[Via Engadget]
[Via Engadget]
Reader Comments (159)
Posted: Jul 7th 2009 11:33AM (Unverified) said
Not a bad deal, I wouldn't say the games are free though.
Reply
Posted: Jul 7th 2009 12:00PM latin trident said
*running out the door to go pick it up now*...
JUST KIDDING!!!
Reply
JUST KIDDING!!!
Posted: Jul 7th 2009 12:01PM dogmaticatheist said
If it's the same price as the console without the games, how are they not free?
Reply
Posted: Jul 7th 2009 12:12PM (Unverified) said
@dogmaticathiest
It's a basic economic principle: "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."
In this case you're buying a system that is probably about to be put out to pasture, either that or Sony is just trying to stimulate flagging hardware sales. Someone is paying for those bundled games somehow, and that someone is probably you.
Sorry for the double post.
Reply
It's a basic economic principle: "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."
In this case you're buying a system that is probably about to be put out to pasture, either that or Sony is just trying to stimulate flagging hardware sales. Someone is paying for those bundled games somehow, and that someone is probably you.
Sorry for the double post.
Posted: Jul 7th 2009 12:25PM (Unverified) said
It's not arguing semantics, it's basic economics. Often times things that are said to be free actually have hidden costs, like how you end up paying for "free" food at happy hour with all the drinks you buy.
If you don't think the value of the two games are included in the price one way or another, you are dead wrong.
Reply
If you don't think the value of the two games are included in the price one way or another, you are dead wrong.
Posted: Jul 7th 2009 12:44PM (Unverified) said
Downvote me all you want, it doesn't change the facts. By the way Sony isn't the only one that does this, look at Microsoft with their Halo 3/Fable 2 bundle.
Related reading for those that want to learn and not just get mad:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TANSTAAFL
Reply
Related reading for those that want to learn and not just get mad:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TANSTAAFL
Posted: Jul 7th 2009 12:58PM dogmaticatheist said
@Neuromancer :
> Often times things that are said to be free actually have hidden costs, like how
> you end up paying for "free" food at happy hour with all the drinks you buy.
Unless you can explain where those hidden costs are, you haven't proved your point. A wikipedia article doesn't count as evidence to support your claim, since it does not address this particular scenario.
The cost is $399 for the console plus the 2 games, and that's all you have to pay, ever.
> By the way Sony isn't the only one that does this, look at Microsoft with their
> Halo 3/Fable 2 bundle.
And your point is? They are bundling first party games, so the cost to them is probably pretty low. They both probably
realized that the sales increases from such bundles outweigh the negligible costs of including quality first party titles.
It's called business decisions.
Reply
> Often times things that are said to be free actually have hidden costs, like how
> you end up paying for "free" food at happy hour with all the drinks you buy.
Unless you can explain where those hidden costs are, you haven't proved your point. A wikipedia article doesn't count as evidence to support your claim, since it does not address this particular scenario.
The cost is $399 for the console plus the 2 games, and that's all you have to pay, ever.
> By the way Sony isn't the only one that does this, look at Microsoft with their
> Halo 3/Fable 2 bundle.
And your point is? They are bundling first party games, so the cost to them is probably pretty low. They both probably
realized that the sales increases from such bundles outweigh the negligible costs of including quality first party titles.
It's called business decisions.
Posted: Jul 7th 2009 1:05PM (Unverified) said
The Wikipedia article was not there as evidence for my point. It was just there for anyone who wanted to understand the TANSTAAFL principle which is taught in just about every introductory economics course in the world, because it's true.
You can't argue with the fact that someone had to pay to manufacture those games. It may have been relatively low cost for Sony but it wasn't free. Sony is basically writing off the cost of the games to sell units.
I'm just saying there's a different way to look at these games, that's all. Not sure where all the hate comes from. All downvoting me does is make people want to read what I have to say anyway.
Reply
You can't argue with the fact that someone had to pay to manufacture those games. It may have been relatively low cost for Sony but it wasn't free. Sony is basically writing off the cost of the games to sell units.
I'm just saying there's a different way to look at these games, that's all. Not sure where all the hate comes from. All downvoting me does is make people want to read what I have to say anyway.
Posted: Jul 7th 2009 1:23PM NIck PSN ID Rattlehead91 said
The games are free. The current price of an 80 GB PS3 without anything bundled with it is $399 and the bundle comes with two games that, if bought separately, would add up to about $90. The consumer is getting the games for free. There is no other way of looking at it.
Reply
Posted: Jul 7th 2009 1:32PM DrXym said
Actually the games are free since if you were intending on buying a PS3 now you can do so and get 2 games for the same price.
Whether that is smart or not really depends on if you want to wait for a potential price drop / slim in 3-4 months, whether you care about what features the slim has or hasn't, and whether you care about the form factor at all. Its even possible the slim has gotchas that still make the older model desirable. For example, if the Slim has an external power brick, or no power switch, or other cost saving tweaks, or reliability is poorer then maybe its not a good idea to buy. There's no way to say until Sony actually say what it does.
Even if a slim does appear the chances are it will be initially bundled up to ensure it costs more than the 80Gb models until they're cleared out.
Personally I think I would wait and compare the two.
Reply
Whether that is smart or not really depends on if you want to wait for a potential price drop / slim in 3-4 months, whether you care about what features the slim has or hasn't, and whether you care about the form factor at all. Its even possible the slim has gotchas that still make the older model desirable. For example, if the Slim has an external power brick, or no power switch, or other cost saving tweaks, or reliability is poorer then maybe its not a good idea to buy. There's no way to say until Sony actually say what it does.
Even if a slim does appear the chances are it will be initially bundled up to ensure it costs more than the 80Gb models until they're cleared out.
Personally I think I would wait and compare the two.
Posted: Jul 7th 2009 2:06PM latin trident said
"I wouldn't say the games are free though"
Neuromancer does make a point. The games are not free in the sense that they are produced and created free of charge. That is to say, the developers made it for free. What we consumers view as free is not really free in the sense that we are not paying for it as it is included.
"so the cost to them is probably pretty low."
dogmaticatheist does realize the point Neuromancer stated earlier in realizing that MS does the same thing and that they are paying for the cost. Sony in the same sense is also taking the cost in one way or another. My point being, Sony is paying so you can have "free games". Just like when the PS3 cost (estimate) $900 when it first came out, consumers were only paying $500 so Sony was "giving away" $400 by paying the consumers share of the true cost of a PS3.
I studied economics too. As a matter of fact, I study it at times just for the heck of it. I know, i'm a geek.
Reply
Neuromancer does make a point. The games are not free in the sense that they are produced and created free of charge. That is to say, the developers made it for free. What we consumers view as free is not really free in the sense that we are not paying for it as it is included.
"so the cost to them is probably pretty low."
dogmaticatheist does realize the point Neuromancer stated earlier in realizing that MS does the same thing and that they are paying for the cost. Sony in the same sense is also taking the cost in one way or another. My point being, Sony is paying so you can have "free games". Just like when the PS3 cost (estimate) $900 when it first came out, consumers were only paying $500 so Sony was "giving away" $400 by paying the consumers share of the true cost of a PS3.
I studied economics too. As a matter of fact, I study it at times just for the heck of it. I know, i'm a geek.
Posted: Jul 7th 2009 2:12PM (Unverified) said
You have restored my faith in humanity, Latin Trident.
Reply
Posted: Jul 7th 2009 3:06PM dogmaticatheist said
@Latin_Trident:
I got his point, but it's completely irrelevant. Of course it costs SONY, I even acknowledged that. However, he stated that WE the CONSUMER are going to be paying for those games "one way or another", probably through some kind of hidden cost. So in essence, he was claiming that the games are not free to CONSUMERS, which is just dead wrong. And he fails to cite any possible hidden costs as supporting evidence. He's simply playing a semantics game, to try to sound smart, but as I and many others have pointed out, he's dead wrong about what he initially claimed.
Reply
I got his point, but it's completely irrelevant. Of course it costs SONY, I even acknowledged that. However, he stated that WE the CONSUMER are going to be paying for those games "one way or another", probably through some kind of hidden cost. So in essence, he was claiming that the games are not free to CONSUMERS, which is just dead wrong. And he fails to cite any possible hidden costs as supporting evidence. He's simply playing a semantics game, to try to sound smart, but as I and many others have pointed out, he's dead wrong about what he initially claimed.
Posted: Jul 7th 2009 9:46PM TreyIM2 said
I agree with dogmaticatheist - Neuromancer, what you're saying goes without saying in regards to virtually ANYTHING consumers by at retail cost and there is no need to try to look smart. Yes, some people don't quite understand that part of things but you're more trying to sound like a smarty pants than anything else as what you said truly didn't need to be.
Reply
Posted: Jul 7th 2009 11:35PM (Unverified) said
Anyone else want to jump on the bandwagon? I am being crucified by pointing out a basic economic principle that no one apparently believes in or wants to hear.
Reply
Posted: Jul 7th 2009 11:44AM Vegeta has a ps3 said
Well it probably won't since:
A. "agilion" isn't a real number
B: It's still $400.
Reply
A. "agilion" isn't a real number
B: It's still $400.
Posted: Jul 7th 2009 11:46AM Snowblind said
If I didn't own a PS3, I don't think this deal would do anything for me either.. Again, it's still the same price, and neither of these games particularly interest me. I enjoyed MGS4 for the most part, but one play through was enough - I'd only buy my own copy if they release an upgraded version again.
Both games can be bought pretty cheap now anyway, actually lowering the price would have a much bigger effect.
Reply
Both games can be bought pretty cheap now anyway, actually lowering the price would have a much bigger effect.
Posted: Jul 7th 2009 11:53AM Hunter2223 said
For people who understand the intrinsic value of the PS3, but still are unable to get over the price-point are for the most part not going to be swayed. Adding games is a good thing, but the actual value added is not as high as I'd want to just jump on in.
If they'd give me the system, without the games, but with the value of the games ($90 new I believe) reduced from the price, so $310, I'd be there now buying one and spend the extra $90 on games of my choosing.
Reply
If they'd give me the system, without the games, but with the value of the games ($90 new I believe) reduced from the price, so $310, I'd be there now buying one and spend the extra $90 on games of my choosing.
Posted: Jul 7th 2009 11:58AM mr nimblewick said
I've been skeptical of bundles since I got a great deal on a Sega Saturn with 3 free games.
Reply
Posted: Jul 7th 2009 12:18PM MLS said
yeahhhh... As much as I loved MGS3... I think I can wait on MGS4 even longer. I know I will play it and enjoy it, but i'm not itching. RIght now, it's only the online content that interests me most about the PS3, and I can't justify buying a console for that kind of thing. Maybe if they packed in a $50 PSN card instead of killzone...
Reply
Posted: Jul 7th 2009 3:23PM Dark Archon PSN Archonik XBL Dar said
If "agillion" means 10, a winner is you.
Reply
Posted: Jul 7th 2009 11:38AM StormEagle said
BOO!!! This bundle.
It's still $400 and people don't want to pay that. What if people don't want those games? Quit dickin' around and just drop the damn price.
And yes, I know I said this yesterday but dammit, it ain't right!
Reply
It's still $400 and people don't want to pay that. What if people don't want those games? Quit dickin' around and just drop the damn price.
And yes, I know I said this yesterday but dammit, it ain't right!
Posted: Jul 7th 2009 11:41AM (Unverified) said
hopefully this means uncharted will go and become a platinum hit....one can dream!!!
Reply
Posted: Jul 7th 2009 11:44AM StormEagle said
Probably not until Uncharted 2 comes out. If you're holding out, Uncharted is worth it at $60. First game I bought for my PS3 and best game I played in 2008.
Reply
Posted: Jul 7th 2009 11:46AM (Unverified) said
If Sony's smart they'll have an Uncharted 2 bundle when it's released, and if they're really smart they'll have an Uncharted mega-bundle with Uncharted 1 & 2 to coincide with the release of Slim PS3.
Reply
Posted: Jul 7th 2009 11:48AM (Unverified) said
oh, i have played it and beat it, i just want to own it and play it again before uncharted 2 comes out....but yea i agree, worth every penny
Reply
Posted: Jul 7th 2009 12:08PM zerodip said
They're only called that in North America. The European equivalent of "Greatest Hit's" are called "Platinum" games.
http://www.game.co.uk/lowdown.aspx?lid=9573
The more you know...
Reply
http://www.game.co.uk/lowdown.aspx?lid=9573
The more you know...
Posted: Jul 7th 2009 12:13PM (Unverified) said
WTF....it didn't let me reply to my own damn comment....anyway...you got what i meant...lol....haven't had coffee yet.....and it's 60 bucks at best buy and anywhere else I've looked,....
Reply
Posted: Jul 7th 2009 11:43AM Manifest37 said
People who don't want these games don't deserve to live.
Reply
Posted: Jul 7th 2009 12:30PM (Unverified) said
I said it yesterday and I'll say it today, I think the WALL-E/LBP bundle was a better deal. If you're into Metal Gear you might love this but I'm just not that into Metal Gear. And Killzone 2 was the most disappointing game I've played this year and I've played a lot of games this year.
Reply
Posted: Jul 7th 2009 12:56PM JuanLovesHorror said
@WREturns
Your KZ2 bashing is getting old already,this like your 20th post saying the same crap.
Reply
Your KZ2 bashing is getting old already,this like your 20th post saying the same crap.
Posted: Jul 7th 2009 2:33PM Mayor West said
Wait for Halo STD untill you make the most disappointing game of the year decision.
Reply
Posted: Jul 7th 2009 11:42AM (Unverified) said
Damn they are just doing anything to get rid of those PS3's
Reply
Posted: Jul 7th 2009 11:44AM Manifest37 said
This bundle almost makes me wish I would've waited a year to buy my PS3... almost.
Reply
Posted: Jul 7th 2009 11:45AM (Unverified) said
it is still 400$. Although the value is undeniably good but it is still 400$ and some people look ONLY at that price regardless the value. It is all psychological.
Reply
Posted: Jul 7th 2009 6:29PM 33PercentGod said
Those people are the same tards who will buy something at $19.99,but not $20. $400 includes 2 GAMES.
If they can't read what's in an actual box and judge prices accordingly,I don't want those people on PSN. God help me if they somehow end up on my team.
Reply
If they can't read what's in an actual box and judge prices accordingly,I don't want those people on PSN. God help me if they somehow end up on my team.
Posted: Jul 7th 2009 11:45AM omgwtf said
What they should do is this.. Drop the price to 300, which would create a huge surge in sales and effectively clear out the ps3 inventory over the next month or two... then once inventory is about cleared introduce the ps3 slim at the 300 priceline
You guys are right these bundles are good deals, but the consumer just wants a cheaper pricetag and the ability to choose what games to buy.
Reply
You guys are right these bundles are good deals, but the consumer just wants a cheaper pricetag and the ability to choose what games to buy.
Posted: Jul 7th 2009 11:50AM (Unverified) said
They probably can't do that. They'd be losing at least 100 dollars a console on the older models, and it would cannabalize demand for the 300 dollar Slim unit, which should cost less to manufacture.
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.
Featured Stories
The most popular posts
in the last 7 days
- Vita 'UMD Passport' won't be offered in US 220 comments
- Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning review: A tempting fate 153 comments
- David Jaffe leaves Eat Sleep Play, layoffs hit developer [Update] 108 comments
- Don't call it a remake: Final Fantasy X is a 'remaster,' to be clear 95 comments
- Battleship movie adapted into FPS by Double Helix 93 comments
