PS3 Price Theory

[Towlie2110]

This thought just occured to me a couple hours ago. And it festered in my mind until I decided to post it now.

Ok, I'll start off by saying Sony is not a stupid company. They are not that ignorant to the average gamer. The same problems a 13 year old forum member see's with sony's decisions, I'm sure they see too.

So onto the theory.

Sony has announced the price of a ps3 to be very very high, somwhere in the 600$ range. Of course this leads tons of fans to be dissapointed because they know they can't afford somthing like that. But at the same time they are in awe of a what a 600$ machine could do.

So then here's the kicker, when sony does officially announce the PS3 for sale, they lower the price to a much much more standard feasible price of say 300$.

Now, Whether or not the machine was actually worth 600$ in the beginning is unknown, but for shits and giggles, let's say it's not worth nearly that much, and Sony jacked up the price to make people think it was an impossibly amazing machine but came with a price. So now fans are thinking they are getting a 600$ mega machine for only say 300$!

With a good bargain in mind, of course fans will run at the chance to own the should be 600$ machine at half off. Regardless of what it was really worth Sony could tell us it will retail for 1200$ and of course we wouldn't be able to afford it but the images of what 1200$ of gaming hardware would produce is amazing.

It's like a huge stunt that IMO would work amazingly.

Of course I could be completely wrong and the huge mega corporation that is sony could be stupid enough to actually make the ps3 for 600$, but I'd like to think otherwise.

It would also explain why some fans thought the Killzone2 trailer was pre rendered. Sony would have to make their games appear as if they were actually 600$ worth.

Well that's my 2 cents.

Enjoy the idea for what it is, a simple idea.

[shadowkn55]

The ps3 costs (not worth) much more than $600 to make. Sony is just subsidizing the cost of the console to gamers in hopes they will buy enough games to make up for the loss.

When you think about what is included in the PS3, it is actually a good value. Most people just think about the bottom line and sometimes forget what is included to make it highly priced. One look at the bestbuy website reveals that the least expensive blu ray player costs $1000. Given the fact that the ps3 has a built in blu ray player, it's a bargain. It may not have all the features and quality of the 1k player, but it is still $400 less than its competitor. Not only are you getting a gaming machine, you are getting a blu ray player for less than the price of a dedicated player. If you took out the blu ray player and only had PS3 run off conventional dvds, it would probably be priced the same as Xbox 360.

You also have to realize the ps3 is a very powerful machine. State of the art technology doesn't come cheap. The only reason the Wii is priced lower is because it is not nearly as powerful as the Xbox 360 or PS3. They have a different business model in which they want to attain market share. By playing the numbers game with Microsoft, they pay the price in an expensive console.

Another thing about the PS3 is that Sony owns all the rights to the hardware in the PS2. Therefore they can properly implement backwards compatibility for their older library. Only a handful of games don't work. However, Microsoft barely owns any rights for the core components of the Xbox. Only a handful of Xbox games work on the 360 and upgrade discs are needed to add more to the tiny list. In this case, PS2 owners can sell their PS2 to partly make up for the price difference. However, Xbox owners can not do the same unless they like having a limited selection to play from and being at the mercy of Microsoft to add more games they need to patch to make work.

Even though $600 is still expensive, when you look at the facts and figures, it is still a good deal. You have to look at the big picture before you dismiss something as too expensive.


So onto the theory.
This is just a minor critcism not having to do with the post. A theory is an idea that is supported by experimental data and generally accepted as truth. Your 'theory' is actually a hypothesis trying to explain why the PS3 costs so much.

[badinsults]

If Sony had any intention on pricing the PS3 lower, they should do it now, as developer support is leaving in droves. And the blu ray player included with the PS3 is only a good deal if you were at all interested in blu ray movies, which I must say only a minority of hardcore video gamers care about.

[Towlie2110]

my theory is backed by my guesses

[shadowkn55]

my theory is backed by my guesses

And that's why most people misuse the word theory.

[smokehouse]

I strongly doubt the PS3 will be $300 anytime soon…hell, the 360 is $299 for the striped down “Core” pack and it’s not as complicated as the PS3. The Blu Ray drive doesn’t help much either.

Their prices of $499 and $599 will stick; as dumb as that is there will be early adopters willing to shell out that much. I just can’t wait to see how much they’ll go for on eBay…..anyone say $1200?

[Emuaust]

Well i have been pretty quiet about this on this board due to the
fact it is extremly pro MS, but here goes anyways:

Here in Australia the 360 premium pack sells for $649.95AUD
no in this we recieve:
20gig HD
Wireless Controller
Media Remots
HD Cables
DVD Playback

Now also remember that in real world use you only get a paltry
13gig of space to use after the HD is partioned off for BC
and other things.


Now The PS3 budget console will retail in australia for $829.95AUD
so the difference in price point is $180AUD if you factor in that
the PS3 is able to support a next gen movie format and has
a full 20gig HD like the 360 then I cant really see how people
can preach that the unit is 2 expensive, the base model still
has all the features of the premium 360.

Do you honestly think that MS will release there HD-DVD addon
for $180AUD or less?, thats right you got it a big fat NO.
All it comes down to is preference do you want this or this?
My OPINION is that MS are screwed they make bland games
with bland appeal, IMO.

The 360, when it does go HD movie compatible will be more expensive
then the PS3, remember the top PS3 has all the extra bells
and whistles that the 360 doesnt have like HDMI and card reader
fuctionability, yes it seems like a Sony fanboy rant but to be
honest I am anything but, I love my 360 dont get me wrong,
I just see myself using the PS3 more and am geting pissed off
with all the negative press without the forsight to look into all
aspects.

[jajaja]

Also, people say that they dont need the BR player because DVD is good enough. The BR player will not be used for movies only. Resistance, a PS3 launch title (most likely) is currently up to 22gb of space (article here (http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1539078/20060821/index.jhtml?headlines=true)). Sure, its still beta and most likely not much compression is used, if none at all, but its still big. Remember that this is only a launch title too. You will probly see games that are up to 50gb large later on, its not unlikely. Therefore the BR player is needed, unless you want to swap numerous of DVDs that is.

[Haoie]

Your theory resembles that of conspicious consumtion.

[smokehouse]

Also, people say that they dont need the BR player because DVD is good enough. The BR player will not be used for movies only. Resistance, a PS3 launch title (most likely) is currently up to 22gb of space (article here (http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1539078/20060821/index.jhtml?headlines=true)). Sure, its still beta and most likely not much compression is used, if none at all, but its still big. Remember that this is only a launch title too. You will probly see games that are up to 50gb large later on, its not unlikely. Therefore the BR player is needed, unless you want to swap numerous of DVDs that is.


This memory consumption seems rather fictitious to me, quite like the good ole days and the Neo Geo. Designers were encouraged to use tons of space so that they would stand out from the pack. What game now currently uses a full DVD? If they can fit games like Final Fantasy X and other on a single DVD, what in the hell is going to be that game that requires 22Gb of space?

Sony is going to justify shoving the BD drive on the public with horseshit like this.


Oh, and no, I’m not pro MS either, I don’t even own a single MS product. I’m just anti smoke and mirrors and anti horseshit.


Lastly, the HD DVD add on for the 360 came up…..sure, it won’t be cheap but………….


Wait for it…………..


It’s not required to play games like the BD drive is on the PS3. You have a choice NOT to buy it but still get the full gaming experience, unlike the upcoming PS3.













Good Lord, this is why I stay out of the Modern Gaming forum 90% of the time…

[Emuaust]

hey i wont disagree that the BR drive is not a must have like the
360 addon, the thing peeps look at is that its a hinderence to
sony's console when infact the average joe that doesnt care only
for games will opt for the PS3 for its added features that come
standard out of the box, I dont care on anybodys console
allegiance im just stating how I see it if I was the average parent
or end user looking at making a purchase, this is how I run
my shop successfully.

[Towlie2110]

I correctly used the word theory.



Anyways, if you want to take my "theory" and think of it as an ingenius marketing ploy for any console at any time, it would still work.

Also how do we really know the actual prices of all these things until they actually come out?

[shadowkn55]

I correctly used the word theory.

Anyways, if you want to take my "theory" and think of it as an ingenius marketing ploy for any console at any time, it would still work.

Also how do we really know the actual prices of all these things until they actually come out?

I'm sorry but that is not the correct usage of the word. There is no factual or scientific data to backup your claims. The only evidence you have is your "guesses". As of yet, nobody else is accepting your ideas as factual.

Ideas don't become theories overnight. It takes years of testing and retesting before it becomes theory. It doesn't become one just because you say so.

[slip81]

The PS3 won't be $300. Sony is already loosing enough by making it $500.

[Towlie2110]

8 results for: theory
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source new!
the‧o‧ry  /ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ries.
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.



OWNED BITCH

lol.

[Garry Silljo]

withdrawn

[swlovinist]

Anyone can have a theory, and here is mine...Any Wow factor that Sony could muster for their system being 300 should have been done by now, as the 600 price tag announced at E3 is seriously pounding the shit out of confidence of many gamers getting one at launch. Sony is an arrogant company, I compare them to when Nintendo was king of the consoles. The DS should not be competing with the PSP, but alas it is here in the states. One of the main issues is price, which even developers such as EA have pressured Sony to drop on their portable. Every game console company in the History of video games has its dark side...and right now we are seeing Sonys.....I would expect to see a price drop possibly at TGS, but not to 300. I would only see Sony doing a price drop at all only if sales of their new system are bad.

[Duncan]

I have a thought-process that was brought up in another forum - and yes, I'm willing to share. :)

Kid drags Mom and Dad over to the game display at Big Box store. Knowing only a little about video games, but knowing that their kid wants a system for Christmas, they watch to see which one he gravitates to.

Kid looks around, sees someone flailing his arms around in front of one of the screens. Goes over to see what the commotion is and - WOW! He's controlling the game by moving that remote-thing around! Kid gets his chance at the demo, and proceeds to have an absolute blast with the baseball game - he swings the bat, he pitches the ball, he makes the catch in the outfield. Then, picking another game, he drives a big 4x4 truck and twists the controller to make it move around.

Mom and Dad watch Kid, not only having a lot of fun but also getting a fair amount of exercise. They check the price - $200. Seems expensive, but they decide to look at the other machines first - whoa! One costs $400, and the other is almost $600! And they don't seem to do the cool motion-sensor thing. Besides, that $200 one is made by Nintendo - Mom and Dad used to play that back in the day, and it was always fun.

Mom and Dad pick up the Nintendo machine and a couple of games, Kid is ecstatic on Christmas morning.

Thus ends the thought-process. Comments welcomed... :D

[shadowkn55]

You realize that you just skipped 6 valid definitions of the word in question. All of which fit the criteria of my definition. At best your explanation is the 7th or 8th definition. By then which is broad and vague enough to fit your idea.

Here is a better word that fits your idea and is the first definition.


Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source new!
hy‧poth‧e‧sis  /haɪˈpɒθəsɪs, hɪ-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[hahy-poth-uh-sis, hi-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ses /-ˌsiz/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[-seez] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation.
1. a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
2. a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.
3. the antecedent of a conditional proposition.
4. a mere assumption or guess.

To swlovinist,

In the scientific aspect of the word, not everyone can have a theory. There is no proof behind your reasoning nor is it accepted as truth. Just merely a set of assumptions you formulated into a proposition.

Evolution merely started out as an idea on how to propose modern species came about. Only after years and years of research and experiments, it eventually became a theory. Evolution was not a theory when it was first proposed. By the time there is enough data to support anyone's hypothesis, the launch date will have past and we will know the actual price.

[Towlie2110]

You seem to think that theory only revolves around that one definition, but sadly, there can be many meanings for one word.

Anyone can have a theory by the definition of the word theory that we are using.


Also, I see that scenario with the mom and dad happening alot, but then I also see people buying shit games at stores for 50$ because they don't know anything about good games.

So to the knowledged gamer, if he see's the chance for a ps3 at 300$, he's going to flip, because at one point the ps3 was 300$ more powerful than the 360.


This is all relative to the consumer, and has nothing to do with actual worth or power.

[jajaja]

This memory consumption seems rather fictitious to me, quite like the good ole days and the Neo Geo. Designers were encouraged to use tons of space so that they would stand out from the pack. What game now currently uses a full DVD? If they can fit games like Final Fantasy X and other on a single DVD, what in the hell is going to be that game that requires 22Gb of space?

The only game i can think of right now that uses more than 1 DVD is MGS 3: Substance, but your right that not many uses more than 1 DVD (yet). Look at it differently, how many games are still using CDs? (not counting USA releases of PC games that are split up to 3-5 cds for some odd reason when DVD version is released in Europe).

Final Fantasy X is damn old, like 5 years. This is actually a game that does fill nearly a full DVD5, not much dummy files on it, but this is 5 years ago. Look at PC games, 15-20 years ago it was normal with games on floppy, then came CDs. Today its normal with DVD. Games have just increased in size. Do you think that all games that are made for the next 5 years will still only take a single DVD?

[smokehouse]

I agree that FFX is older but on the PS2 a game is a game, it’s not like the hardware has changed and now requires more storage. FFX is a large game with tons of audio tracks so I figured it would be a good reference point.

As for taking up more than one DVD that’s fine….use two. I for one would rather save $200 off the price of a console and have to switch disks half way through a long game. I did with all of the PS1 Final Fantasy titles, Metal Gear Solid, Parasite Eve and others. Hell, I did it with Resident Evil for the Game Cube.

I am unconvinced that Sony requires a Blu Ray drive to make the PS3 efficient for the long run. They are playing their little games like the have in the consumer electronics world. I have a Sony DVD player that won’t run CD-R’s because at the time Sony claimed that they could make a DVD player that would run them. Funny enough, after the rest of the industry changed over the followed suit. I know that has nothing to do with the PS3 but this is just an example.

The PS3 does not require a Blu Ray player, period. If a game has to come on 4 dual layer DVD’s (4.5Gb/layer x 2 layers x 4 discs = 36Gb) like the FF serries did on CD back in the day, no one would have complained about it.

[SirDrexl]

The reason Sony wants BD for games is the advanced copy protection over DVD. It doesn't matter much to them if the games use the extra space or not.

As for lowering the price before launch, why do that? They're going to sell 2 million or more anyway, so even if they could make it cheaper they would wait until next year.

[jajaja]

The PS3 does not require a Blu Ray player, period. If a game has to come on 4 dual layer DVD’s (4.5Gb/layer x 2 layers x 4 discs = 36Gb) like the FF serries did on CD back in the day, no one would have complained about it.

Your right that it doesnt require a BR player, but if you look at it that way you can say that CD-ROM is enough for Xbox 360, WII, PS3 and that PC games could be on zipdisks or floppies. Its fully possible since its not required to have a DVD-ROM for these things, but it makes things so much easier.

Im not so sure about that. FF and some other games that you mentioned did indeed have multiply discs and it wasnt really a problem. But the games that had many discs only made about less than 1% of all the games that was released. Therefor people could live with it. If 90% of all the games that would be released had 2 discs or more im pretty sure that people would bitch about it. Altho its cheap to produce discs the costs would still be the double since it requires to make more than one disc.

[Towlie2110]

Imagine a new system is coming out.

So far the news of this system is that it is going to cost well over 1200$ But this system is going to be worth every penny. If you had the chance to win one you would shit yourself.

Now, all the news you've been hearing about how it's selling for 1200$ has filled your head with images of how amazing it will be. Of course you know you will never afford one, but still you can dream.

Then the week before the launch of the said system, They announce that they have found new technology to make the systems considerably cheaper (It could be a lie for all I care) and now gamers are seeing that once 1200$ console for only 300$.

In their minds they are still getting the most powerful system out (Whether or not it really is)

It's a marketing ploy but I have a feeling it could work wonders for sony. lol.

[johno590]

I have a thought-process that was brought up in another forum - and yes, I'm willing to share. :)

Kid drags Mom and Dad over to the game display at Big Box store. Knowing only a little about video games, but knowing that their kid wants a system for Christmas, they watch to see which one he gravitates to.

Kid looks around, sees someone flailing his arms around in front of one of the screens. Goes over to see what the commotion is and - WOW! He's controlling the game by moving that remote-thing around! Kid gets his chance at the demo, and proceeds to have an absolute blast with the baseball game - he swings the bat, he pitches the ball, he makes the catch in the outfield. Then, picking another game, he drives a big 4x4 truck and twists the controller to make it move around.

Mom and Dad watch Kid, not only having a lot of fun but also getting a fair amount of exercise. They check the price - $200. Seems expensive, but they decide to look at the other machines first - whoa! One costs $400, and the other is almost $600! And they don't seem to do the cool motion-sensor thing. Besides, that $200 one is made by Nintendo - Mom and Dad used to play that back in the day, and it was always fun.

Mom and Dad pick up the Nintendo machine and a couple of games, Kid is ecstatic on Christmas morning.

Thus ends the thought-process. Comments welcomed... :D

This scenario seems VERY realistic. I think Nintendo is going to do good with their console.

[petewhitley]

I have a thought-process that was brought up in another forum - and yes, I'm willing to share. :)

Kid drags Mom and Dad over to the game display at Big Box store. Knowing only a little about video games, but knowing that their kid wants a system for Christmas, they watch to see which one he gravitates to.

Kid looks around, sees someone flailing his arms around in front of one of the screens. Goes over to see what the commotion is and - WOW! He's controlling the game by moving that remote-thing around! Kid gets his chance at the demo, and proceeds to have an absolute blast with the baseball game - he swings the bat, he pitches the ball, he makes the catch in the outfield. Then, picking another game, he drives a big 4x4 truck and twists the controller to make it move around.

Mom and Dad watch Kid, not only having a lot of fun but also getting a fair amount of exercise. They check the price - $200. Seems expensive, but they decide to look at the other machines first - whoa! One costs $400, and the other is almost $600! And they don't seem to do the cool motion-sensor thing. Besides, that $200 one is made by Nintendo - Mom and Dad used to play that back in the day, and it was always fun.

Mom and Dad pick up the Nintendo machine and a couple of games, Kid is ecstatic on Christmas morning.

Thus ends the thought-process. Comments welcomed... :D

So all the moms and dads buy their little kids the Nintendo console (just as they did this generation), all the gamers over 13yrs old buy the Sony or Microsoft console (just as they did this generation), and Nintendo is once again in 3rd place. Sounds about right to me.

[Bronty-2]

Your theory resembles that of conspicious consumtion.

Shouldn't use words you can't spell :roll: it's called conspicuous consumption - and it's got very little to do with the 'theory' above. Examples of conspicuous consumption would be fancy cars, rolex watches, etc. Stuff that is expensive and makes you look like a high roller even if you're not. A PS3 in gaming room that nobody sees except possibly for a couple friends is not conspicuous consumption and the price cut angle is not relevant either.

[Bronty-2]

So all the moms and dads buy their little kids the Nintendo console (just as they did this generation), all the gamers over 13yrs old buy the Sony or Microsoft console (just as they did this generation), and Nintendo is once again in 3rd place. Sounds about right to me.

I know you're a sony fan, and yes, I'm a nintendo fan, but honestly I don't know how you can just discount all of nintendo's recent momentum and all of sony's recent bad press. Besides, I just can't see mom and dad dropping the $700 for junior to get a system and one game... I'm 30 and make a decent living and collect video games - if its more than I want to spend then who the fuck is going to buy it exactly? (for the record, I did buy a ps and ps2 and did NOT buy an n64 or gamecube. I've basically been buying sony the last ten years).

[Alucard79]

I just have to say this. I don't care that the PS3 is $600. It's well worth it. What I don't get though, is how half the people on DP would gladly pay 200 plus for a NES or Atari cartridge, but complain about how a 600 dollar system is just crazy. I don't mean to say that I don't pay out the ass for a rare game on occasion, but that is the price we pay for the stuff we love and just have to have.

[jajaja]

What I don't get though, is how half the people on DP would gladly pay 200 plus for a NES or Atari cartridge, but complain about how a 600 dollar system is just crazy.

Good point. I think it have something to do that people over in USA isnt used to prices like this on a console. Here you can pre-order the PS3 right now for $900 :)

[Towlie2110]

I'd much rather spend 600 to get a huge healthy start for a complete n64 collection, then a next gen gaming console.

[Bronty-2]

I just have to say this. I don't care that the PS3 is $600. It's well worth it. What I don't get though, is how half the people on DP would gladly pay 200 plus for a NES or Atari cartridge, but complain about how a 600 dollar system is just crazy. I don't mean to say that I don't pay out the ass for a rare game on occasion, but that is the price we pay for the stuff we love and just have to have.

It's simple. The 200+ rare game is going to have some resale value if you ever need to sell it. The 600 you drop on a ps3 is money you are flushing down the toilet; the resale value will be next to nil in 5-10 years. Let's be clear, I do not buy rare games FOR the resale value; I buy them because I love collecting. But if I have an emergency or something or my collecting tastes change I can liquidate and put the money towards something else. Not so with the ps3 in a few years.

Money that you spend purely to play games just depreciates over time. Money that you spend on collecting at least has a fighting chance of breaking even (depending on what you collect, I guess). So if I drop $600 on a rare cart and sell it in five years, I'll probably do fine. Maybe I'll break even, maybe I'll lose a bit, maybe I'll gain a bit... and in the meantime I've gotten to enjoy owning it. But that $600 new games purchase is just money I spent on impatience. The system and games will be 1/4 the price in five years anyway.

[whoisKeel]

Totally agree with Bronty. Totally DISAGREE that the PS3 will be $300. You're definition of "theory" is shady at best. I agree that it would be sweet (transparent) marketing tool to price switch like that...but you're forgetting about all the professional price speculation from 3rd parties. They're not guessing $300. Not only that but the biggest downfall right now of Blu-Ray (VS HD-DVD) is the high entry price. If they could make a Blu-Ray player for $300 right now THEY WOULD (or Toshiba, etc. would).

And that's Sony's plan. Nail the Blu-Ray markey by putting PS3's in the home. It's killing two birds with one stone (JUST LIKE THE PS2 DID WITH DVD).


I wish it were $300 too man, I do, but it just isn't going to play out like that. That said, I sure as hell ain't paying more than $250 for a gaming console anytime in the near future.

[8-bitNesMan]

I think the Wii will outsell the PS3. I know this is a bold prediction, but hear me out on this one. Three Wii consoles, for the price of one PS3. Also, the Wii already has an exciting launch lineup with an innovative new controller. What is Sony going to give us for 6 hard-earned bills? Warhawk 2.0? Blu-ray is fine and good, but most gamers (casual and hardcore) still can't afford the high-end TV's to fully appreciate it. Bronty also made an excellent point. I'm creeping up on 30 myself and I've been gaming since I was old enough to covet my cousin's 2600. If the PS3 doesn't move the hardcore crowd, what chance does Sony stand with casual gamers and parents? Look at the DS vs. PSP. The DS was quirky and innovative; the PSP was technologically superior. Now the DS is winning the sales battle, or at least holding its own. I realize that a lot of people will think the PS3 is the must-have item of the decade and I know there will be Ebay insanity in droves. But just remember this post on this date, and see if the Big N doesn't surprise a few naysayers. BTW, I own a PS one and two with a large collection of games for each, and consider myself a fan of all consoles and games, so long as they're GOOD...

[Richter Belmount]

I'd much rather spend 600 to get a huge healthy start for a complete n64 collection, then a next gen gaming console.
ditto except i want some duo games

[Alucard79]

I just have to say this. I don't care that the PS3 is $600. It's well worth it. What I don't get though, is how half the people on DP would gladly pay 200 plus for a NES or Atari cartridge, but complain about how a 600 dollar system is just crazy. I don't mean to say that I don't pay out the ass for a rare game on occasion, but that is the price we pay for the stuff we love and just have to have.

It's simple. The 200+ rare game is going to have some resale value if you ever need to sell it. The 600 you drop on a ps3 is money you are flushing down the toilet; the resale value will be next to nil in 5-10 years. Let's be clear, I do not buy rare games FOR the resale value; I buy them because I love collecting. But if I have an emergency or something or my collecting tastes change I can liquidate and put the money towards something else. Not so with the ps3 in a few years.

Money that you spend purely to play games just depreciates over time. Money that you spend on collecting at least has a fighting chance of breaking even (depending on what you collect, I guess). So if I drop $600 on a rare cart and sell it in five years, I'll probably do fine. Maybe I'll break even, maybe I'll lose a bit, maybe I'll gain a bit... and in the meantime I've gotten to enjoy owning it. But that $600 new games purchase is just money I spent on impatience. The system and games will be 1/4 the price in five years anyway.


I see you're point, but to me it isn't flushing money down the toilet. I don't buy something in hopes that I'll break even with it in 4 or 5 years down the road. If I ever NEED to liquidate my assets, it won't be coming from my game collection. I'd sell my wife before I sell my collection... by the way, I need cash, make me an offer for the wife :evil:

[jajaja]

If the PS3 doesn't move the hardcore crowd, what chance does Sony stand with casual gamers and parents? Look at the DS vs. PSP. The DS was quirky and innovative; the PSP was technologically superior.

Its way too early to say if the PS3 will appeal to the "hardcore" gamer or not. Nintendo have always been successful with handhelds and they have experience with it. PSP is Sony's first handheld. The reason why DS is more successful is because of the games. PSP was mighty popular when it got out, but the DS got superb games like Nintendogs and New SMB to mention some. These games appeal to everyone. I havnt followed the PSP games, but i cant think of a game that appeals to everyone and thats known by "everybody".

I think the fun factor in the games count 95% of success or not. If the console is $400 or $600 i dont it matters that much since people will buy it anyway and pricedrop will come. Sure, price on the games also matters alittle. I remember that games like RE2 and CBF for N64 was $150 here, but the PS3 games wont be more expencive than todays PS2 games so that wont be a problem. As long as the games are sweet, thats what people mostly care about. Your right that most people dont have HDTV yet, but its getting more and more common and the TVs are getting cheaper. So its an advantage to have a console that can already support it :)

Im really looking forward to see how the PS3 sales turns out.

[8-bitNesMan]

The reason why DS is more successful is because of the games.
I havnt followed the PSP games, but i cant think of a game that appeals to everyone and thats known by "everybody".

I think the games count 95% of success or not. Price on the games is what matters. I remember that games like RE2 and CBF for N64 was $150 here, but the PS3 games wont be more expencive than todays PS2 games.

The above statements are why I'm banking on history repeating itself with the Wii versus PS3. BTW, what store was ripping you off, selling you N64 games for $150? LOL

One more thing: don't bet that PS3 games won't be at least $10 more than PS2 titles. Look at XB360 opening price points.

[Emuaust]

I just have to say this. I don't care that the PS3 is $600. It's well worth it. What I don't get though, is how half the people on DP would gladly pay 200 plus for a NES or Atari cartridge, but complain about how a 600 dollar system is just crazy. I don't mean to say that I don't pay out the ass for a rare game on occasion, but that is the price we pay for the stuff we love and just have to have.

It's simple. The 200+ rare game is going to have some resale value if you ever need to sell it. The 600 you drop on a ps3 is money you are flushing down the toilet; the resale value will be next to nil in 5-10 years. Let's be clear, I do not buy rare games FOR the resale value; I buy them because I love collecting. But if I have an emergency or something or my collecting tastes change I can liquidate and put the money towards something else. Not so with the ps3 in a few years.

Money that you spend purely to play games just depreciates over time. Money that you spend on collecting at least has a fighting chance of breaking even (depending on what you collect, I guess). So if I drop $600 on a rare cart and sell it in five years, I'll probably do fine. Maybe I'll break even, maybe I'll lose a bit, maybe I'll gain a bit... and in the meantime I've gotten to enjoy owning it. But that $600 new games purchase is just money I spent on impatience. The system and games will be 1/4 the price in five years anyway.

Id have to say that to me its sounds like you only buy games
based on there monetary value and resale point, this
reminds me of the topic in classic gaming recently about gamers vs collectors,
Ill pay that much for a PS3 as ill get my moneys worth of enjoyment
out of it, regardless of its depretiation factor.

This is why most people couldnt give a shit about posting there
thoughts on DP as unfourtunatly this int the way a lot of people
on here look at it,

Each to there own.

[NickmasterX]

I might get the PS3 when it drops in price, but I WILL be getting a Wii on launch. All of the good PS3 games dont come out for like a year from now, such as metal gear solid 4, ect. I have no interest in the 360, most of those games come out on PC anway, with better visuals and more options, modding capability, ect.

[jajaja]

The above statements are why I'm banking on history repeating itself with the Wii versus PS3. BTW, what store was ripping you off, selling you N64 games for $150? LOL

One more thing: don't bet that PS3 games won't be at least $10 more than PS2 titles. Look at XB360 opening price points.

The prices for N64 were insane here in Europe, atleast here i live. If you saw a N64 game under $100 it was cheap hehe. Well, i cant be sure of price on the PS3 games, but you can pre-order 2 game here, NHL 2007 and NBA 2007, and the price is about the same as PS2 games cost today. Eventho they are more expencive i doubt its more than max $10 extra, we'll see soon anyway :)

[Bronty-2]

I just have to say this. I don't care that the PS3 is $600. It's well worth it. What I don't get though, is how half the people on DP would gladly pay 200 plus for a NES or Atari cartridge, but complain about how a 600 dollar system is just crazy. I don't mean to say that I don't pay out the ass for a rare game on occasion, but that is the price we pay for the stuff we love and just have to have.

It's simple. The 200+ rare game is going to have some resale value if you ever need to sell it. The 600 you drop on a ps3 is money you are flushing down the toilet; the resale value will be next to nil in 5-10 years. Let's be clear, I do not buy rare games FOR the resale value; I buy them because I love collecting. But if I have an emergency or something or my collecting tastes change I can liquidate and put the money towards something else. Not so with the ps3 in a few years.

Money that you spend purely to play games just depreciates over time. Money that you spend on collecting at least has a fighting chance of breaking even (depending on what you collect, I guess). So if I drop $600 on a rare cart and sell it in five years, I'll probably do fine. Maybe I'll break even, maybe I'll lose a bit, maybe I'll gain a bit... and in the meantime I've gotten to enjoy owning it. But that $600 new games purchase is just money I spent on impatience. The system and games will be 1/4 the price in five years anyway.

Id have to say that to me its sounds like you only buy games
based on there monetary value and resale point, this
reminds me of the topic in classic gaming recently about gamers vs collectors,
Ill pay that much for a PS3 as ill get my moneys worth of enjoyment
out of it, regardless of its depretiation factor.

This is why most people couldnt give a shit about posting there
thoughts on DP as unfourtunatly this int the way a lot of people
on here look at it,

Each to there own.

No, I don't buy games for resale value alone. I buy because I love collecting. But sooner or later you or a loved one WILL be selling your collection. It may be as a result of lost interest, lack of space, an emergency, or even your death but sooner or later it will get sold (and realistically probably way before your death). When its eventually time to sell it would be nice to get more than five cents on the dollar.

So in my mind there's a huge difference between paying $600 for something with resale value and something with no resale value. I don't know why that's hard to understand. Certainly any rare game I drop $600 on I never want to sell, and certainly if I have an emergency I better hope I can cover it without selling games collection (otherwise I'm spending too much on games) but the point is the option is always there.

I didn't always collect games. I collected comics for over fifteen years and while I still appreciate them I don't buy them anymore and have sold the pricier ones. The $600 rare vintage comics, when I lost interest, were easy to liquidate. Not so with the $600 stack of shiny new comics (lucky to get $50 for them).

[Bronty-2]

I see you're point, but to me it isn't flushing money down the toilet. I don't buy something in hopes that I'll break even with it in 4 or 5 years down the road. If I ever NEED to liquidate my assets, it won't be coming from my game collection. I'd sell my wife before I sell my collection... by the way, I need cash, make me an offer for the wife :evil:

Post some pictures and we'll talk LOL

[jajaja]

Emuaust is right. I totaly understand that people dont want to pay full price for something when it just get out, but calling it money down the toilet just because the price will drop, thats not right to me. In this case, $600 for the PS3, you might get ALOT of fun for the money so it will totaly be worth it.

Of course, you can think of what you will get for the item if you sell it later on, but i wouldnt always think about this. If i did it, it would ruin the fun. I mean, if i bought PS3 at launch and only had in mind that i might not get as much for it if i sell it in 10 years, it would take away alot of fun. I would just enjoy the PS3 right now, since its now that i live. Who knows what happend in 10 years, maybe my house get robbed or in worse case i die in a accident, its impossible to know.

Im not saying that i dont think about resell value when i buy expencive things, but this is only in certain cases, like if i i.e pay $200 for a rare NES game. I also do it when i buy some GBA games, thinking that they might be worth alot in the future. Its sorta a desease if its being done with "everything" you buy, i know exactly how it is. Im not saying that your like this bronty, im just talking generaly and about myself :)

If you buy a game "only" to profit/break even from it in some years and that fails i could agree that it would be money down the toilet, but not in cases like paying full price for a console at launch, since you wont get the same price if you sell it in some years, 100% guaranteed.

[Emuaust]

yeah your right jajaja and sitting here in my game room and looking
around i would have fuck all here if it wasnt for the fact I wanted
to pay full price when it came out for the simple fact I WANT
to play and enjoy it.

My purchases have always been and will always decided on the
question, "Am i going to play it or look at it?"


Anyways its bashing an old topic now,

PS3 W00T here we COME!!!!!

November baby what a month in gaming, if nintendo come
to the party I think I may become a fulltime gamer for a month
or two me thinks LOL LOL 8-)

[Bronty-2]

I guess at the end of the day it comes down to whether you're more of a collector or a gamer. I'm more collector than gamer so spending $600 on a new console just doesn't compute.

I appreciate the comment that worrying about the price takes away the fun, but to me the opposite is true too. If its a huge cash outlay, to me that takes away the fun. I like the games I play to be cheap, disposable entertainment. Making it expensive ruins it for me :)

[jajaja]

Totaly know what your saying :) I remember before, i was "afraid" to beat games because when i finished them it wasnt so much fun. I remember this especialy when i played Larry 7. Alitte off-topic i know, but i had to say it hehe.

[8-bitNesMan]

I'm bumping this one back up because I was looking through my old posts and this seemed very interesting in light of recent developments. I'm proud that my words of six months ago are ringing VERY true. Thoughts, anyone?

[hezeuschrist]

Good bump, this thread is teh hilarious three months after the new consoles launched.

In fairness though, it remains to be seen how each competitor will do in the sales arena down the line. We ARE only three months in and while it is a pretty big shock that the PS3 has been readily available for a while now, it certainly doesn't spell any kinds of doom for the system or its eventual sales status.

Same goes for the Wii. It's selling like mad right now, but will it be able to maintain a healthy software flow to keep it going? The DS has a non-stop barrage of amazing support and has for too many consecutive months to count, but the Wii doesn't look to have that stellar of a lineup past the always-great Nintendo first party lineup.

I think we'll see a much more neck-and-neck race between all three competitors rather than the outright domination Sony has had in the past two generations... and thats the way it should be. Stiff competition forces everyone to be at the top of their game, and when that happens the consumer wins.

[Hep038]

Oh man this was a good bump, nothing like a system fight to turn into a spelling /word definition fight. Classic DP thread in the modern gaming.

[8-bitNesMan]

Important numbers from this article:

Consoles sold:

360 - 10 million
Wii - 5.8 million
PS3 - 1.8 million

Nintendo NETTED 1.87 BILLION DOLLARS this fiscal year through March!


Check it out:

Nintendo Plans to Boost Wii Production
By YURI KAGEYAMA, AP Business Writer

Fri Apr 27, 5:22 AM

TOKYO - Nintendo's president acknowledged Friday that the shortage of the hit Wii game machine was "abnormal," and promised production was being boosted to increase deliveries by next month.

"We must do our best to fix this abnormal lack of stock," Nintendo President Satoru Iwata told reporters. "We have not been able to properly foresee demand."

The comments came a day after the Japanese manufacturer of the Wii _ which comes with a wand that can be used as a sword, tennis racket or fishing rod depending on the game _ reported that sales nearly doubled for the fiscal year, lifted by robust sales of the Wii and the DS portable, a handheld video game.

Kyoto-based Nintendo Co.'s net profit jumped 77 percent to 174.29 billion yen ($1.47 billion) in the year through March, up dramatically from 98.38 billion yen a year earlier. Sales soared 90 percent to 966.53 billion yen ($8.13 billion).

The Wii has pummeled its rivals in a head-to-head battle in next-generation video game consoles involving Sony Corp.'s PlayStation 3, which has been plagued with production problems, and Microsoft Corp.'s Xbox 360.

Iwata refused to disclose the monthly production capacity for the Wii, and said it was too early to say by how much the production was being raised.

But he said efforts were under way to increase production, and more machines will get delivered to stores around the world.

"We will do our best to offer the machine for those who are waiting," he said at a Tokyo hall.

The Wii's motion-sensitive remote control wand has made it hit even with people unaccustomed to playing video games. It faced some minor problems early on with its wand, which flew out of the hands of some zealous players, snapping the strap and at times crashing into TVs. But that hasn't dented profits, and the console is still flying off store shelves.

Nintendo, which also makes Pokemon and Super Mario games, is planning to sell 14 million Wii machines for the current fiscal year through March 2008, having sold 5.84 million Wii consoles worldwide in the five months since its release late last year.

Sony has sold just 1.84 million PlayStation 3 machines so far worldwide, while Microsoft has shipped more than 10 million Xbox 360 consoles worldwide.

The PlayStation 3 went on sale late last year in the U.S. and Japan, and in March in Europe. Xbox 360 beat rivals to market in 2005.

Nintendo also has a big hit in the DS, selling more than 40 million since its launch in late 2004. The machine comes with a touch panel, introducing new easy-to-play games such as raising a dog that players can pet on the screen. Nintendo expects sales of 22 million more DS machines this fiscal year.

Iwata said Nintendo is now producing 2.5 million DS machines a month to meet bursting demand, the highest production ever for a Nintendo game machine.

Rock on Big N!