Hollywood Video manager rages against Sony's machine

I think the prices on the PS3 are way too high, even to people who can afford it. They're almost forcing bluray on people. It's like they're saying: "Ok, so we've done pretty good so far, we've made alot of people happy with our systems in the past. They all like our games and our system, so now if they want to continue with us they have to spend thier life savings... awesome!" I haven't ever been a sony fan, but have recently been tempted to buy a PS2 and start playing sony systems/games, but these high prices really makes me not want to endure the next gen version of thier company.

p.s.(not 3) Wicked shirt!

what i'm interested in is where do these people find 24 hour shirt making businesses to protest or enjoy any new bit of news that comes out of e3 each day. or do they bring in shirts with stuff they think will happen and then hope it happens on they day they wear them?

"what i'm interested in is where do these people find 24 hour shirt making businesses to protest or enjoy any new bit of news that comes out of e3 each day"

That's a damn good point. Kinko's (or whatever) must be makin' buttloads on these one-day shirt making special orders.

@#3 (jadenguy)
He could've just printed it out (on some certain kind of paper) and ironed it on a yellow shirt...

I'd be completely and utterly pissed off at these prices, if it weren't for the fact that Sony are going to be losing money on every console sold. If the price points were simply to make more profits, that'd be a different story.

That said, if there's enough negative reaction, I'm sure Sony will consider a rethink on the price. You never know... they may have announced this trumped up price just to make people think it's a bargain when the REAL price is announced just before launch.

Y'know... like how, any day now, Nintendo is going to reveal their next console's REAL name.

;P

Sony have forgotten what the PLAYstation brand is all about and are trying to rescue their other divisions (entertainment, AV manufacturing) on the back of the overwhelming succsess of the PS2.

They've completly chosen to ignore that MS are powerful in the industry now and are more than a match in terms of size, where as Sega and Nintendo couldn't compete with the promotion, development, advertising budgets Sony had, MS can easily.

They have gone and develpoed a console too pricey for your average Playstion buyer because they did not feel threatened by their competitors as they have their heads in the clouds.

Sony think they can dicatate to the consumer what we want and what we want to pay, unfortunatly for them they are terribly wrong and we could be witnessing the end of Sony as we know it.

Okay....

"Retail store managers get a bad rap at E3 due to their general lack of purpose and grating tendency to smugly report their exploits to folks on the other side of the counter back home."

That has got to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard! Since when was E3 so secretive? For cyring out loud! Every blog in the world is probably covering this convention, and also G4TV is covering it in detail. Oh and lets not forget that the people here are going to leave from here and blab everything they have seen and heard to their friends and family members anyways.

I think the retail store managers main "purpose" is to find out about E3 and let everyone else know about what's going on at the convention, just like everybody else at the convention is doing.

The worst part of Sony charging $499 and $599 for their console is that if Sony is ultimately sucessfuly in meeting their quota then we can expect future next generation game consoles to be a minimum of $499 since people will already be use to paying that much for it.

GamerG: I'm not sure part of your statement is true; I think if Nintendo felt that they needed to put more into promotion/developement, they would deffinately have the money. But I do agree with Sony trying to sell there other products through the PS, with thier media cards that work only with thier products. Microsoft is also doing the same thing but not as much since they don't sell TV's and DVD players branded Microsoft. All in all Sony and Microsoft are competing against eachother while Nintendo watches and waits for the winner, because Nintendo is the only one selling ONLY games.

OK um... "399 Yes" but "499 No"? That's only a 100 difference; you are paying for a level of backwards compatibility that Xbox 360 lacks. You are paying for a level of content amount that the Xbox 360 will lack. That's not even including it's overall superior hardware (overall, but fanboys think that the only thing that counts is GPU and CPU).

The only ones complaining are Xbox fanboys anyway. Is that even surprising? Sony warned us. Stupid partisans, they have no business convincing others of not buying a PS3, they just have to *not* buy it, and if people don't buy it, their clamor will be heard. Until then, they should get bent already. Or choke. Pretty simple.

"The worst part of Sony charging $499 and $599 for their console is that if Sony is ultimately sucessfuly in meeting their quota then we can expect future next generation game consoles to be a minimum of $499 since people will already be use to paying that much for it."

OK, in the future disc readers will be a lot cheaper, so that will be a non-issue, since we are in the face of digital distribution. That said, in the future we have two options: Like Nintendo, either "underpower" PS4 and Xbox 720 (as PS3 and 360 already offer pretty realistic graphics), just to stay cheap; or, as many want, "next-gen" them. Also, the next-generation (after this one), EVERY console will have a hard drive; and I'm not talking 100 GB. At least, they will be 400GB discs, and even that doesn't seem like a lot, especially for future consoles. But that's for the sake of pricing.

If you just want a game console, then there's Nintendo Revolution.

Aaron, Sony are learning some lessons at least. I only have Sony memory sticks because of my phone, but my brother's SD cards should work in the PS3 also. Everyone views Blu-ray as pushing the format out unnecessarily, which whilst it may be, I genuinely believe it'll allow for things that just can't be stored on a single DVD.

Small example is the content on Singstar that's already been announced to support far more tracks than before.

Backwards compatibility? Some games rely on the rumble function, which the PS3 lacks.

I'm one of the people who can (and will) afford the $599 price point for the PS3, but...Good God it's steep. This one will be tough to justify to the wife. I don't see alot of parents forking over the cash for the PS3 with the 360 and Wii so much cheaper. (Remember Neo Geo?)

Sony needs to ditch blu-ray in favor of HD-DVD. It's cheaper and seems to have more acceptance in the industry. Sony seems poised to repeat the same stubborn mistake it made in the Betamax vs VHS wars.

"I'm not going to reveal its price today. I'm going to only say that it'll be expensive."
Ken Kutaragi, July 2005.

Well don't say he didn't warn you.

$100 dollars more than the 360 is pennies, $200 dollars more and you're getting a beast.
I don't want Sony making the PS3 crapper just to pander to the money obsessed, the sort of people who will spend crazy amounts on games over 6,7,8 years but will sulk If the hardware comes in at 10% of that amount.

When you look at what people twat their money on each year, a future proofed console seems a good investment.
It's a gadget, a truly cutting edge piece of kit, you have to pay big if you want the best.
Or you can just use the price issue as new material for more tired jokes.

Rumble function can blow me. I didn't like it ten years ago, it's not gotten any better today. I never realised there was a demand for it and all of a sudden all of the consoles are getting it.

I'm sorry, but a vibration in my hand doesn't make me feel like I've just blown up a vehicle. Just as gimmicky an immersive trick as the speaker in the Wiimote (unless they get a lightsaber game, in which case shut my mouth).

Picking locks with the rumble in Splinter Cell? Only use I've seen where it's *almost* required. The PS3's motion will still be a gimmick, don't get me wrong, but not as much of one as the rumble that the industry has taken for almost necessary for some reason.

He's a fat ass. I can't bear to look.

Blu ray has more support by people across the industry last time I checked. And as far as forcing anything.... how else are they going to push Blu ray into mainstream use. Devs tend not to develop stuff based off add-ons because most people opt out of bying them. So by including everything that they did built into the system developers can safley create games with those options in mind.

#11.

"OK um... "399 Yes" but "499 No"? That's only a 100 difference; you are paying for a level of backwards compatibility that Xbox 360 lacks. You are paying for a level of content amount that the Xbox 360 will lack. That's not even including it's overall superior hardware (overall, but fanboys think that the only thing that counts is GPU and CPU). "

yea a 100$ difference for a retard pack thats even worse than the 299 360. no bluray movies, no HDMI, and no difference at all.
and your wrong abou the hardware.
the 360 has thebetter GPU now, andwillhave it in the long run evenmore so. the PS3 has the CPU advantage. which showshow much that helped last gen.
backwards compatibility thatt he 360 lacks? it will have all of its games BC as time goes on. it has features that the 360 will lack? besides bluray, it wont. and after E3, with thenew LIVE everywhere, i seriously doubt it will haveless features. oh and heres one. wheres the rumble? that one thing that helps the most in immersion?

"The only ones complaining are Xbox fanboys anyway. Is that even surprising? Sony warned us. Stupid partisans, they have no business convincing others of not buying a PS3, they just have to *not* buy it, and if people don't buy it, their clamor will be heard. Until then, they should get bent already. Or choke. Pretty simple."

the reason xbox fanboys are complaining is because they might want two consoles? and it seems like theonly onescrying are the sony fanboys, who are in major damage control.

and like yuour last statement, yes we do want a gaming console. not a bluray trojan horse forced on us. especially when we have to pay 100$ more for one that doesnt work. that would make it 200$ more.

The 60GB PS3 is the same price as the Intel-based Apple Mac Mini, and the PS3 is a way more advanced piece of hardware than the Mac Mini. The components in the PS3 are easily worth way more than $600. In fact, if you were to build a gaming PC to try to mach its power you would end up spending at least $2000.

Everyone who thinks the PS3 is too expensive needs to STFU and realize that you only get what you pay for - if you want a system with incredible processing power, then expect to pay accordingly for that power. And remember Sony is taking a huge LOSS on each system.

Personally, I may follow Peter Moore's advice & pick up the 360 & the Wii. But if the PS3 produces the best games, then I will pick one up, because I know what that kind of processing power is worth, and $600 is a steal.

Staticneuron, I think the industry will back which ever one sells the most they'll go where the units go.

HD-DVD makes more sense to consumors rather than "blueray" and as the HDDVD is significantly cheaper, already out, the DVD disc publishers can use the same equipment and Sony's PS3 is no longer a cheap option that we thought its no longer a fore gone conclusion that Blue ray will win...

I mean why would Toshiba and MS bother otherwise?

I haven't chimed in here yet, but this post seems appropriate.

When I went to my stores this week after the price was announced, the general consensus among the GameStop (in all it's flavors - Babbages, EB), Game Crazy (Hollywood Video), and Best Buy people is that Sony has lost their collective minds.

This is supposed to be a gaming console, first and foremost. PERIOD!!!! Then with the two SKU's - with the $499 version being lamed out like it has, and the $599 version being chopped up from the original specs, ALL of my retailers so far agree on one thing. Even if (and they all seriously doubt it can happen) Sony miraculously has their 1,000,000 units available for sale this holiday - they're going to be sitting on the shelves.

The consumers I've talked to so far ALSO agree with this. Guy I talked to yesterday hadn't heard the price point yet. I told him - and I said that Nintendo still had to announce their console price, but that it was likely to be under $250. He said, "$599 for a GAME console? HELL NO! I can buy a decent PC for that price." That's a small sample, obviously, but I'm curious to see what I'll hear over the coming weeks. The college kids don't care what it costs to a certain degree - but Mom and Pop Wal-Mart are having fits right now.

This shirt balance the "Wii is Gay" Shirt.

The only reason their mad about the prices is that they cannot mark them up like how they did for the 360. At 600 WITHOUT TAX, not too many people are going to rush out, and at let's say to make a profit 1000, nothing but crickets.

One dork's opinions:

1. Yes, PS3 is expensive, but it will get cheaper soon enough -- probably by the time it's widely available to buy in stores without waiting outside in the rain.

2. The man in the yellow shirt needs to do some sit-ups. Skip the video games for a little while and have some respect for yourself.

I find it ironic that the guy appears to be wearing an Nvidia SLI button. Ummm, isn't an SLI setup around $500 or $600 just for the video cards? Unless you are cheaping out and going with 7600GTs or something...

-Anonymous rep

I can back that up 100%. The retailers I've been to around here (EB, Gamestop, Best Buy) have all said the same thing: It's too expensive. Although, the sales clerk at Gamestop (blatant Sony fanboy) said, "The release date and price are all speculation. The price on the technology used in PS3 could get cheaper before launch, which would drastically reduce the price. And it's not the first time a console has been that expensive. Just look at 3DO and Neo-Geo." If you ask me, it's not a good thing to be comparing your console to two major failures in the console industry...and let go of holding out for a price drop. I have a feeling $599 will be the price of the system this winter...if it actually launches when they claim it will this time. Three of my friends that were holding out for PS3 just went yesterday and picked up X360's with multiple titles (3 a piece). Totals on those purchases ranged from $520 and up, due to some of those games having been used and purchased at nearly half of what they would cost new.

Personally, I'm an all-console kind of guy. I like to have all the consoles out so I can pick up any game that I might see. However, for $599, I think I'll pass. I've actually come to hope Sony fails at launching the PS3 all-together and that they lose tons of money. Putting a price on a console that is as high as theirs is a direct slap in the face to the casual gamer, and definitly an attempt to scalp parents this Christmas for all they can because they know that kids won't know the value of money and will demand a PS3 regardless of price or quality. Some would call that a capitalist market. I call it shady business practice. Only time will tell whether or not consumers will tolerate being charged $599 for a gaming console. I, for one, vote not to.

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/05/11/e3-attendee-wears-dismay-on-his-sleeve/

Man... The shirt that showed how gay the Wii was shot down because no one liked it, big surprise there, and people agree with this shirt? Joystiq needs to flash fire their site to get rid of all the Wii-ners. If they don't only more Wii-ners will appear then Joystiq won't even be able to report positive news about other consoles, starting to look like that is already happening.

And whoever said that someone has to spend their life-savings just to get a PS3... If $600 is your life-savings and you're not 16 then you might as well since you suck at managing your money anyways.

What's with all the hate towards Sony? If you can't afford the PS3 maybe you should buy another console or maybe get another job. If you are over 20 and can't afford $600 for something you will use and enjoy then I hope you enjoy your minium wage and your 480p Wii. Even though you probably don't even have a TV that will display progressive... let alone know what that is.

Understandable if you are in college but really $600 isn't THAT much. Only $100 more than the worth-buying version of 360. $50 more if you get Live with it, which the PS3 will have for free. Oh well. I'll probably stop gaming if a new controller is more important than moving the gaming community forward with more absorbing graphics and better AI next generation.

More than the price I'm pissed that they make the stripped down version non-upgradeable. That is duplicitous. They spend the last year or two telling us that the future is HD and the future of movies is Blu-Ray. Then they release two sku's and the cheaper one without and HDMI and with no way to add one. At least with the Core 360 you could add wireless controllers and Wifi. How are you supposed to enjoy true HD without HDMI. This means that I can buy one at launch for $499. I don't have an HDTV yet so no problem. But next year when I do buy one, what then? Have to use component cables. So maybe the far future is HD gaming and the near future is just progressive scan.

I see two problems, overall.

1. For the average gamer, 600 bucks is too much. Hell, I'm a hardcore gamer and 600 bucks is too much. That's one paycheck. Why would I spend that on a console? Especially, when I have things like rent/food/electric that take up the majority of my paycheck.

2. The average life of a console seems to be getting shorter. Again...why would you spend that kind of money for something that'll last you three years? I feel the same way about video cards. Maybe I'm more frugal than the average gamer. But despite how many awesome games come out for the PS3 (and many will) I will be holding off until the price goes down considerably.

Over the last six years, there were, on average, fewer than 10 PS2 games sold for every PS2 sold. That means that, even if a consumer bought a PS2 at full price ($300) and ten games at full price ($50 ea.), he spent no more than $800 on console gaming over six years. This time around, that same $800 will buy you one PS3 (at $500) and only five PS3 games (at $60 ea.). Sony seems to be counting on either vastly increased overall consumer spending on this generation, or else they're assuming that instead of buying a $300 PS2 and a $200 Pioneer DVD player, consumers will buy a $500 PS3 and forgo the $200 Pioneer HD/Blu/whatever player. I'm not sure that's going to work out for them.

"At 600 WITHOUT TAX, not too many people are going to rush out..."

I am glad that I live in Oregon... NO TAX!! :)

But, yeah... I haven't even got a PS2 yet, and I am definitely not spending $600 on PS3. When I do get a PS2, I am getting a Guitar Hero, Katamari Damacy, and Shadow of the Collosses(sp?).

Boots:

Actually, uhh, I barely cared about the x-box, and spend most of my gaming time and money on the PS2. But there's no comfort in phrases like "only a 100 difference," prophecies like "will lack," and emotionally-clouded adjectives like "superior hardware" (especially when qualified with a vague statement that an apparent evenness between two rival consoles in GPU and CPU should be ignored--What? Were you talking about the unestablished BluRay format? Or is the PS3 simply that much prettier?).

Between the ridiculous price point, and the attempt to functionally copy much of what their rivals have innovated (a sin when, at least in the case of the gyroscopic controller, they detract much from their rival's iteration while adding very little) rather than themselves innovating, Sony has lost my business for quite a while. Worse yet, they've turned me to a more avid consumer of a competitor's product, as I had determined to purchase a Wii and either a 360 or a PS3, initially.

I think the stupids "If you can't afford it then you are a loser" argument is a load of bull.

I earn $40k a year, but I can't afford a PS3. It would be an abolutely stupid investment of my money when I have much better places to put it. I'm not going to spend $200 more on a console with a marginally higher personal value to me. Especially when there is a console about $400 cheaper. Just because you have enough money to buy something on a whim doesn't mean you can afford it.

@_@: I dunno where you live or what your career is, but it doesn't matter. It's not about how good you are at managing money, while paying rent, buying food, paying for gas and insurance, internet, phone bills, electricity, school, maybe you have a kid, there is nowhere in your monthly budget with 80% of the people in the world where they can slot in $599 for a game console.

Sony pretty much just placed the PS3 in the luxury item category. Sure, gamer junkies will pay the price...no girlfriends = more cash. To the average consumer, $600 is just way too much.

The BluRay arguement is totally bunk. I remember droves of people buying a PS2 at a high price because it had a DVD player in it. What, a year...year and a half later, you could buy a DVD player with twice the functionality for quarter the price it cost yesteryear. Keep in mind, DVD was pretty much established as the next mainstream format.

Us game nerds can scream and yell til we're Blu (ha!) in the face. What I find sad is that Sony is banking on the "movie" junkie demographic for an expensive "game" console.

I'm not trying to hate on Sony here, I dig my PS2 (blah, blah, fanboy, blah), but I really cant see myself justifying $600 for a piece of fancy gaming hardware. I know it's worth more, I know there's a BIG BANG for your buck...I don't care how convinced you are about buying a PS3...you have to admit, the price of admission makes you cringe a little.

I'll pick one up after a couple price drops. You wanna talk superior hardware? Sony will have bettered the PS3 design and eliminated the kinks in a couple more years. When all the early adopters are taking thier machines in for their third repair, I'll be picking up a better versioned, shiny, new one on the cheap. See ya in a couple years Sony...

the fact of the matter is that the PS2 was eaten up for a number of reason:

1. price- it was affordable at launch and only got cheaper

2. games- it had exclusives everyone loved like Grand Theft Auto

3. dvd- it was a cheap alternative for a DVD player.

4. image- it had the Playstatioin brand name everyone loved.

and heres whats left:

an overpriced console with very few exclusives, the Blue Ray format in a battle to win the format war, and a brand name with severe competition from Microsoft.

casual consumers bought the PS2 because it was cheap, friends and family had it, and because they wanted dvd.

none of these factors will come to play this generation as Sonys sole purpose with PS3 is to win over the format war.

The End. Sony loses.

"OK um... "399 Yes" but "499 No"? That's only a 100 difference; you are paying for a level of backwards compatibility that Xbox 360 lacks. "

Actually, since Sony is doing backwards compatibility through emulation this time instead of hardware (just like Microsoft), I wouldn't be counting on 100% backwards compatibility. Emulating any of the disc-media consoles is difficult.

$100 is better spent elsewhere in my opinion. That's $30 short of a Nintendo DS. That's two games for about any console. Three DS games. 5 "player's choice", "Greatest Hits", or "Platinum hits" for the various consoles. That's a dozen XBLA games. The Premium PS3 costs a PSP more than the Xbox 360's Premium. And in excess of a Nintendo Wii more than the 360 Core!

That should put the price difference in better perspective.

Thought I'd never say it, but Microsoft is Right:

Why by 1 game console, when you can get 2 for the same price? Especially when one of those 2 performs at the same level as the 1 expensive one?

PS3 IS a cheap blu-ray player. But I don't want a blu-ray player, I want a video-game player. And I especially don't want a video-game player that is actually a Trojan Horse for a blu-ray player.

This situation is reminding me of 2 generations ago-only this time the roles are reversed. Everyone was bitching about how Nintendo is telling consumers what they want and dictating crazy prices and such, and sony came along and unhorsed them.

The tables have turned once again, Sony. Now the shoe is on the other foot.

"This situation is reminding me of 2 generations ago-only this time the roles are reversed. Everyone was bitching about how Nintendo is telling consumers what they want and dictating crazy prices and such, and sony came along and unhorsed them."

Wow...seems like yesterday really.

I dunno, as big an influence Sony is in the game world, it's pretty perceivable that the only direction left for them is to come down. I highly doubt it's all doom and gloom for Sony...but, with that price I think they just gave a chance for MS and Nintendo to gain ground.

If Sony came out with a modestly powered Next Gen machine...remove the whole expensive BluRay thing...they would continue thier trumping of the game industry.

...purely opinion of course.

Here's the thing... Try to find one at $499 or $599 at launch. How much you wanna bet there'll be bundles costing even more.

PS3 + one game or movie + one accessory and you're easily looking at $700+

Oh, and all you people thinking that MS won't drop the price of the 360 when the PS3 launches are dillusional. Sony wants to play the system sold intitial loss game, I'd place my money on MS 'out-loss-ing' them.

Sony has yet to convince ME why I should replace my coffee maker (PS2) with a luxury cappuccino maker (PS3).

here's my question... how is 600 WAAAY out of peoples price range...but $400 is easy?
In the greater scheme of things, if you can afford a $400 dollar console, a $600 one aint too far out of your price range. I mean really if a $200 price difference breaks your bank...maybe you're in the wrong hobby? Videogaming is entertainment... a LUXURY. It isn't a necessary need. It doesnt help you live, etc.
Personally while i feel 600 is a lot... well so is 400. When it comes down to it, you're paying money to play games... So whats it matter really? If you're on this blog.. i'm willing to bet most of you have spent a few THOUSAND if not more on videogames and the equivalent. so i think the difference of $200 dollars is negligible at best.
Personally i plan on buying a PS3 and a Wii (already got the 360, granted right now is just a really nice DVD player heh).
But when it comes down to it, if you already have a 360... dropping that 400+ dollars wasnt a big deal, so i dont see how spending 500-600+ on another system would be either.
Lets face it, even with the price point, most of the people who buy a system in the first year aren't casual gamers, they're the hardcore gamers and early adopters, same is true for ANY new tech. The ones with the means will be the first ones to get it. Then in a year or 2 or 3, more casuals will pick it up. I mean think about it.. to a casual gamer anywhere over 200 right now is too much. Do you all really think Casual gamers go out and buy the newest most expensive system? No they dont. They wait. So i dont think the 600 price point will be to bothersome in the long run

The point is folks, that if you want it you will buy it and if you dont then you wont. People are complaining that $600 is too much for a gaming console. Well this isnt a Ps2 just as the Xbox360 isnt an Xbox. These systems are capable of much more than thier respective predessors. Back to the cost issue, if you want one and your single pay-check doesnt allow you to purchase it straight out, you can try this little thing called 'saving'. Your thinking $600 is too much to spend on gaming, then you better not let your wife see the total amount that you have spent the past year on the system and games that you have right now. The truth is that many are going to spend just as much or more for thier Xbox360 depending on what you want for yourself. One could argue that twenty-five thousand dollars is too much to spend on a car when you can by brand new ones for ten thousand dollars. You can look at what Sony is doing in the same respect as in, you dont need a 500hp V8 engine (Ps3) when you could just get a 300hp V6 (Xbox360) and upgrade it to 480hp. Its all in what YOU want so please stop (being a MS salesperson)unless MS is sending you a paycheck for your services.

Also, to everyone saying "Blu-ray is more expesive than HD-DVD."

HD-DVD: https://www.deepdiscountdvd.com/format.cfm?classID=1

Blu-Ray: https://www.deepdiscountdvd.com/format.cfm?classID=2

As you can see Blu-Ray not only has more annouced titles, the majority of them are priced much lower than that of the selection of HD-DVD movies, around $7 lower.

If they went with regular old DVD the price would be the same as the 360...

AND THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TWO VERSIONS!(As seeing the $600 PS3 has the HDMI for Blu-Ray and 1080p).


Sony still haven't convince me the we NEED 30GB of space for games...hell they still haven't convince me we need 50GB for movies....

C'mon guys, it's not going to prove anything to be ripping on people that can't afford it flat out. Not everyone makes the same amount of money....nuff said.

"Lets face it, even with the price point, most of the people who buy a system in the first year aren't casual gamers, they're the hardcore gamers and early adopters, same is true for ANY new tech."

That's very true. I have no doubt it'll sell out Day 1. It'll obviously take a few years before it becomes a mainstream item...just like ANY console generation.

I dunno, the initial high price just ups consumer alienation. I see a tough sell. I'm a hardcore gamer, I've spent $600 on a GPU, I stood in line for the PS2. I just can't justify buying the new PS3 at that price. I dunno...call it lessons learned?

I love how the same people who purchased the premium 360 budle for $399.99, an additional controller at $50.00, two charge and play kits $29.99 each, the wifi adapter $99.99 each, and 3.5 games (wasnt that MS's quoted attach rate) at $60 a piece and a XBL gold membership at $49.95 grand total $869.91 before tax are complaining about a system that costs $600. Add in the games and an additional controller and you are at the same price point.

IT is really dissapointing the MS-fanboys that the only thing they can complain about the PS3 is the price point while MS milks them in micro-payments and add-ons that come included on teh ps3.

And before you flame me I have a little over $1200 sunk in my 360 so far with games and peripherals etc.. and yes I will be buying the PS3... the question is will I be selling my 360 before then or not.

I cannot complain about the ps3 price point because My premium 360 with xbl sub and wifi adapter cost me $550 which forget about hd-dvd or blue-ray support and the prices are dang near equal.

-devi8i

First and foremost, buying wifi etc. for X360 is optional. You want it, pay for it, but to get a system that works is $399. All the accessories you list are just that, accessories. Nobody told you you HAD to go blow well over $600. With Sony, it's "$600 please..would you like a game with your Blu-raystation?" If you seriously can't see the difference in price for the X360 and PS3, you are either:

1. Horrible at math
2. Blind
3. A flaming fanboy
4. All of the above

I have exposable income. But I'm also in college. And even if I wasn't, which I will be graduating in 2 days so I will be done with school, I wouldn't purchase a game console for that price, be it Sony, Microsoft, I don't care. It's ridiculous. The Xbox 360 is on the same level as the PS3, only it doesn't do Blu-ray and costs a ton less cash. $600 is a rent payment, or car payment, or, in my case, a tuition payment. I have too many things I can throw that kind of money at to go throwing it at a game system. Yes, I have an Xbox 360. Yes, I have tons of games for it and have made a considerable investment in it. But on day one, I paid $399. I was not required to have Xbox Live, I was not required to buy a wireless adapter or recharge kits. I did eventually get those, but that was my OPTION. I chose to. They didn't shove it down my throat a la Sony. I would much rather have the option of spending $600 than to be forced to spend $600 on a console who's most expensive components I do not need or want. I guess arguing over the price being "reasonable" is really the last thing the Sony boys have to hang on to, as now the whole world can see Sony was blowing smoke with their early specs, as always. How the mighty have fallen.

"Sony will have bettered the PS3 design and eliminated the kinks in a couple more years. When all the early adopters are taking thier machines in for their third repair, I'll be picking up a better versioned, shiny, new one on the cheap. See ya in a couple years Sony..."

Actually, they used cheap, crappy DVD lasers in v1 - v12 of the PS2. v13+ (2nd gen slim) seem to be fine. So maybe you should wait 5 years? Well...Bluray data is even closer together than DVD (on the disc), so if Sony didn't learn from the DRE lawsuit...we could see even more problems with that hyper-active bluelaser moving around...(I hope not; crosses fingers)

But ethan, you're just reaffirming my point, 399 and 599 is barely any difference in the long run and people are being hypocritical if they're saying 399 is easier to pay than 599, while there IS a marked difference, in the long run 200 to buy what you WANT to buy isnt that big of a difference, so i dont see anywhere how the MIGHTY have fallen. If anything the mighty is just stuffing more into its console so that in the long run you dont have to pay for it.
Sure there are things that are optional on the 360, but if you are like myself, you like having the best out of the box, granted not everyone is like that though.
I still dont see a problem, if you had the money to drop on a 360 and TONS of games (Which personally i've only found 2 360games to my taste but i digress) then spending 500+ on a PS3 aint gonna hurt you much. Sure you get maybe...3 less games for the same price, but i doubt a lot of 360 owners just buy $60 games to just buy them.
I just feel people are making TOO much of a big deal over something as this. It just comes back to the people with means will buy it and those who dont...wont at least not at first.
Plus with the way inflation and the price of tech goes, each generation we're probably gonna see a marked increase in prices.
On a side note, you could also look at it in terms of time. THe Ps2 lasted 2 more years overall than the Xbox (coming out a year before and its predecessor coming out a year later)So you could always say... Sony gave you those 2 extra years to save up those 200 dollars =)