PS3 price point comments poorly translated
We were kind of expecting this to
happen: Sony has stated that the comments made by Sony
Computer Entertainment France boss Georges Fornay yesterday regarding the price of the PS3 were "not an
indication of PS3 pricing" and were "mistranslated or misunderstood". He was in fact
speculating that if the PS3 were to launch between €499 and €599 it would be considered cheap in
comparison to dedicated Blu-Ray drives (which start at around €700) but that "current video games
machines" (excluding the Xbox 360, natch) would still be significantly cheaper than the PS3. Gamesindustry.biz says that this correction suggests the PS3 could launch from anywhere between €150 and €800, but if you ask us that range is about as useful as anywhere between one and infinity. Move along folks, nothing to see here.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
The1 @ Apr 6th 2006 9:04AM
Mr. Fornay hit it on the NOSE with the price. SONY needs to own up to the price and brace people in advance.
jaemz @ Apr 6th 2006 9:06AM
I suspect we will see a $150 - $200 premium over the X360.
revolution: $200, X360: $400, PS3 $600
or not...
Dreizehnernuss @ Apr 6th 2006 9:12AM
I think Mr. Fornay had a couple of hard and ugly days at the office lately...
slow news day @ Apr 6th 2006 9:14AM
That's odd. Not comparing yourself to other current generation game consoles but comparing yourself to other unreleased Blu-Ray technology that has been announced as being expensive?
The writing is on the wall.
Po0py @ Apr 6th 2006 9:19AM
If they opened the system up to operating systems people wouldn't winge so much.
Imagine if you could put windows or linux on that without any hackery. People would see more value and many would use it as a pc. No?
Right now at that price it is just not worth it unless you are a hardcore gamer. And no doubt the games will be just as expensive as 360 games.
No sir. Not for me. I just can't afford to drop that much and then drop another 40-50 for any games I want.
Motto of the day for PS3:
I would if I could but I can't :/
Eric @ Apr 6th 2006 9:26AM
OK. What If I don't want a Blu-Ray drive?
Kye @ Apr 6th 2006 9:39AM
Hey, remember when there were news reports that the PS2 was so powerful, they were afraid Russian and Iraqi terrorists might try to hijack shipments so they could use them to build nuclear bombs?!
Ahhh memories
:s
Sony are seriously shooting themselves in the foot methinks.
Worse thing is; there are enough Sony fanboys out there who are willing to jump in the way of the bullet inumerable times:
"Yes i`ll give mny right thumb to afford the console!... And yes I'll give my left thumb to afford the games!... Oooo, here you go! Here's my right leg for a media that I probably won't even use much..."
duerra @ Apr 6th 2006 9:41AM
Po0py, Sony doesn't *want* you to be able to put another OS on the PS3, because they *lose* money on each console they sell. They make up the loss in the licensing fees that they charge publishers that publish games for the console. If a person were able to put another OS on the machine, they wouldn't be recovering that loss in licensing fees.
Benny @ Apr 6th 2006 9:48AM
"Imagine if you could put windows or linux on that without any hackery. People would see more value and many would use it as a pc. No?"
Haha, Microsoft wouldn't allow that. They'll make a change to Windows to force the thing to crash immedietly.
Bruce Wayne III @ Apr 6th 2006 9:51AM
"Imagine if you could put windows or linux on that without any hackery."
Well, there has been talk about a Linux version for the PlayStation 3 pre-installed on the HDD...
Nushio @ Apr 6th 2006 10:02AM
Yes, but the arquitecture is so different from regular Intel and AMD machines (this one requires an "octopiler" to compile things), Windows and Mac are simply not an option.
Linux will take quite a beating to make it work at least in the beggining.
And just because its linux, doesnt mean every working program will work on the PS3, they need to be recompiled specifically for the PS3.
Enigma @ Apr 6th 2006 10:06AM
I bet it will cost no more than the HDD equipped 360 does now.
J @ Apr 6th 2006 10:12AM
"They'll make a change to Windows to force the thing to crash immedietly."
Or they could just leave it as it is for the same effect.
Yellow Texan @ Apr 6th 2006 10:15AM
Why are you guys really want Sony to force to give us the price right, now? It is not a good business decision period for Sony. It will give more extra planning by Microsoft and Nintendo.
Microsoft didn't reveal reveal the price for the XBox 360 until two months prior till its worldwide release.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_4160000/newsid_4163700/4163754.stm
Antonious @ Apr 6th 2006 10:19AM
I think Sony is committing Sonycide by including BlueRay. The future of movies isn't a new DVD format, its VOD and downloadable content. Physical devices or HD-DVDs aren't going to win over the millions of people who 1) view digital distribution as the easiest way to get entertainment and 2) are content with the dvd quality they have now.
Sony's plans just dont make any freaking sense.
IMHO, BlueRay and HD-DVD are doomed from the start. There is very little possibility that a HD DVD format will replace a standard DVD format that has become ubiquitous and people are perfectly happy with.
I know that the PS3 is an attempt to salvage Sony's lagging electronics units, but it simply isn't going to work.
spike @ Apr 6th 2006 10:25AM
well, I know the DVD player in my PS2 (and all my friends PS2s) sucks. Some DVDs won't play, the sound is really low, poor quality all around. What does this say about the Blu-ray in the PS3? Especially if the cost is less than a dedicated blu-ray player? Will the first generation PS3 'budget' drive crap out after a year or two?
rico @ Apr 6th 2006 10:31AM
Either way in the UK we are going to get shafted on the price even if it comes out at e499 it will cost us 350 i mean hell no sony.
Po0py @ Apr 6th 2006 10:32AM
I know its completely out of the question that windows could run on it. My point was that for that price you just aren't getting any value for money. The most obvious option would be to open up the system and show consumers what is possible with it. Market it as a pc media centre. At least thats the only way I can see people actually buying this thing. But we all know what sony are like. They ain't gonna budge.
And most consumers are gonna be like: Blueray? huh? wtf?
They just don't know what it is they are buying.
I just can't see how this is going to work at all. And who exactly is developing games for a system that most people can't afford or just aren't willing to buy at those prices? How are they going to make any profit? At all?
Nick @ Apr 6th 2006 10:35AM
I still believe that the price will be close to 499 Euro, as I have mentioned in the past, that price is the sticker price on the shelves, but in Europe, most countries include tax in the price. In places like Italy sales tax is almost 20% which would make the actual cost of the unit close to 400 400 Euro = 490.72 US$ as of right now.
Lee @ Apr 6th 2006 10:37AM
Kye, you honestly believe that every content owner of a PS2 is a fanboy? That they "took the bullet" by buying one? That seems to be what you imply, and if so, I'm not even gonna start on how wrong that is.
Or, you could just be talking about the PS3, but even then you're throwing around "probably". It's always hard to see the next generation when it's not here. "Probably" won't use blu-ray much. Even if you don't get a blu-ray movie library, the scope for additional HD content in games is pretty wide, and there's more than plausible talk of having every language for a game on a single disc, just having a single version. There will be use for more than 9gb of space for games throughout this generation. You're ignorant if you believe that the limited storage of DVD can take us through 6 years of gaming, then a good few more this generation.
And if you don't want a blu-ray drive? You expect a core "DVD" version? Sony's cutting off progress for that? To have to start releasing "BD PS3 only" games when the developers want to fit more in? Just don't get a PS3, complain about all of its perceived faults and the company's alledged inevitable failure, hell, throw in a few George Forman/boomerang lines, they're still pretty common.
I'm not worshipping Sony blindly. I have an Xbox, and if not for the lack of what 360's offering (the media centre stuff does not help an already-well networked home theatre system, and all of the decent titles currently running better on PC), I'd probably have one by now. But I'm following the great third party companies going to PS3, and I agree with their views on new optical drives.
Right arm? Leg? It will not cost that much more than a 360, and provide features many WILL use, even if you won't.
bladestar @ Apr 6th 2006 10:38AM
I don't know about you guys, but it does not make sense to me why would anyone pay $800.00 for a blue-ray (only) drive/player to watch movies when you can get a video game console plus a blue-ray drive/player for half or less the price? Why would any company try to compete including Sony itself by manufacturing devices that are relative inferior than the PS3 in functionality? Or consumer are that stupid to say, "Ohh look let me pay $400+ extra for this player only and not take the PS3 which does the same thing.". This is why so many people are coming up with all these totally weird prices. It would seem very stupid for Sony to spend so much money developing drives that people will not buy because of the PS3. Also, this can stop other manufacturers from creating their own version of the blue-ray drivers just so they can collect dust because they cant sell them or make a profit due to the PS3. One can argue that the main reason for SONY to be willing to loose money on the PS3 is to push the new format (blue-ray) the same thing it did with the PSP UMD. But look at the results; companies are stopping UMD movie productions now. If Sonys PS3 is too cheap for other manufacturers of blue-ray drives to make a profit they will not help SONY win the HD format (DVD-HD vs Blue-Ray) war. And we will all have another drive to look at. I hope that SONY obsession to dominate the entertainment (UMD and now Blue-ray) industry with all these new format does not affect the PS3 more than is already is (waiting extra because of a blue ray we will not be able to watch movies for a while and games will not use 15% of its capacity maybe for years).
Yeti @ Apr 6th 2006 10:43AM
I think Sony will shock the world IF they release the PS3 at $400. I don't think this is realistic because other Blu-Ray manufactures are going to be hopping mad because there unit sells for $1K (maybe $800 by the time the PS3 is released). I think $500 is the sweet spot for Sony. The can claim it does everything the 360 does except better AND it's a Blu-Ray player so the extra $100 isn't that much of a premium.
The only problem is the PS3 is going to be VERY scarce until 2007 so expect bundles to be around a grand US.
Lee @ Apr 6th 2006 10:44AM
Antonious. BD/HDDVD isn't supposed to last forever. It's a format that understands people want HD now, but that there's no feasible way that in the next five years there's going to be cheap enough hard drives, and high enough bandwidth internet in the average home for it to even be plausible to distribute excessively large HD video.
Even if it is available, not everyone will have it. People will not be happy with either having to buy old DVDs that look crap on their TV, scaled and full of compression artifacts, or having to shell out on high bandwidth internet AND a terrabyte hard drive (unless they plan to only own about 5 movies) after they've already dished out on a HDTV.
Besides, people like to own things. Fact.
saboola @ Apr 6th 2006 10:47AM
Well said Lee.
SeanH @ Apr 6th 2006 10:52AM
If it is going to be a less expesive blu-ray player that just happens to play games does that mean it is an inferior blu-ray player? Hmm
As most PS2 owners know the PS2 makes a pretty lousy DVD player. The DVD drive and its ability to play DVDs out of the box is what gave it the edge in Japan. MOst Japanese gamers bought the PS2 because it was cheaper than most DVD players available at the time. Does Sony hope to repeat that and force us all to use Blu-Ray just because. What if we dont want to pay $30 for our movies. When DVD's came out they were $30 and the players were $500, Now DVD's can be scored for under $10 and a player for around $50. Note that DVD's really started taking off once the price dropped. I am not excited about a new media format I am tired of re-purchasing my movies and music because the format changed. I know the Blu-Ray players will play my old DVD's but will it up-convert them and make them look like broadcast TV looks on my HDTV? HDDVD makes more sense in terms of price and backward compatability, imo. Beta was higher fidelity that VHS but the price of the player, the tapes themselves and the reduced storage was a killer. Sony is simply trying to use its position as the king of the ring in the game world to push a new proprietory media format on the world. That is the way I see it.
bo @ Apr 6th 2006 10:52AM
i wouldn't mind paying $599 + tax. after that, maybe, as long as it doesn't go up to $750
Yeti @ Apr 6th 2006 10:54AM
Not to get sidetracked into a HD discussion but I believe the market pentration for HDTVs in the US is somewhere around 7%. This will obviously grow in the upcoming years but people aren't exactly banging down doors looking for HD content because most Americans don't even have a HD set.
I think HD-DVD and Blu-Ray will go the same route that SACD and DVDA did. People were happy enough with what they had and the format war didn't exactly make them feel comfortable purchasing one over the other.
RocketSeason @ Apr 6th 2006 10:56AM
people (i.e. the general public) will not pay that kind of money for a blue-ray drive. They don't have HD TV's, they don't know what an HD movie would look like, nor do they really care. they have no need for it. Sony is going to shoot themseleves in the foot if the system debuts at 500 bucks.
Silverback @ Apr 6th 2006 11:01AM
Lee,
So apparently it is your turn to speak about what you don't know and demonstrate your ignorance. Neither you or I "know" if a dvd 9 will be enough for the next generation of games. We are all ingnorant on this matter. I for one doubt MS would gamble billions on a console if they did not have a pretty good idea that a dvd 9 would in fact provide enough space for the next generation.
Then you speak about all the great titles coming out for the PS3. Which ones are they again? The fact is that currently none of us really knows exactly what the gaming content on the two consoles will be over the next five years. It sounds to me that you are really going for the PS3 because of the optical drive and not for gaming.
And in reference to people taking the bullet by buying the PS2, that is absolutely and unquestionably true. I have it from the words of a man who repairs them for a living that most of the different versions of the PS2 hardware were absolute and total crap. Most people I know have either had to replace the console multiple times after it failed or had theirs repaired (I bought the one with the best hardware) including me. So how is this relevant to the post? Because Sony has an infamous track record of producing consoles with sh!tty hardware even when they could have afforded to do otherwise, i.e. late in the consoles lifecycle, they will most likely do the same for the PS3. They have to cut corners in order for the overbuilt console to actually be affordable for the average consumer. So no matter what the price of the PS3 ends up being you will probably have to take another bullet by making its purchase. Of course this is just speculation but the odds are very high that I am right and history will repeat itself. In the long run you and I will eventually spend much more than the official price for ability to play games on crappy hardware.
Michael @ Apr 6th 2006 11:02AM
The real problem with high(er) prices than the XBOX 360 and Revolution is not whether YOU would buy one at that price, but whether the average console buy would.
The game makers will go to whereever the money is. If enough PS3s are not sold, they will go to other consoles. This can also be a self fullfilling prophecy. If they think the PS3 is too expensive, then they will begin concentrating more on the other platforms. I'm not a fanboy, I don't have a PS2 or a XBOX, but Sony is also smart enough to figure this out. I think they will have no more than a $100 premium over the 360.
Michael
Matt @ Apr 6th 2006 11:05AM
Working at EB, almost every single person who purchases a Playstation 2 (new or pre-owned) is shocked as hell to hear about the disk read error. It does help sell a lot of warranties, though. Then again, that's $20/year *well spent*!
Matt @ Apr 6th 2006 11:09AM
Oh, and as far as the general public's stupidity is concerned: I've had people trade-in (more or less back in November) their Xbox, four controllers, and a few dozen games all to pay for an Xbox 360 and Madden. They gave up a *ton* of games for a half-finished, shiny version of Madden 2006. The general public is dumb, and if they can spend money to look cool or just don't do their research and assume that "Xbox 360 games are better than Xbox games", they will buy whatever it takes for them to compensate for their "American Eagle cologne" jock smell.
Derbeste @ Apr 6th 2006 11:11AM
Sony is not going to reveal the official price until they can show you what they can offer you for that price. Most notably, they want you to see the quality of the games they can produce and play them a bit so the price seems easier to swallow.
If they announced the price before they do that, too many discouraged gamers will go buy an Xbox or just decide Revo is a better solution for their budgets.
In other words, they need to be ready to get you hooked first. It's how all drug dealers work. ;)
Franklin @ Apr 6th 2006 11:19AM
It really looks like that the writing is on the wall for Blu-Ray as a digital medium for movies. Most of the other Hollywood studios aren't backing it. They have become uncomfortable with the idea of putting their movies on a medium that is essentially owned and controlled Sony, because it also owns a movie studio. To Fox, Paramount, Disney, etc., it looks like a competing studio (Sony) is trying to make money off of their movies through the required licensing costs needed to put movies on Blu-Ray.
The studios abandoning UMD, and their overly vehement comments about it ("UMD is a failure, just as Blu-Ray will be.") is a further bad sign for Blu-Ray.
Blu-Ray will basically be the proprietary format used for PS3 games -- just as UMD is used for PSP games. That's it.
Kye @ Apr 6th 2006 11:21AM
No, not everyone who bought a PS2 is a fanboy. Not everyone who will buy the PS3 will be a fanboy either.
Hell, I'll buy one if the prices and games are right.
Yes, having a disc with loads of info on it is a good thing - I agree. But how many languages are we ever going to use?
I am aware that sooner or later DVD's will not have enough memory for the average person. Fair enough. Like Audi says - "Vorsprung Durch Technik" (or however you spell it)
I was commenting on the Movie library on Blu Ray discs by the way. The PS2 was a cheap DVD player at the time. But as I remember (and I may be wrong) the DVD didn't have any (many) major competitors (again, pls forgive if im wrong).
And DVD's already hold loads of info for movies; i.e. Previews and interviews etc. Do we really really a hell of a lot more? For what? Life stories of actors, menus of what the production crew had for lunch? Weather reports on filming days? Most of the other things that make use of this space is just going to be "by-the-way" stuff.
But back to games.
By all means I agree with having more stuff thrown into games. But at what price? I am NOT >repeat< NOT shelling out an extra 10 - 20 for a game regardless of what it is and who makes it.
That's why I was saying Sony are shooting themselves in the foot. - The price. I and many people I know play games as a leisurely past-time. Not like a full-time job. Although I own 6 consoles and 1 hand held (from Micro Soft, Sega, Nintendo & Sony) I do not consider myself a "hardcore" gamer. neither do the majority of gamers out there.
If sony are targetting people who are willing to pay anything for a console and game they are immediately alienating their biggest buyers - the casual gamer.
True, many people will use many of the functions, but how much is many? Lets say for example we have 2,000,000 people. Now 2 million is alot of people, but if the PS3 sells 2 hundred million consoles and only these 2% use a certain function for a certain amount of time, then that function is large wasted.
It makes little sense having it and charging everyone to (not) use it!
This is my point. Numbers are relative. What may seem like a large number, can also be a small number in comparison to another.
I predict a large number of people will purchase a PS3, but only a relatively small proportion to use all the functions. I also think that should the PS3 lose 1 or 2 (needless) bells and whistles in order to reduce price they would basically sell more products.
(ok, lets vote - how many joystiqers plan to use all 7 usb ports simultaneously on their PS3?... or all ethernet ports simultaneously)
By the way, I'm not flaming your response, only having an open-minded discussion and exchange of ideas. I look forward to your reply when I get home from *coughworkcough*
I do hope the PS3 sells well enough to keep Sony in the picture because I do dread another 2 console race.
One last thing - I am about to finish a product design degree so I DO have some idea about product functionality vs price and I DO have some clue as to consumer attitudes.
I may be wrong, but thats my opinion.
Kye
ps - the Audi slogan means "progress through technology"
Mal F4ct10n @ Apr 6th 2006 11:25AM
bo, your crazy. $599 + tax is WAY too much. I would buy a nice desktop, with no monitor, for that price and have a pretty damn good gaming machine capable of playing some "next-gen" games right now. (Quake 4, Call of Duty 2).
Like someone else said, you won't have a large user base at those prices. A small user base won't support the developers for PS3 games. Developers wanting to hit Sony PS users will continue to make PS2 games.
With MS having an advantage in production cost reduction, I would expect AT THE LEAST a $50 price drop by November 2006 on the 360. I wouldn't pay $349 for the 360. I picked up an X-box for $149 with a free game about two years ago.....I can wait.
The price is all speculation, but it is gonna be more than $500 IMO. I feel bad for the parents of younger kids who are gonna kick and scream because they want this thing. Sha, get a job if you want one of these things, Junior!
jaemz @ Apr 6th 2006 11:30AM
Franklin, I don't know where you get your information... but it sounds mostly like FUD.
Feel free to check out some of the facts about blu-ray:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray
Zsavior @ Apr 6th 2006 11:36AM
Listen this guy Fornay is doing some serious damage control, but either way after the backlash sony knows there is no way they can release a system over 400 dollars now. Sony is going to risk, huge losses to form the installation base of blu-ray users. That is just the way it is, if a blu-ray disc player is in the PS3 they are going to take a loss for the price of getting early loyal adapators. Maybe this will work maybe it won't but sony can't releast the PS3 at that price MR Fornay spoke of and he knows it. Hell all of sony knwos that fact, so the real question is how do they deliever on everything they say they will and still keep that price at 400 dollars. Good luck to them for real.
that one dude @ Apr 6th 2006 11:39AM
"Why should Sony tell you the price now? It's a good market strategy to make us wait."
That's what I seem to be hearing over and over. You must be really simple minded to even think that. Do you think GM or Ford keeps the price hiden about their new cars or trucks until a week before it's released? Hell no. You get several months, sometimes a year, to know how much it's going to cost. Why? If anything, give people a chance to wonder if it's worth the cost and if it is to save up for it.
It's NOT A GOOD MOVE for Sony to make people wait. What's the target audience for gamers these days? Early 20's? You know many of use have college or are on a tight budget. If this thing is going to cost an arm and a leg I want to know NOW. If they wait a month before and say "oh...it'll be around $600" then it's too late. Give me a price now and show me why I should pay that much for it.
Also, as I've said before in another thread, Blu-ray will go the way of the dodo. People seem to ignore this but people have found a niche with DVD. It'll be hard to get them out of it when they just settled in. Oh yeah I forget, it's for "the HD experience." Ok, well I hope that Blu-ray of yours goes well with that Laserdisk you probably own too.
epobirs @ Apr 6th 2006 11:50AM
Putting Linux on the PS3 is quite easy if you aren't expecting any really special features. The controlling CPU at the heart of the Cell is a PowerPC with an instruction set that is well known. It lacks some of the features that have been common in more recent PPC processors, so the performance on code that isn't highly optimized will be more akin to a Mac at one third to one half the clock rate running Yellow Dog Linux (which is focused on PPC) but with a high-end Nvidia GPU.
The Cell's SPEs can be simply ignored for getting a distro up and running. They don't offer much help for the essential functions of the kernel and most items found in a typical distro. Taking advantage of the SPEs is something that can be added over time or simply left to application writers. Similar to the way that OSes that didn't know about MMX didn't prevent apps from using it.
Viewed as a PowerPC system, the PS3 isn't exotic. A quickly produced linux distro for it may not be very flashy to the casual observer but it provides a way to run apps and test stuff directly on the machine in a way that is less awkward than the external dev kit approach.
epobirs @ Apr 6th 2006 11:54AM
I'd be very surprised if Sony were to go public with pricing before E3. It's one of the major bombs remaining to drop.
If E3 passes without any definitive pricing info, then there will cause to wonder about Sony's motives. For now it's just holding back for the maximum effect when the cameras are all pointed their way.
Mal F4ct10n @ Apr 6th 2006 11:58AM
Just another thought: Maybe Sony is waiting for E3 to make the announcement on cost? At least they better have some playable games on the dev kits there. No playbable demo's mean this whole price speculation is pointless because the damn thing is NOT coming out in November '06.
MS didn't drop the price at E3 did they? I think they gave us a price range though....something like, less than $400. Yeah, $399, LOL.
Mal F4ct10n @ Apr 6th 2006 12:04PM
Epobirs,
We had the same thought. (Someone give me a star =P) But then I ask you directly, did MS release 360 pricing at E305 when it was coming out in November as well?
Antonious @ Apr 6th 2006 12:05PM
Its not that we 'hate' Sony, its that we seriously question their decisions.
The PSP is mediocre. Crap control sticks, lack of games, too expensive.
The PS2 is perhaps the shoddiest technology ever built. I personally retured FIVE PS2's because of disc-read errors. Five. I've had one Xbox. One.
When the PS2 came out, the people were looking for a cheap DVD player and they found it in the PS2. Right now, NOBODY is looking for a new format. What people are looking for is On-Demand, TIVO and downloadable content. Sure the PS3 can deliver those, but so could practically everything else.
Blue-Ray is a mistake.
Zequel @ Apr 6th 2006 12:08PM
I'd say $600 minimum. New processor, new drive, just don't see anything less than $200 over the xbox360 that includes a std. dvd drive.
Sony had perfect timing with the PS2. I've read from multiple sources, that a lot of households bought the PS2 because they were ready to buy a DVD player and $300 was a good price at the time for a drive AND a game system. This launch will be different. DVD was about to hit mass market at the time of the PS2 launch. Blue-ray is still an unknown technology for most households.
Also there is a dramatic difference between VHS and DVD, probably the biggest being the most practical - no rewinding. Plus you get 5.1 surround sound, deleted scenes, extras and scene selection. What's the difference between blue-ray and dvd: better quality. Not exactly a huge difference for most HD-less households who think their DVD collection and DVD player are just fine. Most of you joystiq readers, I imagine, are more likely to be early adopters of blue-ray then the general public. Unfortunately or fortunately, the general public will determine the success or failure of the PS3.
Zequel @ Apr 6th 2006 12:13PM
Replace 'then the general public' with 'than the general public' in my comment.
Antonious @ Apr 6th 2006 12:14PM
Zequel said it perfectly.
Blue-Ray is doomed.
lunatech @ Apr 6th 2006 12:15PM
If you are a consumer and you're standing in an aisle looking at 2 consoles.
XBOX 360 Premium: 400
Playstation 3: 600
--------------------------
200 dollar difference (What am I getting more by paying this price)
The first thing you would think is, what am I getting for 200 dollars more?
If the added options provided in the PS3 doesn't amount to anything significant to the moms' and dads' out there when they do their Christmas shopping for their childrens' new console, you can bet they will choose the cheaper of the two.
So the real question is, is the 1080p + BluRay combo enough to entice middle america to pick it a Playstation 3 (with a smaller game library mind you) come this holday season.
This I would leave up to you to decide.
If that gap spreads more than $200 (whether Microsoft reduces their price or Sony forces users to pay for a mandatory hard drive outside of the package), it would be disastrous for Sony this holiday season to say the least.
jay @ Apr 6th 2006 12:21PM
I'd never pay more than 150 for a games system. Which in theory means I could buy a PSP now they're 150 in the UK. but it's still a bad machine. ho hum.
150=$262
Anonymous Rep @ Apr 6th 2006 12:26PM
Hardcore gamers will spend the money for it, no matter how much the PS3 costs. We all know this.
However, what about Mom and Pop Wal-mart? It's one thing for the average, regular consumer to spend $400 plus on average an extra $150 for an Xbox 360 (games, extra controllers, etc.) Now tell that consumer that they are going to have to spend $600 for a console AND spend another $150 for games, extra controllers - that'll put the average outlay for one PS3 out of reach for the average consumer. But let's say that they do launch this holiday at $600.
First, the million units available worldwide is completely a load of crap. Xbox360 started production in October to get their 400,000 units available by Nov 22nd - and we all know that there were minor glitches with some of the consoles, although it was still less than a 5% failure rate, which isn't bad. Do you all really think that Sony can produce 25,000 units per day WITHOUT any kind of ramp up, to meet the million units?
Then talking about having an additional million units per month available for sale - that's a load of crap, too. They're going to make 40,000 units per day? Of complicated electronics? And have them work correctly? Yeah, right. For those of you who have never worked on an assembly line, you have to realize that all it takes is for one robot to miss one step to ruin several hours worth of production. Put the weld voltage too high on a component and then when you power the thing up, watch a chip blow because the solder isn't right. (You'll have things like this happen at the high speeds and volumes you're talking about.)
So you can figure we're going to have shortages around the world - while Microsoft has managed to get their supply chain filled and by the end of summer, inventory levels will be adequate.
Mom and Pop Wal-mart will go in - see that the $600 PS3 isn't in stock - AND that it's $600, and then see $350 Xbox 360's in stock, with lots of games. Sony loses again.