Pachter: $299 PS3 would outsell 360, put Sony back in the game

I'm glad I got my 60gb for $450 a year ago. I think that was a good deal considering the actual price to build the machine. I wouldn't want a gimped PS3 for even as low as $299.

it's an over priced console if you don't' have a HDTV or a great sound system to go with it , cause without those items. you will not truly get to see or experiences the blu-ray hype .

This guy really has not been very accurate on forecasting this generation of consoles.

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/05/08/analyst-blu-ray-and-therefore-ps3-will-win/

too late... you will remain least liked by Joystiq readers, where you deserve.

too late, gundamwing is already $*&.

too late.. Already put Halo in my butt

Too late... just put the 3rd place mat in my butt

oh wait, too late, Gears of war 2 is cool, so Sony fans suck ass.

oh man, it's too late, Killzone is gonna be mediocre, too late, $ony = fail.

join me now... just say "it's too late insert something stupid like what Gundam might say next]"

EDIT: I should probably stop frequenting Joystiq with all the crap I write that needs to be moderated. I frustrate the other commenters AND the staff. WOW!

I'm sure I speak for all of us when I say that I really hope that day comes soon.

HEY U GUYS ARE HOLIER THAN THOU

AM I SOUNDIN SMART YET

How about chairs.

You ever played PS3? Cause... uhh... the 360's UI is so much better. The only reason it would outsell it is because gamers already own a 360.

I don't understand all this bickering. I thought this issue had been settled long ago. Forget whether or not the 360 is better or the PS3. Who cares? As far as the North American market is concerned the game is over for the PS3. (meaning at this point it can't/won't win the console war) At this point the high(er) price of the PS3 is only making it worse for its sales, but it isn't the definitive factor. People aren't flocking to it, because it isn't the system to have this time around, th 360 is. This time it swung in the 360's favor.

LOL HITNRUN SAID

The questions are as they have ever been: can Sony afford to cut the price? The answer, thus far, has been no. Sony swore off the money-pissing contest earlier this year, opting to actually make some money rather than bleed themselves dry fighting for market share.

Uhhh I didn't realise Sony wasn't losing money on the PS3 right now? Boy you've cleared it all up now. Only Nintendo didn't sell at a loss this gen, that's why they are loaded with cash despite the fact that nobody plays their Wii or buys game for it.

PS3 Exclusives.

The PS3 has the exclusive of a higher price point.
They can keep that exclusive.

$99 still can't cut it. I bought it at $499 and got rid of it 5 months later last year because of no games. That's the same problem today, no games and the multi-games look worse on the system. Blu-ray is for movies or storage not gaming. If you want it for either of those things then your good but if you want to play games, like fun games not interactive movies or level editors, then you need either a 360 or PC or even a Wii to a lesser extent. That's one thing Nintendo learned and the Wii can't play DVD movies but it can play games.

You're still using 'holier than thou'? It seems the meaning of that word, to you, has devolved to 'anyone who disagrees with you or thinks you're a dumbass'


which would include the whole of Joystiq

now get this - nobody is 'waiting'. Not 'Sony fanboys' (and I'm not a Sony fanboy, kid), not ANY gamers, this year, or the last. We're having a great time ACTUALLY playing all of the games that are coming out, while you have nothing better to do than bitch and moan about a system you don't even own, saying it has no games when you've never given a second look at it's library.

In short, you're an idiot, and everyone knows it, and when people call you out on your stupidity, you retreat behind terms like 'holier than thou' and 'Sony fanboy' instead of offering up an argument of worth. You're a terrible, terrible commenter, and further proof that twelve year olds shouldn't be on the internet.


Wait, you're not twelve? Damn, you had me fooled.

Someone please tell this idiot, Pachter, to shut the hell up.

*Reverse psychology time*

Haven't we all learned that we're wrong???
Gundam is obviously right; he sounds like a highly educated young man who lives in a chateau in Switzerland.

Now gundam, if you leave Joystiq and never return here, we shall herald you as the greatest Joystiq commenter who has ever set foot on this planet...

Now go...

Once again, Pachter proves his worthlessness by stating the obvious.

i hope sony sinks quicker than the titanic did .

I love how these "analysts" state the obvious and act like it's some special skill. The PS3 was selling more than the 360 on a monthly basis last year so of course it would outsell the 360 with a $100 dollar price drop. Of course the PS3 isn't going to catch up in sales with the 360 right away, duh. If these guys get paid to do this then I want in. I have a prediction, the Wii is going to sell millions in 2009!!!!!

Microsoft has still not turned an overall profit on the Xbox division. Turning a profit in a quarter is not the same as turing an overall profit. The truth is that Microsoft is still billions in the red for the XBOX division.

The manufacturing rejection rate of the 360 is still very high and the lifecycle of the 360 will not be long enough to recoup the losses from the faulty manufacturing process. The RRoD problem is also costing Microsoft more than the initial writedown.

Microsoft planned on losing billions of dollars throughtout the lifecycle of the 360 in order to try and crush Sony. This was done so they could turn a profit in the next generation. They didn't count on Nintendo and will most likely change the direction Microsoft takes. They will throw all you hardcore gamers under the bus without a care. Microsoft only cares about the endgame, taken at any expense. That endgame is Microsoft controlling every product with a computer chip.

Go ahead and support that if you want but I refuse to support the unethical actions of Microsoft, selling a product manufactured to the lowest standard possible just to get it out the door.

I think it's way too late for Sony this generation, the best they are playing for is to save the Playstation name so Sony doesn't need to think up a new new name.

Nintendo won this round, then MS, most people still won't want a PS3 because there are so few games for it.

Leo McKelvin




If all you want from Blu-ray is a picture and some accompanying sound, you could get away with a regular ol' TV, as long as it has a standard AV input (yellow, red, and white plugs). But the only reason you should pay extra for Blu-ray is to take advantage of the more immersive and intense movie-watching experience. To do that, you'll need more equipment. Here's a quick cheat sheet to help you figure out what you need.

HDTV: The big advantage to Blu-ray is high-definition video, which means you'll need an HDTV to enjoy it on. While the improvements in picture quality are noticeable on virtually any size HDTV, in our opinion the difference really stands out on screens 40 inches and up, assuming normal seating distances. If you're looking to get the most out of Blu-ray, we'd recommend buying a relatively big screen.

You may be surprised by this next piece of advice: 1080p isn't that important for getting the most out of Blu-ray. At a standard seating distance from a 50- or 58-inch TV, you just won't see a difference between a 1080p and 720p HDTV--trust us, we've tried. That's not as much of a factor for new HDTV buyers, as almost all large HDTVs are 1080p now, but if you have an older HDTV and want to take advantage of Blu-ray, don't feel like you need to upgrade. The major exception to this rule is with projectors, where you will see a difference on giant 100-plus-inch screens.

AV receiver: We've mentioned high-definition video, but Blu-ray also allows for high-resolution audio. To listen to the new high-resolution soundtracks at their highest fidelity you'll need an AV receiver, but you don't need a new receiver with onboard decoding. Here are the four most common scenarios:

* I don't have a receiver: Well, you'll need to buy an AV receiver to take advantage of the new soundtrack formats, but the good news is that many affordable AV receivers now include Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio decoding. While it's not essential if you have a receiver with onboard decoding for those formats, it's probably worth getting anyway in case any future electronics use those formats. Check out our list of top AV receivers for a recommendation.
* I have an AV receiver, but it doesn't have HDMI inputs: As along as your receiver has analog multichannel inputs, you can still use it to listen to the new high-resolution audio formats. In this case, you'll need a Blu-ray player that has onboard decoding for Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio, plus multichannel analog outputs. Luckily we've done a roundup of Blu-ray players with 7.1 analog outputs if you have an older receiver.
* I have an HDMI receiver, but it doesn't decode Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio: You can use this receiver to listen to the new soundtracks, but you need a Blu-ray player with onboard decoding for the new soundtracks. Players with onboard decoding are much more common now.
* I have an HDMI receiver with Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio: Great, you have the most flexibility. If your Blu-ray player doesn't have onboard decoding, but has bit stream output, set it for bit stream output and let your receiver do the decoding. If your Blu-ray player has onboard decoding, then you can choose either option and they'll both sound the same.

It's worth mentioning that if you're not an audiophile, there's nothing wrong with using either the optical or coaxial digital audio connector. You won't get the true resolution of Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio, but the sound will still be in 5.1 surround and you probably won't notice the difference.

Surround-sound speakers: You're not getting the full Blu-ray experience unless you have a surround-sound speaker system. While that used to mean you'd be stuck with big boxy speakers, our list of the best home theater speakers includes plenty of smaller, top-performer speaker packages for décor-minded buyers. And if you really don't want a bunch of speakers and wires in your living room, you can opt for a single-speaker surround-sound option, although you won't be getting the full Blu-ray experience.

HDMI cables: It's something easy to forget when you're buying all your equipment, but you need a way to hook it all up, too. The easiest way to connect your Blu-ray player to your HDTV and AV receiver is to use an HDMI cable, which is capable of carrying both 1080p HD video and high-resolution audio. The most important thing to remember with HDMI cables is don't pay extra for HDMI cables. In fact, you should never pay more than $10 for a standard 6-foot HDMI cable, as there's absolutely no difference in quality. If you want the full scoop on why to buy cheap HDMI cables, check out our Quick guide to HDMI cables.

It's also worth mentioning that you don't need to use an HDMI cable to get high-definition video from your Blu-ray player, although we recommend going HDMI if you can. For older high-def displays that don't support HDMI, every Blu-ray player includes a component video output, which can output Blu-ray Discs at 1080i and DVDs at 480p.
CNET recommends

Sony at this time is loosing money on the PS3. Even at this 400$ price tag. Imagine what a 300$ PS3 would have.

1. No blu-ray
2. They would probly downgrade the HDD to 40 GB or less
3. No built in wifi
4. Maybe even no HDMI
And more just to make a profit. PS3 is cheeper at this time.

Do your math dumbasses - http://i40.tinypic.com/350kt4l.jpg

Bottom Line: Innovation and games made the current gen systems what they are. It's too late to gain enough ground to move up from third to 1st or even 2nd for PS3, even with another price drop. They pushed so much tech into the PS3 thinking they could 'load it up' and get people to buy it, but they lost market share and party support. Sony needs to go back to what made the PS1 so great...reasonably priced new technology and awesome games. To be honest, if Sony had not lost the crown, they would have kept the exclusive games. They go hand in hand with how well your system sells. Take some notes Sony...Nintendo created a new way of playing games and MS took advantage of online gaming and did so well that they broke into your exclusives. Better come up with something innovative and reasonably priced(to start) next time around.

I bought by PS3 around Thanksgiving for $299 by applying for a Sony credit card online and getting $100 off instantly.

I bought the PS3 because of the Blu Ray player and hard drive and thought songs would be easy to access. It sorts everything alphabetically, or by year, or by any other machination except for the Windows folder hierarchy which is how I save them. Maybe if all my music had been purchased online rather than ripped from CD's it would work right. I deleted all of it Saturday.

I cannot bring myself to pay $70 for a game and then force my over 40 self to actually care about leading an army against the Germans, mutants or terrorists. My day job too often gets in the way. I liked Burnout3 for the Xbox back when I had one. Need only a short attention span to play that game.

I have the 60gb PS3 at 600 and though I do enjoy my PS3, I think I could have waited. I like Blu-Ray movies but since my main HDTV only go up to 1080i/720P I do not see enough of a difference between an upscaled DVD compared to a Blu-ray movie at those resolution.

I will say there is definitely a big difference between 1080P picture than 720P/1080i and if I had a set that displayed 1080P then Blu-ray would be worth the money. I will be purchasing a Sammy 52 120 slim in about another month. The picture I saw at Best Buy was stunning and even outclassed Sony similar model. Once I pick up that set, the PS3 will start to earn its money

As for the games on the PS3, I have played all the exclusives and nothing has made me feel that 600 bucks was worth the price. I have enjoyed Resistance 1&2, LBP, MGS4, Uncharted, Ratchet, Heavenly Sword and a few PSN titles but overall, I could easily have waited until this year or later to play those titles.

I do enjoy the XMB better than MS new interface but thats because I like to see my complete desktop instead of a bunch of menus

Personally, I do not believe that Sony can afford a price drop if the ecomny is going south, instead, they will have to concentrate on profitability to withstand the storm or they will have to cut more features to get to a price point equal to MS. I highly doubt a cut down PS3 will sell that great because people will always want the version that has it all. 299 is still not at a mass market price so the only people you will get at that price is still the hardcore and I just do not believe the hardcore wants anything more taken out of the PS3

LOL, what a funny thread......one person defends one system the other defends the other one. They are BOTH good systems. X-box has a reputation now for units failing (3 friends of mine included) yet they have three times the titles available and some good ones. But on the other hand, the failure rate for PS3,s,well I havnm't heard of any major problems, plus how about the blu-ray player? With blu-ray coming out big now the format's in to take over dvd within a few years, plus, the game companies are continually using up the 50gb of space that is on a blu-ray disc for their games. Interviews with many game makers in the latest issues of EGM and other magazines talk about how much they can expand their games, graphics, moves, the works, when they have 50gb compared to a dual-layer dvd.

Me? I settled on the PS3, not because I have anything against the x-box, in fact, I'd like to own one but don't feel I want to spend another 300.00 for a 2nd game system. I also have a nice collection of over 140 blu-ray movies, and now am really enjoying Playstation Home. Never seen Xbox Live but heard it's great, and more points to them for that. I made my choice not based on number of games but on games AND blu-ray capability. I truly believe the story headline, that when the Xbox and PS3 are the same price, it's going to be very tough for Microsoft, especially when game makers start to use that 50gb of space available for games. There are already a bgunch of games out there that are PS3 exclusives that take up much more space that could never be ported to the Xbox without using 3-4 x-box discs.

My bet, in the long run, is the PS3 is going to reign supreme. Let's not forget Xbox had over a year's lead so more games and machines in homes. I also STRONGLY agree with some of the posters here that Sony needs to make the PS3 backwards compatable with PS2 games. This is a huge minus in their column.

How many times does PACHTER have to be wrong until Joystiq stops posting stories about him??

I hate any mention of that hack.