beats both GC and Xbox.

[dbiersdorf]

You seem to forget about a system called the "Super NES". x_x

[jajaja]

No, I didnt mention SNES because it was a huge success. N64 and GC wasnt that big compared to NES and SNES.

[Oobgarm]

Back on topic here.

We still don't know all of the ins and outs of the system, particularly how their online setup will work, etc. Of course, certain games will sell systems, but at this stage in the technology race, though, I think the small creature comforts the system offers and other minutae will be the deciding factor for the consumer if they're on the fence. We can form assumptions based on the knowledge we do have, and with that in mind, I come to this conclusion:

The PS3 needs to match the price of the 360 in order to be successful. It'll sell, sure, but mainly to those who are hardcore folk. Some casuals will get it, and a few parents who are looking to really spoil their kids.

But launching the system at a price signifigantly higher than the 360 puts MS in the advantageous position of being able to cut their system's price, even by a small amount, and be a much better value. Even putting the PS3 at $500 makes this scenario plausible.

So, no. I don't think so. Price would still be a concern.

[Push Upstairs]

$500 is still too much to drop on a game system.

*ANY* game system.

[Niku-Sama]

these proces are insanely too high

the $229 roumered for the Revolution is a little hard but to be expected seeing how they are adding something to the games with their controllers which are going to be expencive

[Darren870]

I got a neo geo candy cabinet for $450, I have and will have more fun on that then a ps3 could offer me.

It would have to be $300 for me to consider buying it just based on the reputation of sony with there ps2.

So no, i dont think even $500 would be good. I think there reputation with the ps2 really will hurt them in this run, people are going to hestate buying a $600 system when they had to go through 9 of the previous companies systems.

[Garry Silljo]

No, I didnt mention SNES because it was a huge success. N64 and GC wasnt that big compared to NES and SNES.

So since it destroys your arguement then it doesn't count?! You sir, make no sense.

[Muscelli]

I think 500 is a little hefty, sure, for what youre getting.. Its a bargain, but fuck paying 500 dollars+ They should have left blu ray out, and just launched the PS3 later, or at least have a place holder to control the 360 that used DVD9.. People still would have bought it.. Now what theyre doing now is risky business

[7th lutz]

$500.00 is to much for any system.

[lendelin]

Price is always a concern, and every price topping your main competitor restricts your sales.

The $500/$600 price tag of the PS3 makes the 360 very strong. In my opiniuon the heavy price tag is a big mistake by Sony facing a serious competitor offering a gerat system with great games very comparable to the PS3.

[p_b]

I definitely won't pay that kind of money for what...let's say 2-3 games which really interest me at the moment. Especially when most of the games are "updated" versions of games you can play on your old consoles. However, in a year or maybe even two, the price will be much more reasonable and there'll be plenty of good and original games to play. That's when I'll get my PS3.

[Anthony1]

Sony as a company is making a tragic mistake. They are so desperate to see Blu Ray succed that they are throwing their No.1 Marketshare position down the fucking drain. It's very sad to me. I could say that they are arrogant as fuck, and deserve to have their ass handed to them, but the reality is that Sony has been good for gaming. The Playstation 1 was a marvelous product. You can't really talk any smack about the original Playstation. Is was a tremendous design, the perfect system, at the perfect time. The PS2 was an engineering dissaster, but in spite of that, it was successful because the 3rd parties showered it with their best efforts. The PS2 clearly has the best overall library of games in the most recent generation. Unfortunately, all the success has gone to managements head, and they are making absolutely assinine decisions because of it.


Sony is well aware that Blu Ray's only chance of success is with PS3 dominance. Unfortunately, the PS3 has absolutely no chance of dominating because of the extreme cost of the system. No other company in video game history has taken a "net loss per unit" that Sony is going to take with the PS3. The PS3 costs $500 and $600 for good fucking reason. Even at those extreme high prices, Sony is going to take an absolute bath with each PS3 sold. For every 1 million PS3 systems sold, Sony will be losing 260 million. Can you fucking believe that? I know Microsoft is losing 160 million for every million sold, but 160 is much different from 260. And it could be even more than 260. That's the scary thing. The $600 version could cost $880 to bring to market or even more.


If Blu Ray and the PS3 turn out to be failures for Sony, their valuation as a company could be cut in half. That's no freaking joke. That is how big a gamble these guys are taking. You have to admire them in way for having the fucking balls to basically put the future of their entire company on the line over Blu Ray. The sad fact is that Blu Ray is actually an inferior product to HD-DVD, and it cost's more to boot! This is not any kind of fanboyism on my part either. Don't believe me? Then would you believe Blu Ray early adopters? Okay, then read this post at the avsforum:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=690621


This is a poll asking Blu Ray owners about their opinion on Blu Ray. Even diehard Blu Ray supporters are admitting that single layer BD's with MP2 encoding are vastly inferior to dual layered HD-DVD with VC1. Sony needs to get off their ass and start using VC1, and figure out how to make dual layered BD's a reality. The fact is, that dual layered BD's don't actually exist in reality. It's still in the lab, because they can't figure out a way to manufacture it correctly yet. It could be another year or even more before they figure out how to mass produce dual layered BD's. They have to accept that using a 10 year old codec is going to be suicide when they are using a 25 gig disk. Just because Microsoft made VC1, they are stubbornly refusing to use it, when it's 100 times more efficient. MP2 as a 10 year old codec for BD is abslutely retarded.


SONY IS GOING TO LOSE. PERIOD.


it's actually very sad for me, cause I'm a total graphics whore, and the PS3 can do real 1080p, and it has the most pure horsepower, and games like Naughty Dog's untitled game, are going to be tremendously immersive and revolutionary experiences, when it comes to the dazzling of the audio/visual senses. True 1080p on a HDTV that can actually accept a true 1080p signal and display it, is the absolute cream of the crop. Nothing can touch it. The PS3 is the only thing that can do it, and the fact that it's going to be 3rd in the console race is very dissapointing, because I'm going to get a lot less content on that then I would otherwise.

[jajaja]

No, I didnt mention SNES because it was a huge success. N64 and GC wasnt that big compared to NES and SNES.

So since it destroys your arguement then it doesn't count?! You sir, make no sense.

Er.. did you actually think before you wrote this or were you too busy trying to diss me? What argument is being destroyed? You dont make much sense here. And did you read what he wrote? He said Nintendo had successful next gen sequels since NES. Then i said N64 and GC wasnt really that big of a success. Why on earth should i mention SNES here when it was a huge success? That sir, would make no sense.

If you try to talk shit, read before u post, i strongly recommend it so you wont make a total ass out of yourself like you did now. Got a good laugh tho, thanks for that.

[smork]

I'll just avoid the above nascent flame war...

I think $500 is too much. I think $400 for the XBOX 360 (desireable pack, that is) is too much. Why? Hundreds of great PS2/XBOX/GC games I haven't even played (and are still coming out). Tone of great classic games I haven't played.

Am I representative of the market? Obviously not, I'm a videogame geek who likes classic stuff. But I think when people compare two products they're on the fence about, see that one is lower priced, similar quality, and already has a library of games they make up their mind to go for that system.

Maybe PS3 will launch with a few killer aps, great commercials, and acclaim (not the company!) and prove me wrong. But I see anything more than what people are already paying for XBOX 360 as a strong negative for the buying public.

[Jibbajaba]

I'll just avoid the above nascent flame war...

I think $500 is too much. I think $400 for the XBOX 360 (desireable pack, that is) is too much. Why? Hundreds of great PS2/XBOX/GC games I haven't even played (and are still coming out). Tone of great classic games I haven't played.

Am I representative of the market? Obviously not, I'm a videogame geek who likes classic stuff. But I think when people compare two products they're on the fence about, see that one is lower priced, similar quality, and already has a library of games they make up their mind to go for that system.

Maybe PS3 will launch with a few killer aps, great commercials, and acclaim (not the company!) and prove me wrong. But I see anything more than what people are already paying for XBOX 360 as a strong negative for the buying public.

I agree with you completely. There are so many games for XBox, PS2, and GC that I have not yet finished or even started, that I have absolutely no reason to buy ANY next gen console. The PS3 would have to be $250 or less and FULLY backwards compatible before I would even consider it. But as you said, I am not representative of the market as a whole.

Chris

[playgeneration]

Im struggling to have any enthusiasm for the 360 and its crop of games, so i really wont be getting excited over the PS3 which is looking like just the same kind of console but more expensive.
Perhaps im getting old and stuck in my ways but im not really bothered about hi-def graphics or paying to play online against a bunch of idiots. So the logical choice of console for me is the Wii, as its a lot cheaper and will have some innovative game experiences.
PS3 and even the 360 are going to need some very impressive must have games if they expect to match and improve on the previous generations sales. Shinier higher res versions of the same old games really isnt going to cut it.

Having said that Resident evil 5 will probably force me to buy either a 360 or ps3 when it comes out

[Bronty-2]

No, I didnt mention SNES because it was a huge success. N64 and GC wasnt that big compared to NES and SNES.

So since it destroys your arguement then it doesn't count?! You sir, make no sense.

Er.. did you actually think before you wrote this or were you too busy trying to diss me? What argument is being destroyed? You dont make much sense here. And did you read what he wrote? He said Nintendo had successful next gen sequels since NES. Then i said N64 and GC wasnt really that big of a success. Why on earth should i mention SNES here when it was a huge success? That sir, would make no sense.

If you try to talk shit, read before u post, i strongly recommend it so you wont make a total ass out of yourself like you did now. Got a good laugh tho, thanks for that.

Honestly, the guy had a point. You had mentioned that ps2 was the first back-to-back success, which they are pointing out isn't true - see snes. I don't know if it was just the way you worded it or whatever, but it made it seem like you were saying ps2 was the first when the snes clearly is.

[playgeneration]

saying that ps1-ps2 or nes-snes were the first twice in a row success stories really depends on what country you live in. In Europe the Master System was very successful, it did a lot better than the nes, and the megadrive (genesis) did better than the snes here too.

C64 and Amiga were both immensly popular in their times, while both are computers on the face of it, everyone used them for games, and they both had console versions of the hardware too.

[jajaja]

Honestly, the guy had a point. You had mentioned that ps2 was the first back-to-back success, which they are pointing out isn't true - see snes. I don't know if it was just the way you worded it or whatever, but it made it seem like you were saying ps2 was the first when the snes clearly is.

Bronty, the reason why i mentioned PSX and PS2 was because these did sell better than N64 and GC, and that they were one of the reasons why N64 and GC didnt sell so good. I never compared the sucess of PSX and PS2 with NES or SNES, nor did i mention or think about back-to-back success. I dont know how someone came to this conclution.

All i wanted to point out was that N64 and GC wasnt that a big success as Nintendo had hoped for.

EDIT: Fixed some typos.

[swlovinist]

The price of the PS3 is so far beyond its fanbase, I think that Sony is in for a suprise. Yes, I think that people will buy the system, just not the numbers anywhere near what Sony is looking for. I dont think that 500 dollars will matter either. Sony strives on meeting the needs of the "average gamer". I personally think that is why the PS2 was so successful. Huge library, good controller, good games, backwards compatable, and most of all, decent price. The public embraced the PS2 due to the strong demand for not only a gaming machine but also a DVD player. At the time, the PS2 was a good deal at 300. Now that the slim is at 129.99 I think that it will continue to sell very well. The PS3 does not offer enough encentive to spend double of what its predecessor cost. The other factor will be the cost of the Blu Ray games. I am hearing rumors that they could cost more. This again is not in line with the "average gamer" the solid fanbase of the PS2. Price does matter with the general public. Prices of games matter with the general public. If it is anything, the PS3 will fuel loyal followers to pursue to buy a PSP and to wait on the PS3. I myself am not even considering the PS3, and will be lucky enough to scrape enough to buy a Wii.

[Griking]

Just a quick question for today. If the PS3 was gonna have a launch price of $500, would price still be a concern?

Sure cause it'd still be $100 more than a 360. With $100 I can buy 2 games or a game and an extra controller or accessory.

[spider-man]

I'm in the minority here, but I can actually see sony maintaining dominance with the ps3, IF, and only if they can keep the strong third party support (without that, no system can truly prosper). They will no doubt sell out this christmas season (if they're people out there that are willing to spend 200 bucks on a pair of sneakers, 500 bucks (or 600 for those with 1080p) for a system won't deter them). I can see this upcoming 'system wars' similar to the genesis and snes 'battle'. The wii can trump both with (again) strong third party support, otherwise, they'll be in the same position as the gamecube and n64 (low third party support, little shelf space).

[Xizer]

I personally think that is why the PS2 was so successful... was that it was riding on Sony's bullshit hype and the sheeple bought into it, despite the fact that the PS2 had a crap ass selection of launch titles, dated technology (2 controller ports), broke frequently (Disc Read Error, anyone? SCPH-30001?), and had DVD playback functionality worse than an Apex

Just fixing your statement there, to, you know, make it accurate. The ONLY reason the PS2 was so successful was that morons bought into Sony's bullshit. The system had no good games at launch time. After the PS2 started doing well from Sony's bullshit, it kind of just kept rolling down the hill like a snowball collecting third party support thanks to all the idiots buying it.

If you guys would have ignored the PS2 we wouldn't have to put up with such a defective, dated system with an awful controller. All the good third party games would be available on the Dreamcast, GameCube, or Xbox. Systems that didn't, you know, suck ass.

It looks like Sony's full of their bullshit again with the PS3. Hyping it to be super powerful. Hopefully, however, the $600 price tag will prevent the sheeple into buying it, instead forcing them towards the Xbox 360. This, in turn, will overthrow Sony's tyranny on the game market.

[aaronpetrosky]

Rumor has it the Wii is only gonna be $75. Talk about cheap.

[Joker T]

Rumor has it the Wii is only gonna be $75. Talk about cheap.

No way in Hell that would happen.

[Bronty-2]

Rumor has it the Wii is only gonna be $75. Talk about cheap.

No way in Hell that would happen.

I couldn't agree more. If that's the launch price what's the price going to be after drops? $20 LOL

[aaronpetrosky]

lol I was being sarcastic. I said that because in some people's eyes nintendo can't do no wrong.

If the cube drops anymore in price then they are eventually gonna be handing them out when you walk into eb or gamestop. I'm not even sure people would want them then.

[Xizer]

lol I was being sarcastic. I said that because in some people's eyes nintendo can't do no wrong.

If the cube drops anymore in price then they are eventually gonna be handing them out when you walk into eb or gamestop. I'm not even sure people would want them then.

So being cheap is a bad thing now? Thanks, Mr. Moneypants.

Have fun with that $600 piece of equipment that breaks down in 2 weeks.

[aaronpetrosky]

I will. I will. 8-)

[Jibbajaba]

I personally think that is why the PS2 was so successful... was that it was riding on Sony's bullshit hype and the sheeple bought into it, despite the fact that the PS2 had a crap ass selection of launch titles, dated technology (2 controller ports), broke frequently (Disc Read Error, anyone? SCPH-30001?), and had DVD playback functionality worse than an Apex

Just fixing your statement there, to, you know, make it accurate. The ONLY reason the PS2 was so successful was that morons bought into Sony's bullshit. The system had no good games at launch time. After the PS2 started doing well from Sony's bullshit, it kind of just kept rolling down the hill like a snowball collecting third party support thanks to all the idiots buying it.

If you guys would have ignored the PS2 we wouldn't have to put up with such a defective, dated system with an awful controller. All the good third party games would be available on the Dreamcast, GameCube, or Xbox. Systems that didn't, you know, suck ass.

It looks like Sony's full of their bullshit again with the PS3. Hyping it to be super powerful. Hopefully, however, the $600 price tag will prevent the sheeple into buying it, instead forcing them towards the Xbox 360. This, in turn, will overthrow Sony's tyranny on the game market.

Spoken like a true fanboy.

Chris

[Niku-Sama]

i think if these companies remain in the future we'll see a pattern of which console is going to be #1.

its taken about 10 years for nintendo to come back and it looks like they will, sony seems like they are heading to 2nd place (and no 2nd is not the best) and microsoft seems like its going to die in dreamcast fashon, how ever since they have the monies they'll make crap untill the tables turn.

how many games are there out for the 360? it doesent seem like very many, seems like they are kinda lagging behind waiting for new systems to push out a bunch of new games out their asses but it may be too late....talk about werid marketing decision.

[nate1749]

I just really hope that ps3 is extremely successfull, because in a year everyone on here will be saying something like 'yeah i knew price wouldn't matter, the system is too great,' or whatever.

Honestly to me, $500 for 360 is a lot, but for another hundo, sure whatever i don't care I'll take the ps3. I too thought price would be a big negative factor, but with as expensive as it costs to get started up w/360, it's not that much more...

Sure I'm sure sony will be the loser in the short term (how can they not already starting really late), but in the long run they'll win. They'll exploit the capabilities of blue ray and the 360 will be left with their hands tied in 2 years.

What's more interesting to me is the falling price of the dollar, that one has to hit the japanese seller hard.

Nate

[Niku-Sama]

What's more interesting to me is the falling price of the dollar, that one has to hit the japanese seller hard.

Nate

how do you mean in that part?

[aaronpetrosky]

The cool thing now is to "diss Sony" and jump on the Nintendo bandwagon. Like I said. I'll oppose Nintendo just to oppose everyone else. I know not everyone is hating Sony or doing this but it seems like the Sony haters are trying to rally everyone to their cause.

This isn't politics or about religion. It's about fun and entertainment.

Now I know as well that if Nintendo or Microsoft win in this next battle the cool thing will be to hate one of them and embrace Pioneer as the next domination company in games.

[Bronty-2]

I just really hope that ps3 is extremely successfull, because in a year everyone on here will be saying something like 'yeah i knew price wouldn't matter, the system is too great,' or whatever.

Honestly to me, $500 for 360 is a lot, but for another hundo, sure whatever i don't care I'll take the ps3. I too thought price would be a big negative factor, but with as expensive as it costs to get started up w/360, it's not that much more...

Sure I'm sure sony will be the loser in the short term (how can they not already starting really late), but in the long run they'll win. They'll exploit the capabilities of blue ray and the 360 will be left with their hands tied in 2 years.

What's more interesting to me is the falling price of the dollar, that one has to hit the japanese seller hard.

Nate

It's another two hundred not another one hundred.. 299/399 vs 499/599

[Soviet Conscript]

i like Sony, really. i loved the Playstation and i love the ps2 even with all my other systems (and i have alot) but i just think $600 is to much for a system. i don't really care about blueray that much. i thought DVD ability for the ps2 was more of a gimmick and it made a mediocore player at best anyways. but that aside its just alot of money to play games. i'm also scared about what the games themselves may cost

to be honest with you guys i'm terrified that the PS3 will succeed, not because i hate sony or love nintendo but because 2 things

1) if ps3 succeeds that means i'm way poorer then i thought i was cause if all these people can afford one or are willing to pay that for a system...well i'm a clerk, i have bills, $600 is ALOT to me and i'm assumeing thats alot to average people to...maybe i'm wrong, maybe i am really that poor. i just was able to afford a new tv and it took alot of planning, help and a miricale credit approval to get that even.

2) if it succeeds will this signal other game companies that its ok to price systems (and maybe games) at outragous levels cause people will just buy them en mass anyways?

[bunbunz23]

Price would be an concern considering I have a 360. I will wait till the price drop before I even consider the PS3

[Synergy]

Spoken like a true fanboy.

QFT.

[j_factor]

With the high price and focus on multimedia type functions, PS3 is reminding me a lot of CDi and CDTV. While I'm sure PS3 won't be as big a flop as those were, I do wonder why Sony would choose an approach that the public has already shown disinterest in.

[Richter Belmount]

The price of the PS3 is so far beyond its fanbase, I think that Sony is in for a suprise. Yes, I think that people will buy the system, just not the numbers anywhere near what Sony is looking for. I dont think that 500 dollars will matter either. Sony strives on meeting the needs of the "average gamer". I personally think that is why the PS2 was so successful. Huge library, good controller, good games, backwards compatable, and most of all, decent price. The public embraced the PS2 due to the strong demand for not only a gaming machine but also a DVD player. At the time, the PS2 was a good deal at 300. Now that the slim is at 129.99 I think that it will continue to sell very well. The PS3 does not offer enough encentive to spend double of what its predecessor cost. The other factor will be the cost of the Blu Ray games. I am hearing rumors that they could cost more. This again is not in line with the "average gamer" the solid fanbase of the PS2. Price does matter with the general public. Prices of games matter with the general public. If it is anything, the PS3 will fuel loyal followers to pursue to buy a PSP and to wait on the PS3. I myself am not even considering the PS3, and will be lucky enough to scrape enough to buy a Wii.
Whoa you tell it like how it is!

[Lothars]

I personally think that is why the PS2 was so successful... was that it was riding on Sony's bullshit hype and the sheeple bought into it, despite the fact that the PS2 had a crap ass selection of launch titles, dated technology (2 controller ports), broke frequently (Disc Read Error, anyone? SCPH-30001?), and had DVD playback functionality worse than an Apex

Just fixing your statement there, to, you know, make it accurate. The ONLY reason the PS2 was so successful was that morons bought into Sony's bullshit. The system had no good games at launch time. After the PS2 started doing well from Sony's bullshit, it kind of just kept rolling down the hill like a snowball collecting third party support thanks to all the idiots buying it.

If you guys would have ignored the PS2 we wouldn't have to put up with such a defective, dated system with an awful controller. All the good third party games would be available on the Dreamcast, GameCube, or Xbox. Systems that didn't, you know, suck ass.

It looks like Sony's full of their bullshit again with the PS3. Hyping it to be super powerful. Hopefully, however, the $600 price tag will prevent the sheeple into buying it, instead forcing them towards the Xbox 360. This, in turn, will overthrow Sony's tyranny on the game market.


man can your posts get any worst

your post is horrible, but than again most of your posts are about the same

I took a look at launch titles for the ps2

they were not that bad

The PS2 is a great system, but IMO your really the moron with your posts.

[RegSNES]

I'm no industry analist, but I seriously think Sony is screwing up this coming gen. The company's arrogance could very well be their undoing from the top spot. I don't care what games will be on it, $600 is far too much to be paying for a something I only want to play games on.

Yes, I know there is a $500 unit, but you're screwing yourself out of a lot by purchasing that unit. This move is very similar to Microsoft's core 360 unit. Sony just did it to say they have a cheaper unit. And $500 is still too much for a game machine anyway. But then, Sony isn't really pushing a game machine. The comany is pushing a Blue-Ray player. Some may care about that and that's fine if they do. Me, I don't give five rat's anuses about it. I want to play GAMES. All these multi-media gaming units are really begining to irk me, especially when it starts to jack up the price.

And anyone that thinks they are only going to spend $600 on a PS3 come launch day, they are only fooling themselves. Add in the games, an extra controller, memory card, and anything else I may have missed, and you're looking at over $700.

I don't care if Sony's name is on the product, I'm not giving them my cash this time (Least not 'til the price drops and I can wait.) Sony can go screw themselves.

[GarrettCRW]

If anyone says that the cost of the PS3 isn't a factor, then they are an idiot. $500 for even the neutered model is a serious chunk of bread. And it's not like the economic outlook for many Americans is all that great, either.

(Speaking of idiocy, can someone shut up Xizer and aaronpetrosky? Their fanboyisms are showing.)

As it stands, the PS3 could have a Christmas lineup that makes the Holiday 1991 lineup for the Super NES look like twelth-rate garbage, and it would still be too expensive for my tastes. And with the ever-rising prices of gas, I suspect that the PS3 will run a bit high for the tastes of a great deal of Americans, as well. And for Europe, it'll be even worse, since systems have a bad habit of costing double what they do in the US and Japan.

[aaronpetrosky]

What about you talking about garrett? I'm trying to shut up Xizer. And please please don't use the term "fanboy"

[Juganawt]

I dont think $600 is the actual problem, I think the problem lies in the fact that they're forcing anyone interested in buying a PS3 to also invest in Blu Ray is the issue.

If PS3 had a $300 option with DVD9 instead of Blu Ray as well as the $600 blu ray option, it'd be a totally different story, and I'm sure that only a handful of people would vouch for the more expensive option. Hell, I'm sure that if there was a $550 option without Blu Ray it'd still be more popular than the BR version.

Basically, nobody really wants to be forced to pay through the nose for untested new media. Especially one that's hotly contested by a rival format. And I'm certainly not happy about being forced to pay extra just to help Sony launch a damn format that will make no difference to what I will buy PS3 for - Games.

[Juganawt]

I dont think $600 is the actual problem, I think the problem lies in the fact that they're forcing anyone interested in buying a PS3 to also invest in Blu Ray is the issue.

If PS3 had a $300 option with DVD9 instead of Blu Ray as well as the $600 blu ray option, it'd be a totally different story, and I'm sure that only a handful of people would vouch for the more expensive option. Hell, I'm sure that if there was a $550 option without Blu Ray it'd still be more popular than the BR version.

Basically, nobody really wants to be forced to pay through the nose for untested new media. Especially one that's hotly contested by a rival format. And I'm certainly not happy about being forced to pay extra just to help Sony launch a damn format that will make no difference to what I will buy PS3 for - Games.

[Juganawt]

I dont think $600 is the actual problem, I think the problem lies in the fact that they're forcing anyone interested in buying a PS3 to also invest in Blu Ray is the issue.

If PS3 had a $300 option with DVD9 instead of Blu Ray as well as the $600 blu ray option, it'd be a totally different story, and I'm sure that only a handful of people would vouch for the more expensive option. Hell, I'm sure that if there was a $550 option without Blu Ray it'd still be more popular than the BR version.

Basically, nobody really wants to be forced to pay through the nose for untested new media. Especially one that's hotly contested by a rival format. And I'm certainly not happy about being forced to pay extra just to help Sony launch a damn format that will make no difference to what I will buy PS3 for - Games.

[Juganawt]

I dont think $600 is the actual problem, I think the problem lies in the fact that they're forcing anyone interested in buying a PS3 to also invest in Blu Ray is the issue.

If PS3 had a $300 option with DVD9 instead of Blu Ray as well as the $600 blu ray option, it'd be a totally different story, and I'm sure that only a handful of people would vouch for the more expensive option. Hell, I'm sure that if there was a $550 option without Blu Ray it'd still be more popular than the BR version.

Basically, nobody really wants to be forced to pay through the nose for untested new media. Especially one that's hotly contested by a rival format. And I'm certainly not happy about being forced to pay extra just to help Sony launch a damn format that will make no difference to what I will buy PS3 for - Games.

[segagamer]

I think a successful console should not be launched for more than $299 to $399 US, no matter how great it is supposed to be. Afterall, we all know it is the games that really matter the most when buying a new system, and not whether it has the best specs and an advanced DVD drive.

As for me personally, I am sitting out of the launch this fall and will watch from the sidelines which console has the best launch titles and the games to be rolled out in the following 6-12 months. I am only interested in a console that can play great games; I do not particularly care for online gaming as well as HD/Blu-Ray DVD playback.

[jajaja]

I dont think $600 is the actual problem, I think the problem lies in the fact that they're forcing anyone interested in buying a PS3 to also invest in Blu Ray is the issue.

If PS3 had a $300 option with DVD9 instead of Blu Ray as well as the $600 blu ray option, it'd be a totally different story, and I'm sure that only a handful of people would vouch for the more expensive option. Hell, I'm sure that if there was a $550 option without Blu Ray it'd still be more popular than the BR version.

No one is forced to buy anything, but i know what you mean. The BR is one of the big factors that makes PS3 PS3. Its like removing the Wii controller and pay $50 less. I dont want to be forced to buy the Wii controller if i want a Wii. The controller is one of the things that makes Wii Wii, same is it with BR for PS3. You see my point?

Making a DVD9 model would be a big mistake imo. Later on when games will most likely be default on BR discs, people will be "forced" to buy a BR-reader addon or else they cant play the games. I remember they talked about this with PS2 also, to make a model with CD-ROM (or was it slower DVD-ROM?) too. Sony have also talked about not releasing the $500 model here in Europe.

[GarrettCRW]

The BR is one of the big factors that makes PS3 PS3. Its like removing the Wii controller and pay $50 less. I dont want to be forced to buy the Wii controller if i want a Wii. The controller is one of the things that makes Wii Wii, same is it with BR for PS3. You see my point?

You must be joking. All the BluRay discs add is more storage space, a benefit that only the best developers even come close to utilizing (if past history is any guide). The Wii's controller affects how you play the game by default. Comparing the two features is the closest thing to apples and oranges since apples and oranges.

[jajaja]

First, im not comparing the 2 features, that would be stupid. And second, no, why would i be joking? PS3 is the first console with BR, which is something complete new. Since PS3 is so far the only console with BR player, the BR is one of the factors that symbolize (or what i shall say) the PS3. So eventho that the BR "only" opens up for more space (which have its benefits), its still a big factor that symbolize the PS3. BR player can also transfer data faster than a DVD player so loading will be faster.

[Nature Boy]

All things being equal I'd be a PS3 pre-order customer, but with the price being what it is, I'm currently deciding which competetive machine I'm more interested in.

To answer the original question, yes, offering the system for $400 & $500 (instead of $500 and $600) would make me reconsider that stance, but it's still too much for me I think.

As has been said, Sony is taking a big risk trying to fight two battles at once. I think they're crazy, but I think it's ridiculous to flat out say I know they're going to fail because that's *impossible.* They haven't even started any marketing campaigns that I'm aware of - and those have a way of swaying public opinion. If they sell the PS3 as a cheap Blu-Ray and people buy into it, they're well on their way to dominating two markets.

(I don't see it happening, but that's why I'm not the head of a major corporation)

[Andred]

The $500 price tag is definitely a concern. Honestly, the only way I can see for Sony to pull this big-assed rabbit out of it's tiny little hat is if they continue their run of outstanding third-party efforts.

The console is way overpriced because of BlueRay (a technology which I, and alot of people, don't give two wet squirts about). They're in a huge uphill battle because they didn't get to market for a full year after the 360 launched and now MS has the momentum. And at the risk of sounding like a fanboy, the Wii is far more innovative and probably more genuinely "fun to play". None of this bodes well for the PS3.

I see what they're trying to do (using the popularity of the PS2 to force the BlueRay standard) but I don't think it's the right move. Why not release the PS3 with a standard DVD9 player like the PS2, charge $50 less than the 360 and rake in the dough hand over fist? Then, you take the obscene amounts of money that you made on the PS3 and use it to beat down the HD-DVD standard by pricing your BlueRay players and the first round of movie releases below the competition.

Personally, I think it's great that Sony seems poised for a fall. I have nothing against Sony. I do, however, have something against BlueRay. It's obviously the inferior standard (that didn't stop VHS) and it's oozing DRM from all of it's slimy little orifices.

Sorry to get off topic. To sum it up: I don't think Sony will be able to handle 360degrees of Wii... @_@ what? nasty.

[jajaja]

I think the reason why Sony chose BR instead of DVD is because of HD. DVD doesnt have enough space for HD (to a certaint point of course), unless you want to swap discs all the time. Im sure HD-DVD or BR will take over for DVD. DVD is getting old and it isnt very next-gen, if you look at it that way.

[GarrettCRW]

I think the reason why Sony chose BR instead of DVD is because of HD. DVD doesnt have enough space for HD (to a certaint point of course), unless you want to swap discs all the time. Im sure HD-DVD or BR will take over for DVD. DVD is getting old and it isnt very next-gen, if you look at it that way.

And as Anthony1 has stated multiple times, BluRay uses the same compression scheme as DVD, while HD-DVD uses an entirely new compression scheme. Combine that with the fact that none of Sony's proprietary standards have ever become the de facto standard for the entire industry, and you have enough cause for concern. Sony obviously does, since they've tied the format to the PS3, a console which would sell like crazy if price was not a factor.

(Furthermore, DVD is just barely reaching maturity and total saturation-by all accounts, HD-DVD and BluRay should slug it out on the corporate level so that the "better" format can be decided as the industry standard just as the DVD format has reached its natural decline in the market.)

[jajaja]

True that, BR uses MPEG2 for compression and HD-DVD uses VC-1. Altho, they do even eachother out because of the space. A single layer BR disc (25gb) can store about 2 hours of HD video, so can a single layer HD-DVD disc (15gb).

For me it doesnt matter whats the standard as long as it works fine for me. It doesnt matter if there are 2 formats either, then you can choose. I wont get a HD tv before years anyway, unless i win the lottery, but i think its cool to have a BR player. It might come in handy :) I hope that only 1 prosper tho, like DVD is today.

[ig88vsbobafett]

lol Nintendo has had a successful next gen sequel since the NES.

I dont really consider N64 and GC as a huge success. N64 games were too expencive compared to the PSX games and PS2 beats both GC and Xbox.

You dont consider the N64 a Sucess ? It sold

32,930,000 Consoles

The SNES sold 49,020,000 and the NES sold 62,780,000

that seams like a row of 3 to me

[jajaja]

Number of sold consoles is one thing, but what about games? TBH i have no statistics, but i am under the impression that N64 wasnt that big of a success as Nintendo had hoped for, regardless numbers of console sold. Its from the games they usualy make the money and the games wasnt exactly cheap. Here the average price on N64 games ranged from $110 to $140. PSX games was $60 - $85.

I cant think of any other systems (except Neo Geo) that had more expencive games than N64, atleast over here. Since Nintendo is aimed for families the price of the games matters alot. I think this is one of the reasons why Nintendo have tried to keep the price on Wii as low as possible. I wonder how the prices on the games will be :)

[Ed Oscuro]

Considering that Nintendo simply couldn't legally repeat the strongarm tactics that lead to the overwhelming success of the NES, they did fantastic on the SNES, not so much with the N64 (but considering the size of the N64's library they did pretty darn well).

The HD-DVD versus Blu-Ray debate isn't relevant for most of us except for the fact that Sony wants to saddle us all with unnecessary features and a PS3 design that seems compromised towards being a multimedia machine, rather than an all-out awesome rendering machine.

Time will tell if there really is a performance gap, of course, and I am not comfortable standing only on evidence given by somebody in Microsoft's camp.

But the simple fact that while the PS3 is geared towards multimedia there are important differences in connectors that will cause $500 PS3s to be obsolete at the end of a period of time is startling. Also startling is the design of the machine: warnings that the CPUs may blow out, and the fact that only 256MB is available for textures (due to an decision on the unit's internal architecture, make me less than optimistic about the machine's value given the price.

[Ed Oscuro]

Yes, I know there is a $500 unit, but you're screwing yourself out of a lot by purchasing that unit. This move is very similar to Microsoft's core 360 unit.
As I understand it, the core 360 can be upgraded with a hard drive to work just like a premium. The $500 PS3, on the other hand, has an integrated type of HD connector that cannot be switched out and which will render it obsolete.

[Nature Boy]

The console is way overpriced because of BlueRay (a technology which I, and alot of people, don't give two wet squirts about).

I agree, except it's not just BluRay, it's both it and HD-DVD that I don't give much of a damn about.

Look, HD television looks absolutely stunning. No question. But it's not like I'm currently using bunny ears for my TV, and it's not like I'm 10 years old again, secretly wishing that my Atari 2600 could make things look a little more realistic.

My setup today looks damn good and I only use S-Video, to say nothing of the amount of dough I've invested in everything that goes with it.

I'm sure I'll switch some day, but the incentive for me to switch when everything is at it's absolute maximum price is pretty low, even for something I love like console gaming.

[Andred]

A few days ago I would've agreed with you 100%, Nature Boy. However, my roommate got a 56" Widescreen DLP HDTV this weekend :-P so I'm a little biased now.