CNN predicts PS3 will launch for $500

Not a chance...

When it launches in Spring of 2007 (because you know that they won't make it in time for the Holiday season in the US or Europe,) the cost of BluRay players might readily availible enough to decrease the cost of the system to where it MIGHT be $500. But of course, Sony can make more money by charging $700, so they will.

Sony must keep the console @ $400 or less, or else they will alienate a lot of gamers. $400 was a borderline price for the Xbox 360, but I picked it up anyways....$500 is just overdoing it, and $700 is absolutely absurd.



If Sony has to take a hit on each console they sell (like Microsoft), then that's what they have to do...releasing the console at $500 or more would be suicide.

$500 is alot, not too much, but alot. When you consider that it has blueray i think that it is worth it. Sony better have PS3 games playable at E3. If microsoft can get a pricedrop of the 360 or halo 3 out by the time PS3 comes out sony's chances won't be good.

$500 seems too low. Sony can't afford to lose money the way MS can. Sony has intense competition from its Asian neighbors. If the xbox 360 really costs $700 to make, I'm guessing the PS3 will cost at least that. It's got Cell processor, Nvidia graphics chip, Blu-Ray drive, so it's got cost around $800-900 just to make.

I thnk the $700 price is about right. I'm going to predict 699.99, and that it will still sell out!

I'd expect a 499$ pricetag (US). They'll keep it that way for 6 months to sell out to early adopters (which they'll do), then drop it to 450 or 400$ to help them go mass-market.



At least, that's what I'd think about doing. Either way, I don't see how this is a surprise. We already know they're losing at least a couple of hundred dollars per console at 500$. I'm not sure they can handle dropping it another 100$, as their coffers aren't as deep as they used to be.

I don't care how "powerful" it is, I just can't justify spending over $500 for the console alone, and then having to buy all the games and accessories you will need, its just becoming too expensive.

"We already know they're losing at least a couple of hundred dollars per console at 500$."



No you don't, and no one will know until the retail price is revealed in a couple of months. I still expect it to launch at $399 or lower.

Is Sony purposefully shooting themselves in the foot as some kind of anti-mainstream marketing, reverse psychology strategy?



After such a great PS2 run this is all very surprising.



But, with the missing controller, wild price estimates and increasingly cranky developers (anyone seen a final dev kit yet?) ... they're starting to make the 32X, Dreamcast and Saturn look like blockbusters.



Bottom line, it looks as though gamers (those who are still interested in paying 500 for a system) will just have a wait a little while longer to get their hands on some ports of games they played in 2005.

I guess maybe I "saved" money by getting an Xbox 360 (hahahaha). On a serious note, $500.00 is just INSANE for anyone to pay for ANY video game system. Period. And I don't care if it does play Blu-Ray DVDs, it's backwards compatible, or it makes my dinner. Honestly. I had a difficult enough time coming up with $400.00 for the Xbox 360. And most games for it are $60.00. Now, don't get me wrong, it's a great system. I like it alot. The graphics are great!!! Especially if you hook it up to an HDTV (which I have). However, most gamers out there buy a new videogame system to play videogames. Not because it plays Blu-Ray DVDs, etc. Do you honestly think that the average household with the average parents making an average salary are going to be willing to shell out $500 or more for yet another videogame system??? Forget about it. Unless Sony is able to sell the PS3 for $400.00 or less, I think that most people will either buy an Xbox 360 (if they can find one) or wait til Sony drops the price tag on the PS3 (which probably won't happen for a very long time). As for me, I'll stick with my Xbox 360. Just my opinion.

Predictions suck.



I'm just gonna wait and see, you know, this Spring, when it's launching.



But seriously, I want to see what exactly the PS3 will offer me before giving Sony $500.

A bottom of the line Blu-Ray will be $1000. A fully featured Blu-Ray will be $1800 and that is without a Cell chip, Nvidia graphics card, memory, controller, etc. The loss Sony is going to have to take on each machine will be huge just to sell it at $699.99. Plus that is going to undercut not only their own Blu-Ray player, but the manufacturers that they have licensed the technology too as well. OUCH! Of course, this only affects Sony's bottom line so I don't really care. Just give me some good games and I could care less how much they lose.

Not a penny over $400.



The people who think it will cost a fortune ($500-700) are the same people who thought the PSP would cost $500 and who thought the PS2 would cost $500 and the same people who think it will be delayed until 2007.



You're all clueless.



And anyone who really thinks it'll be $700 needs a lobotomy.

Interesting. If Sony blows it, then suddenly Nintendo has a shot at dominating Japan while MicroSoft could have an upper hand in the States. The playing field would certainly shift, but to what degree and for whom overall.. we don't know.

"$500.00 is just INSANE for anyone to pay for ANY video game system. Period"



You mean like a PC? You'll be suprised what people will pay for their entertainment. If it's less than $1000.00 it'll sell out. People will see the high price not as an obstical, but as a "Wow, it must be REALLLLY powerful and awesome" flag on the system.



Speculation is really pointless currently anyhow. On with the speculation.

It would not make sense for Sony to come out of the gate 100 more than the 360.



Sony should street for 400.



Given it will already blow the doors off the 360 performance wise, price point will be a secondary factor.....

My prediction: If the PS3 is sold for more than $500, the PS3 tanks.

I can believe $500 if it launches in '06. I'd say more like $450 tops if it's Spring '07. Anything over $500 is suicide for Sony. Considering the videogame market is one of the few sectors where Sony is still turning a profit recently, they can't afford to screw up the PS3 launch. If they wait until 2007 they run into two huge problems. First of all, after being out for over a year, the Xbox 360 will probably already have had a price drop by then. Most likely that the 'Premium' SKU will take the place at $299 and the Core will disappear (the Core SKU was stupid to begin with). And second, with most developers saying that the PS3 and Xbox360 are pretty much equal in their graphical abilities, they will be showing up to the party with similar hardware that costs more money, and a year later. That could be very bad.



I personally think it will be out at the end of 2006 for $400-500. I think Sony will eat more loss on the console initially to make sure Playstation remains #1 in sales.

Does anyone remember the predictions that the PSP would cost $500?



This is the Sony hype machine in full effect. They put out there that the PS3 will cost 1 arm and 2 legs. When it comes out for the price of one testicle, everyone thinks they are getting a deal.



Anyone who falls for this tactic AGAIN is a tool.



Don't be a tool.

Actually I think it would not make sense for Sony to come out of the gate for less than $100 more than the 360. It has Blue-Ray and it has to cost at least a couple of hundred dollars more to make than the 360 does.

There's no way they'll sell it for over $400. They would risk losing too much ground to Microsoft if they didn't. Also, aren't these the same people that pridicted the 360 at like $850 or some crazy number?

The PS3 will launch in late October 2006 and it'll cost $399.



Read the stuff towards the bottom of the article - don't just skim the first paragraph and think you've gotten the whole story. This is a head-fake on the part of Sony, just like the PSP speculation was. Make everybody think the system's going to be uber-expensive so when you do finally announce the price, it sounds cheap.



I've been saying this ever since Sony's ridiculously suspicious "it'll be expensive" comment, and I'm obviously not the only person who feels that way. No company making a mass market product says "it'll be expensive" and actually means it. This is all part of a plan. This is called marketing and PR in the modern world.

I could see $500 onpening price to catch early adopters but it better drop before christmas. Lets keep in mind that This system has a lot of expensive hardware and sony can't afford to take too big a loss on the hardware.



Everyone points out that sony and microsoft (unlike nintendo) can afford to lose money on systems because they have other sources of revenue. However sony is counting on the ps3 to pull them out the financial hole they're in. Sony's laying off 10,000 employees. If the ps3 fails sony is in real trouble.

The PSP might as well have been $500...$250 is too much for what little they have to offer. If I cared for portable MP3s and videos, I'd just use my moonshell-equipped DS. Where are the games?



Um, if the PS3 is more than $400, they can screw themselves. Actually, they could do that before, but I would have bought it anyway (when the games justify it). At least the 360 is fun even without games on disc. I can't say the same for the PS3. The more there is to read on the PS3, the less interesting it gets.



I'll stick with my 360 and the Revo when it comes out. Apparently you'll be able to get 2 good systems for the price of their 1 system.

if the system comes with a Hard Drive (and not this 13GB shit) at least 60GB (which cost very little more then 20GB) and is infact Linux Compatible, I could see myself easily spending 1000$ on this new computer for my TV. combines with a Gigabit hub. it will out perform my 2000$ PC in every way.



with linux I could put in some word processors, powerpoint (the open source one) and use it for everything I use my PC for. plus it will play Blu-Ray, and games.



it will also lose its value much slower then a PC will, and at worse it will drop to 100$ in value used. where you cant even put your old PC in the trash (enviromental laws)

When people look at the graphics and realize that the cheaper console is same (hell, the 2nd gen 360 games are superior to the 1st gen ps3 games)... what will they think.

"And anyone who really thinks it'll be $700 needs a lobotomy. "



LOL, I think you meant anyone that thinks that it'll be $700 got a lobotomy.



Anyway, it won't cost more than 500 dollars. It's just not feasible considering it's basically a backwards compatible 360 with Blu-ray. 500 is not too much, it's a bargain for a blu-ray player; since most people will see it as a console, many will opt for the 360 initially due to its price point or Halo 3 or both (if).



Mostly hardcore gamers, 1080p or regular High Definition and Blu-ray enthusiasts will be the first ones on getting it. Some rich parents will get it to their kids given that it's a Sony or a PlayStation.



After that, the PS3 will go down in price, enough to compete with the 360. Probably when the good games come out, just as it happened with PS1, PS2 and will probably happen with the PSP.

Why would it matter, people are willing to pay $700+ for the 360 on Ebay, why wouldn't the Playstation hardcore fans be willing to dish out more than $700 a system? Especially when it suppose to be the real "High Definition" system. The first 2 million buyers will be willing to spend that much anyways. Those who say $400 is too much will hold out until better games come out, or when that price drops to $200 or less. It's not an overkill for Sony to release their system in the $600-700 price range.

This is what I think is going to happen and its an opinion coming from a 28 year old econ major and consumer with an average salary (I know for a fact its average) that likes high tech stuff.

1) Xbox 360 will conquer because its a reasonable price for a next gen console which isn't that much next gen.

2)Sony with the PS3 once again is ahead of their game like the PSP is to handhelds with all the expensive hardware but with no games. PS3 games will probably not look much different than they do on the Xbox 360.

Why you ask, because only roughly 10% percent of households have HDTV and only half of them even know how to attain high definition on those tv’s. And half of those don’t know the difference between resolution screen 720p (1280x720) or 1080i/p (1920x1080). PS3 games are going to be 1080p resolution does anybody care probably not! All they know it’s a PS3 and its better than an xbox 360, but without a hdtv games will look exactly the same on a standard tv.

They want to create the next media standard with blue ray but people are perfectly happy with there current DVD collections they have worked so hard to build up over the years. They believe people will adapt similarly to dvd’s. There are some variables different at hand than they did 7 years ago. First and obvious one movies currently being made are crap, so why would you want to watch a crappy movie in the best format in existence at home? Exactly!

Another reason “channel conflict”,

“Dischord in the channel, which can be due to a number of factors. Some varieties include Horizontal Conflict, involving partners on the same channel level (such as 2 retailers) and Vertical Conflict, involving members on different channel levels (such as wholesaler and a retailer).” m3mnoch: http://m3mnoch.wordpress.com

In other words why pay $1800 for a standalone player (initial average price for blue ray player when released) when you can pay $500-600 for the same thing and it plays games (PS3 initial speculated price).

3)People will buy the Rev., its inexpensive an alternative to buying the PS3 but still having a second console, and also trying out there new technology but won't cost them a fortune.



And it all boils down to consumer spending I believe, the economy is not that great even though our President claims it’s getting better. Who wants to start their whole movie collection all over again, not me! Who still thinks $50 not to mention $60 is too much for games, everyone! Thus blue-ray hardware and media will be costly.



So Sony’s mistake will put Microsoft on top or head to head with Nintendo because blue-ray will not be disruptive technology. It’s going to fail like Betamax did when it went against the VHS. VHS was not as sharp or as good quality but it was an inexpensive alternative. Than came Laser Disk and that as well failed miserably.

I believe that the supply of Xbox 360's will surpass demand which in turn lower the price drastically by the time PS3 launches. This will hurt the PS3 launch plus the debut of Halo 3. This will be a very interesting outcome but in the end it’s the average consumer not the hard core gamer that decides who wins this war. And I mentioned it before that it’s all about consumer spending, people would rather pay $300-400 for a next gen console than $500-600. So us fanboys be it Microsoft or Sony, we are the minorities.

I wouldn't be surprised if the PS3 will be $500 to $700. Sony definitely won't take in huge losses like Microsoft is. The PS3 could very join the high price club with the Neo Geo and Panasonic 3do. No doubt the PS3 will be awesome, but if its $700, how many gamers can afford to pay that much or willing to pay that much for that matter?

@skyrous (and in general, really)



Not to jump in to discussion, but Nintendo can actually afford to
lose more money than Sony right now. Nintendo's business model has
made it so they are constantly making profit every quarter, and they
just stock-pile that cash for a rainy day. Sure, any calculus student
can tell you that they're profits our sloping downwards, with a
negative first derivative, but since when has math ever helped us?
(Yeah, I'm a math major, but I'm not in denial).



Sony, however, has taken losses in almost all of its sectors -
they're losing TVs to Samsung and music players to Apple (remember
the Walkman? It used to be a household name before silhouettes
started dancing while holding their colorful iPods). Sony needs a
successful PS3 - even though it can afford to sell the console at a
loss, it needs to look forward to long-term benefits (hence why
Howard Stringer has been made CEO to cut corners and make them
financially successful again).



Yes, Microsoft can spend an ass-load and be okay. They're just good
like that.



And another note, although I think everyone has grasped this, but all
console makers (even Nintendo) initially sell their console for a
loss, knowing they'll recoup expenses through software sales. Sony
will probably take a big hit regardless, just like Microsoft is now -
eventually, as technology improves, it'll be cheaper to make each
console, but for now Sony needs a console cheap enough that people
will a) buy the system and b) still buy a ton of games for it.

"It's not an overkill for Sony to release their system in the $600-700 price range."



Just as it wasn't for Jaguar, 3DO, Neo-Geo...



It won't happen. Sony isn't losing THAT MUCH per console sold. If they sell it at 500, they might as well be losing 100-150, or even be coming out of it even (although it's unlikely).



Since Blu-ray prices will come down to the level or almost the level of HD-DVD, it's *just* an initial high cost of Blu-rays, but you can distribute the costs among every PS3 to be sold and other blu-rays sold. The cell will also be sold to military and medical institutions, which could help ease the cost of the cell. The cell will probably end up being included in PSP2 (if there ever is one), and later in Sony Ericsson phones, which are becoming very popular.



Anyway, it'll probably be 500 and worth it, so 400 could be a bargain.

$500 would be just fine.



I mean Xbox 360 + wireless adapter costs as much.

Sony knows the PS3 can't be priced over $500 or else only the most hardcore gamers will purchase it. As has been stated, Sony needs the PS3 to do well or else they're in trouble. There's no way they'd price the PS3 out of the main stream gamers price.



Also, as has been stated in comments above, the PSP price speculation was that at best it would be $300 but probably more. Instead it ended up being $185 in Japan and $250 for the Value Crap package in the US.



If the PS3 is in fact $500 it will still sell but will give M$ a big advantage. Maybe Sony will be nice enough to offer a Spider-Man 2 Blu-ray copy to the first million sold. That'll do it.

If I remeber correctly, the 3DO and Neo-Geo originaly sold for about $700, and they didn't exactly light up the sales charts. It would be economic suicide for Sony to sell the PS3 for $700. $350-$450 sounds about right, any higher limits mass adoption.

“This is what I think is going to happen and its an opinion coming from a 28 year old econ major and consumer with an average salary (I know for a fact its average) that likes high tech stuff. “





”1) Xbox 360 will conquer because its a reasonable price for a next gen console which isn't that much next gen.”



The Nintendo Revolution has a much better price, is 100% backwards compatible and innovative. So if price is the only factor, Revolution would win.



”2)Sony with the PS3 once again is ahead of their game like the PSP is to handhelds with all the expensive hardware but with no games. PS3 games will probably not look much different than they do on the Xbox 360. “



We don’t know anything about this yet, but it could be true.



”Why you ask, because only roughly 10% percent of households have HDTV and only half of them even know how to attain high definition on those tv’s. And half of those don’t know the difference between resolution screen 720p (1280x720) or 1080i/p (1920x1080). PS3 games are going to be 1080p resolution does anybody care probably not! All they know it’s a PS3 and its better than an xbox 360, but without a hdtv games will look exactly the same on a standard tv. “



People are not that stupid, and with a little advertisement it works out. TV channels will upgrade to 1080p broadcasting, and most early adopters had money to buy an HDTV so they can buy another fully upgraded TV. 1080p will sooner or later replace 720p sets, specially because they will also become cheaper.



”They want to create the next media standard with blue ray but people are perfectly happy with there current DVD collections they have worked so hard to build up over the years.”



Every BD player is backwards compatible with DVD.



“They believe people will adapt similarly to dvd’s. There are some variables different at hand than they did 7 years ago.”



They know it’s not the same, that’s why HDTVs will become cheaper, and TV broadcasts will go to the fullest of High Definition, to entice them into buying a not so expensive 1080p set, which will entice them to buy a High Definition player. It will be slower than the VCR to DVD transition, but it will happen. You know, marketing.



“ First and obvious one movies currently being made are crap, so why would you want to watch a crappy movie in the best format in existence at home? Exactly!”



First and obvious, you are making the assumption that your opinion is a fact. Then you assume that people won’t buy classics. There are also TV shows out there.



”Another reason “channel conflict”,



“Dischord in the channel, which can be due to a number of factors. Some varieties include Horizontal Conflict, involving partners on the same channel level (such as 2 retailers) and Vertical Conflict, involving members on different channel levels (such as wholesaler and a retailer).” m3mnoch: http://m3mnoch.wordpress.com”



“In other words why pay $1800 for a standalone player (initial average price for blue ray player when released) when you can pay $500-600 for the same thing and it plays games (PS3 initial speculated price).”



Come on, now. You are quoting m3mnoch? So now he is an economist? You are quoting a random online opinion, not a specialist on the subject. “400 dollars lost per console” is ridiculous. Just because he thinks (and convinced you) that there will be a channel conflict, it doesn’t mean that there will be one; for a reason Blu-ray has a lot of support from many Consumer Electronics companies and movie studios. Again, the PS3 is just an ice-breaker for Blu-ray, not a competitor. All the companies that support Blu-ray don’t feel like they are competing with it, they are letting Sony do most of the investment (and rightfully because of that, most of the profit) so they can profit and lower prices at a much faster rate.



“3)People will buy the Rev., its inexpensive an alternative to buying the PS3 but still having a second console, and also trying out there new technology but won't cost them a fortune.”



Sometimes 360 and PS3 are seeming more like “second consoles” than the Revolution. At least in Joystiq, it has been the favorite console in polls when we haven’t even seen the games. If Nintendo did it one time, and is doing it a second time with the DS, which is just a small taste of the revolution, Nintendo could as well end up being dominant. I’m not saying they will, I’m saying they could be.



“And it all boils down to consumer spending I believe, the economy is not that great even though our President claims it’s getting better. Who wants to start their whole movie collection all over again, not me! Who still thinks $50 not to mention $60 is too much for games, everyone! Thus blue-ray hardware and media will be costly.”



Again, you are proving Nintendo’s point for the revolution.



“So Sony’s mistake will put Microsoft on top or head to head with Nintendo because blue-ray will not be disruptive technology. It’s going to fail like Betamax did when it went against the VHS. VHS was not as sharp or as good quality but it was an inexpensive alternative. Than came Laser Disk and that as well failed miserably.”



The only disruptor here is Nintendo, and maybe even a little the Blu-ray due to its capacity and High Definition movies. Last year, 2005 I was seeing little or no advertising of HDTV. Right now, even when I don’t watch TV, I’ve seen a lot of HDTV promotion even when it’s been less than two weeks of 2006. Who knows, maybe that’s just me. This time, Blu-ray won’t fail like Betamax because Beta did not provide as much storage as VHS, and VHS was chosen by porn, when internet porn was non-existant (nor the WWW for that matter). Now internet porn will make the porn industry worthless in this fight. Also, Laser Disk was competing against a dominant format, while Blu-ray is competing against an inferior, not so well supported, not dominant format, and all with the help of PS3.



“I believe that the supply of Xbox 360's will surpass demand which in turn lower the price drastically by the time PS3 launches. This will hurt the PS3 launch plus the debut of Halo 3. This will be a very interesting outcome but in the end it’s the average consumer not the hard core gamer that decides who wins this war. And I mentioned it before that it’s all about consumer spending, people would rather pay $300-400 for a next gen console than $500-600. So us fanboys be it Microsoft or Sony, we are the minorities.”



It all depends on how well everything is advertised, on how PS3 manages its price and how soon and how many games come out. After all, Japan is already in Sony’s hands, so is Britain partially. A lot of people will buy the PS3 if only for the same reason N64 was bought at its time: brand name. Oh, and it seems to have a lot more support than the N64.

lets hope its $700

“Not to jump in to discussion, but Nintendo can actually afford to

lose more money than Sony right now. Nintendo's business model has

made it so they are constantly making profit every quarter, and they

just stock-pile that cash for a rainy day. Sure, any calculus student

can tell you that they're profits our sloping downwards, with a

negative first derivative, but since when has math ever helped us?

(Yeah, I'm a math major, but I'm not in denial).”



I would say that the second derivative is about to reach zero and become positive again, just look at the DS as a small predictor for the revolution. Anyway…



“Sony, however, has taken losses in almost all of its sectors -

they're losing TVs to Samsung and music players to Apple (remember

the Walkman? It used to be a household name before silhouettes

started dancing while holding their colorful iPods). Sony needs a

successful PS3 - even though it can afford to sell the console at a

loss, it needs to look forward to long-term benefits (hence why

Howard Stringer has been made CEO to cut corners and make them

financially successful again).”



Agreed, but who knows, the cell might help them in the TV arena. If only they had underpowered the PSP or at least launched it with a decent hard drive and an iTunes style service, they could have made huge profit. The idiots just need games. I have a PSP and it’s so boring that is sickening. I thought “infected” was gonna be a lot better, but it’s too repetitive.





“Yes, Microsoft can spend an ass-load and be okay. They're just good

like that.”



Yeah, but just as Sony’s days could be counted, Microsoft’s days are also. With Google being almost unstoppable, they might as well release their music service, their messenger service and even their own PCs (at least most of these are rumored). That and the increasing popularity in Mac and Linux, Microsoft is being cornered. That’s why they tried to reach the console market. In the worst case scenario for them, Nintendo will end up owning the console arena again, and all other companies will have ate their market share in everything (worst case).



“And another note, although I think everyone has grasped this, but all

console makers (even Nintendo) initially sell their console for a

loss, knowing they'll recoup expenses through software sales. Sony

will probably take a big hit regardless, just like Microsoft is now -

eventually, as technology improves, it'll be cheaper to make each

console, but for now Sony needs a console cheap enough that people

will a) buy the system and b) still buy a ton of games for it.”



I think Sony knows that their market share will be reduced, but that they will have a pricepoint good enough to end up in close second to Microsoft (worst case?) but setting the standard of the future.

oh and hd-dvd and blu-ray can kiss my ass

yea I agree with dan, hd-dvd and blue-ray can kiss my ass.

r u crazy #35?

"13. Not a penny over $400.







The people who think it will cost a fortune ($500-700) are the same people who thought the PSP would cost $500 and who thought the PS2 would cost $500 and the same people who think it will be delayed until 2007.





You're all clueless.



And anyone who really thinks it'll be $700 needs a lobotomy."



People thought the ps2 was going to be $500 because of all the hype over the specs of the ps2 which ended up being release with just a fraction of what they said it was originally going to have. The bottom line is when the ps3 is released I can almost guarantee that it will not have everything sony originally said it would. But only time will tell

Many Playstation 2 fans will hold off on purchasing an Xbox 360 until the arrival of the PS3. This is evident with the sales numbers the Xbox 360 has been having in Japan. Many American gamers are holding off for the PS3 as well. It seems that Sony’s vision is to convert their current fanbase over to the PS3 with the value of the system weighing mostly into its Blu-Ray movie capabilities. When the PS3 comes out, people will be more focused on purchasing Blu-Ray movies rather than games for the system, similar to how PSP owners purchase more UMD movies than games on average. This strategy may also be apparent by how Sony plans to price the PS3 far below the competitors’ Blu-Ray players. So even if the PS3 fails as game system, it will prevail as a Blu-Ray player and still be purchased by many movie enthusiasts, similar to how the PSP has sold so many units as a portable media player. Sony’s fanbase will always trust in Sony that the games will eventually come.



Consider the fact that Sony currently holds the largest market share in the game industry. With this, they currently hold the largest fanbase in the gaming industry. Combine this with the fact that the average game player is age 30 and the average game buyer is age 37; Sony knows that today’s generation of gamers are people with jobs and money who will be willing to spend big bucks on gaming. Since they had started the design of the PS3, Sony had set their vision to capitalize on this demographic. The PS3 will sell many units regardless of the competition’s vision or direction of the future of video gaming.

Quote: The bottom line is when the ps3 is released I can almost guarantee that it will not have everything sony originally said it would. But only time will tell



Yes, they are going to take out the power supply & you will have to buy a generator & bike to hook up to your PS3 to power it. You will have to get your mothers & grandmothers to pedal the bike, to power the generator, so as you can play.



Sony's machines are always so dissapointing & major let downs, thats why only 100 million people own them. hahahahhahahahahah.



I wish they would adopt more of Nintendo's policies, like making bad mario sequels & an assortment of really colourful kiddies games. Michael Jackson has a room full of gamecubes at neverland, as he knows it will attract a shlew of 5 yr old potential victims.

I also wish Sony would adopt more of MS's policies, so the PS would only have FPS games & Tom Clancy games.



Buy the way rdj75. Can you just give us a list of the things they took out of the PS2, & give us a short essay reasoning why it affected your playing?



The only real thing they've said is that comment about the Toy Story graphics. All that says to me, is that that is what they are envisioning for there machines & that is there goal. They may not have reached it yet, but it excites me that, that is where they are heading. Ohh, I tell a lie, they also said the emotion engine would bring new things to games, which is sorta impossible anyway, unless they gave you a set of pliers with the console & gave you instructions to give them to your little sister whilst your playing. then have her attach them to your testicles & squeeze.....Wouldn't that bring out some emotions.

It never fails that in these discussions people always try to invoke historical precedents that under examination offer no lessons for the current situation. For instance, the 3DO had far more problems than its launch price, which remained evident as it continued to fail no matter how far the price dropped. The Neo-Geo was a special set of cirumstances that allowed SNK to increase ordering volumes for the chips it used in both arcade and console apps. The console carried a substantial profit unlike more mainstream units. It was not a conventional post-NES business model.



(The Jaguar is invoked above but for no clear reason as it had a very mainstream price at launch.)



$500 is not an unreasonable launch price for the PS3 when the entire package is considered. It is beyond the means of many wouldbe owners but what of it? Tens of millions didn't see fit the to buy the Playstation or PS2 until it had seen substantial price drops either. The target market at launch is a necessarily affluent demographic but also a highly influential demographic thanks to its purchasing power which in turn can establish standards. At the heart of the issue is HDTV.



When the first color TV was brought to retail in the 50's it carried a price equivalent to nearly $7,000 in today's dollars and there was nearly no broadcasting in color, nor were there tape/disc players or game consoles, even in B&W. It took a decade for color TVs to dominate sales of new units and it was well into the 70's before effectively all new programming was in color. We are rapidly approaching the same time frame for HDTV to reach mainstream status. In many ways it's moved more quickly with some very nice monitors available for under $1,000. The PS3 encompasses two important factors that didn't exist however for color TV's ascent.



Modern TV usage is a three legged stool. One leg is represented by the most common use with broadcast, cable and satellite feeds. Second comes pre-recorded material on tape or disc. Third is interactive apps, primarily console games. No new display system can become standard without support from all three of those inputs. When HDTVs first hit retail there was simply no material available for the typical consumer to display unless they lived in one of the few areas with a bit OTA testing underway. Today most areas are pretty well served by cable and satellite HD offerings with the choices increasing rapidly.



In one feel swoop the PS3 covers the other two requirements. $500 is well within the means of several million existing HDTV owners who've been impatiently awaiting retroactive justification of their investment. Yes, many will have no choice but to forego a PS3 until the price drops substantially but that may be just as well. By all reports the chipset is difficult to produce in volume and thus many would be forced to wait regardless. A few million units is enough to keep software developers interested until production ramps up and cost go down. The console will likely require a 65 nm version of the chipset before it can really hit the volumes needed to satisfy demand.



So, HDTV and the PS3 may be limited to anaffluent audience for a time but the same could be said for many new technologies. Unlike items like expensive sports cars the initially pricey digital electronics items do eventually drop to what nearly everyone can afford.



Sony has an immense amount of its future riding on the PS3. Not only in games but in owning the next major video delivery standard. This is worth tens of Billions of dollars. Although $500 may be expensive for a game console/video player it isn't unreasonable and will still likely incur a severe loss per unit for Sony. So long as the game and video software sells well it will be worth it in the long term.

I'm a current PS2 owner



The ONLY time I recall Sony being reasonable with their pricing was for the PS2, even though it did start high. Otherwise they're equipment is overpriced. And I always thought the PS2 was one of the crappiest DVD players-- BUT it did later improve. Anyone remember the ORIGINAL interface?!



If they charge too much for the PS3 (which for me would be more than $500) or if it's a crappy Blu Ray player, you can pretty much count me out for picking up Sony this time around. I might just switch to Xbox or go back to Nintendo.



I'm not so looking forward to HD movies anyway. I'm just looking forward to a newer game system that doesn't cost more than I can afford.

Go to Xbox360 fanboy and read the story they have on the PS3 and how the employee of sony praises the 360 Not the console he is working on. The PS3 might have a little more peak power than the 360 but ive heard its a mess just to get to the peak power.As for the price they are gonna charge at least $700.

This is the latest speculation from IGN. Whats next, some stupid media mogul will proclaim that a sony exec. told him that PS3 will end the war in Iraq. Suckers believe what you want, I will believe what store shelves are telling me later this year. As for the guy that said PS2 was the only reasonable priced Sony item. You have a point, but you fail to realise that all those other electronics sectors are seperate to there computer division. They are only now starting to work together more, due to poor sales on all other electronic items. Samsung & similar Korean companies are taking Sony apart in tv, dvd, etc sales, due to there low pricing of quality products. I used to buy only sony tv's & stereos & stuff, but I broke this trend recently by buying a 61" DLP rear pro HD samsung tele. I do not regret this purchase, as the Sony equivelent was $2,000 australian bucks more & my samsung had the better picture. The playstation division of Sony has been so successful that all there other sectors are now converging with them, to take on some of there strategies.

Hopefully Howard Stringer can pull them out of this rutt. I don't want to see the makers of my beloved 20yr old walkman & playstation go the same way as Sega. They are truly innovators of electronics, for the above 2 products alone.



Anyways, heres the IGN article.



CNN: $500 PlayStation 3 Likely

Start mowing lawns.

by David Adams

January 11, 2006 - As announcing PlayStation 3 pricing goes, Sony has been as silent as Sleeping Beauty launched into the frigid cold of deep space. That great mum has left industry journos and analysts plenty of time to speculate, positing prices ranging from an easy $299 to an anxiety-inducing $799.







To add to the hubbub, CNN's Chris Morris reports on an informal poll of analysts and developers in his latest Game Over column. Morris asked for guesses at the PS3 price point, and, unsurprisingly, got a range of answers.



"[Sony] could now consider launching its PlayStation 3 at a price range of $399 to $499, with the $499 price point more likely," American Technology Research's P.J. McNealy told Morris.



Many developers, speaking anonymously, agreed with the $499 prediction, though some offered $450, an X360-matching $399, or even tags as high as $600 or $700.



While there's no strong consensus and certainly no official word from Sony, prices of $399 or $499 may hold the most weight. A $399 price would obviously put the PS3 eyebrow-to-eyebrow with the Xbox 360 as the new console fight comes to blows, and slightly stronger hardware at the same price could give Sony a slicing edge.



However, the PlayStation 3 also nestles some pretty expensive technology -- not the least of which are Blu-Ray support and a built-in hard drive -- which could easily justify the bump to $499. After all, Sony is already positioning the PS3 as more than just a gaming machine. Given first-generation Blu-Ray players priced well over $1,000, if high-definition DVD formats gain altitude, a $499 PlayStation 3 will seem a cool player bargain. That it plays Metal Gear Solid 4, too, is real nice gravy.

I remember Neo Geo costing about that same amount. Then the system tanked because of price and software. I wonder if Sony knows what they're doing? Seriously, I don't plan on buying a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD player anytime soon. Not until they're $150 or less. standard DVD will do fine for me! Go Revolution!

Isn't a revolution a 360.............................................................................. Yes I believe so........................................................... 360 degress in a revolution....

Isn't it funny how MS & Nintendo have copied names.

Maybe there the same machine with a different case & brand badges on the front.



You'll be buying normal dvd's for the next three years if you wait for $150 hd or blu ray player. Meanwhile all us PS3 buyers will be watching the latest special effects crapfests in there true desired form. Everyone out there is still going on about having to renew there entire dvd collection with blu ray hd format. Settle down fools, read the specs of the PS3 & blu ray, you can still watch all your old dvd'd on it. And most of them wont be worth updating due to the fact that they were not filmed using a hd camera. Only some movies in the last 3-5 yrs have used HD cameras. So all the old classics are not worth re-purchasing...unless you would like 24hrs of extra features in the alien trilogy or 50hrs of actor, director, producer interviews.



It will be no more than $450, & to me, that is worth every cent for a latest high tech game machine firstly & new (much clearer crisper pictured) format dvd player. Games for the 360 here in australia have risen by $15-20 for its release. So I expect PS3 games to be similarly priced at worst.



Lets all stop being pretenders & only jump the gun, when the facts are spewed out of Sony's mouth, instead of some lying, manipulating, fantasy story driven journo. I remember at E3 2005, Ken Kutaragi's actual words were something like this, The PS3 will make people think, "wow I'd work overtime to buy one of these". The media & other console fanboys alike, suddenly turned those words into Ken saying "its gonna be expensive". When in actual fact, those words deciphered by a half educated human being actually mean what they say. Which is that he wants people to like the console that much, that they would do anything to get one. For some people in the world $199 would require them to work overtime to get something they want, but don't need. I'm just glad he didn't use the analogy, that you'd sell your child to get one.