PS3 Prices in Europe Revealed 215
fistfullast33l writes "Ars Technica is reporting that the VP of Sony Computer Entertainment Europe revealed pricing for the Playstation 3 on a French radio show today. From the article: 'Strict currency translation suggests that American pricing may be in the range of US $605 to $726, but currency exchange alone can't tell the story. Case in point: the Xbox 360. In the United States, the Xbox 360 retails for $399, which is only 320 [euros] in exchange. Yet the Xbox 360 is priced at 399 [euros] throughout most of Europe.' The article goes on to speculate that 'the days of multi-console ownership may be coming to an end for many gamers' based on the Xbox 360 and the PS3 prices."
multi-console ownership (Score:5, Insightful)
If I get just one of the next generation consoles, I'll still be a multi-console owner; I just need to buy the Revolution.
P$3 (Score:5, Insightful)
Goodbye, PS3 marketshare.
What do y'all think? Is this price point as huge a blunder by Sony as it appears to be on the surface?
Multi-console ownersip coming to an end? (Score:3, Insightful)
multi-console ownership (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why I think the Nintendo Revolution will really take off. I've come to the conclusion that I am done with consoles and moved 100% to the PC. If I'm going to spend a lot of money on something that will entertain me I want it to have something that I can use for other then entertainment. Which is why I'm much happier buying a PC. Yet Nintendo's game consoles are cheap enough for me to pick-up and not feel like I wasted a ton of money on it if I only play it once a week at most.
Re:P$3 (Score:4, Insightful)
It depends.
It depends on what comes in the box. It depends on if it's $499, or if it's $599.
Really, you're not going to the store for an Xbox 360 and spending less that $550. I know two guys who went out and bought one yesterday, and they each spent $800. You need extra controllers, the right cable, memory, games, etc...
If the $499 price is the real price, and it's in 'Value Pack' form like they did with the PSP (doesn't seem too unlikely), then no, it's the same price as the Xbox 360 essentially. If the price is $599, and it comes with nothing, then yes. They're stupid. If it comes out at $399, and this little "slip" turns out to be a marketing stunt, well... I wouldn't be surprised. That would be just like Sony.
We're still at a point where nobody can make an informed decision about this stuff.
Re:multi-console ownership (Score:2, Insightful)
Sorta like the current gen, where a lot of people I know had a Gamecube + Xbox or PS2. At least those that, unlike myself, don't waste gobs of money on games.
I think it is actually part of Nintendo's strategy, especially in the US...keep prices low enough that you can afford to get their console as an "extra." This is probably also why Nintendo owners don't get mad at the overall lack of worthwhile games for the consoles (at least since the 64)...it's rarely the only console a gamer owns.
I know several of people who have a lone PS2 or a lone Xbox...I can't think of anybody I know who just owns a Cube.
It wouldn't be so bad if the games were cheap ... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm more worried about this generation transition than any other before. The cost of games is going to mean fewer games sell. And of course, games will cost loads more to develop. That means that publishers/developers focus on "guaranteed" sales, which means more sequels, more licenses and more cynically marketed crap. And less innovation and risk. Yeh, yeh, I know we've heard it all before, but I'm feeling pretty down about it. Maybe I'll just stick to mariokart on the SNES.
They expect Blu-Ray to save it at that price? (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed, their only justification seems to be that "it's not an expensive console, it's a cheap Blu-Ray player that ALSO plays games." While that may have worked for DVD and the PS2, when America was just beginning to move en masse to DVD and the jump from VHS was dramatic and simple, it's a recipe for disaster with the PS3 and Blu-Ray.
I remember a story not too long ago that showed fewer than half of Americans with HD capabilities had it hooked up correctly. Market penetration for HD in general is stagnant, and a multidude of ever-changing standards exist. Couple this with the fact that, while Blu-Ray is better than DVD in many ways, it's not better enough. This is nothing like the jump from VHS to DVD, and there's no way Blu-Ray alone will drive sales.
Not to sound like a fanboy, but Nintendo stands to hit the ground running and comein second or even first this round. (A lot depends on how well the Revolution controller works, what games come out for the 360 in the coming months, and if/when Microsoft releases a cheaper or updated 360).
No price drop for 360's (Score:2, Insightful)
Or maybe this is all an elaborate play from Sony to keep 360 prices up until they can release the PS3? Get your conspiracy hats on...
So it's only Sony & Microsoft releasing consol (Score:2, Insightful)
That may be true if you are only considering the PS3 and Xbox 360, but with a predicted price as low as 99 USD (although 149 USD is more likely) the Revolution is going to be the second, and indeed "must have" machine for those not wanting to miss out on the novel and exclusive games which it will bring to the party. And this is exactly why Nintedo has repeatedly stated that they are not competing with the Sony and Microsoft. Whilst the press seems to have a hard job believing this, it's very likely true. Nintendo won't care which if any of the other consoles players own, as long as they buy a Revolution.
It's may in fact be difficult for many people to justify paying out for Sony or Microsoft's latest offering, especially when you consider that you can buy a decent PC base unit from Dand just add a good powerful graphics card for around the same money. The Revolution on the other hand is a no brainer. It's a console that's actually priced like console, and people will be much more comfortable paying that kind of money.
Let's be honest, the graphical capabilities and raw processing power of the current generation consoles are largely going unused in most current titles. So do you really want to be paying four times the price just for the extra visual gloss on the same old games? Most gamers can easily see the potential in the Revolution's new controller, and so won't want to be without a Revolution. The question they'll be asking themselves, is do they really need any more than it's offering, and more importantly, are the other two actually worth the money?
Let's face it, with the development costs involved in producing games for the PS3 and 360, it'll be impractical financially for studios to release titles for just one of the two, which equates to very little exclusive content between them. However, with it's significantly lower development costs, both in terms of development tools and the man-hours required to master new hardware and produce games, and unique controller, the Revolution is going to be the only console the studios will really be able to afford to create original games for. It'll be the only console the smaller studios will be able to turn out good games for.
The Revolution is apparently being written off as being underpowered and not a massive leap in terms of power/architecture from their current generation console, but Nintendo themselves aren't stupid, and I suspect things are playing out exactly as they expected. They'll let the other two blow phenominal budgets on competing with each other to sell consoles which they've priced way outside the traditional console market, and then give the people what they want - a good low cost console with an excellent range of games. Add into the picture a massive range of downloadable legacy titles, and they'll clean up. How can they not?
My gut feeling is that much of the apparent "public" disappointment that is apparent from the media is in fact being seeded by Microsoft and Sony, who need to make people feel they need their new shiny consoles. I really can't see the Revolution being anything other than a phenominal success.
Sony's Pricing Risk (Score:3, Insightful)
Keep in mind that Microsoft is losing money with each console sold (which they expect to recoup in software sales), so they really could have raised the price at launch and still sold out of 360's because of the high demand. Now this may have helped their short-term bottom line, but not without the risk of the strategy backfiring through a loss in brand perception. For example, the public thinks that the 360 is too expensive or trying to screw customers, so only the hardcore buy it, resulting in a season of fair profitability at launch, but at the expense of mass adoption. By avoiding this strategy Microsoft also built the perception that the 360 is a must buy because people are on a waiting list to buy it.
By initially pricing the PS3 at $499 and $599(USD) Sony can control their lossses during the frentic launch season (when their supply will be exceeded by the demand at any sub-$1000 price), and then have room to cut the price later (when manufacturing gets up to speed) and let the mainstream feel like they are getting a deal. Of course, they risk alienating those same mainstream customers that they need to pick up later (so that the whole economies of scale thing works).
My brother and I share a PS2 that he bought used two years ago(probably for about $200 w/ games). And although I like some of the Sony games and the whole variety out there for the PS2, I really can't see myself buying a PS3 until a full version gets down to $299.
Re:Why bother? (Score:2, Insightful)
This, of course, is really bad for sony with it's apparently much higher price, lateness to the game, and DRM shenanigans. The only way for the PS3 to come out a winner is because of anti-microsoft mentalities, sony fanboyism, or a really killer exclusive title. One of the big reasons Sony came to the forefront of consoles is because it effectively stole the Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest franchises away from Nintendo. Unless they can invent a breakthrough franchise a-la GTA or Halo that will be exclusive to them, they're essentially dead in the water.
Umm, hello? In the past console generation, Sony WAS the king of console exclusivity. Sure, Nintendo has all of its Nintendo characters (Mario, Samus, Link), Microsoft has Halo and Rare, but Sony still has a really sweet deal with Square-Enix, Namco, Capcom, Konami
As much as I dislike Sony for all the marketing shenanigans that they pull (as well as the infamous rootkit), I still admit that I played my PS2 far more than any console thanks to those exclusives. Granted, most of it was simply due to them having far and away the #1 market share. If they don't repeat that again, I'm sure many of those formerly exclusive titles will start becoming multi-platform, but I don't see it happening yet (unfortunately).
Nintendo, on the other hand, has essentially re-invented the console for the Revolution. Not only is the controller revolutionary, but also the game distribution and game compatability platforms. The idea that I can buy one console, play both new games and old games, and not even have to go to the store to buy many of the games is going to put both the Xbox 360 and PS3 to shame. Because of this Nintendo doesn't compete directly with Sony or Microsoft.
Again, I must call BS. Game compatibility? I believe the PS2 was the first console to have backwards compatibility. (Or maybe the GB->GBA did it first, I don't know). In any case, it's not something new with the Revolution. Game distribution? MS launched the Xbox Live Arcade with the original Xbox, although the 360 version is the one that's really kicking ass now. And even though they're playing "catch up", Sony's already announced similar plans for the PS3.
Is the Revolution going to be revolutionary? Sure it is, and primarily because of the controller and its pricing strategy. You can pimp those too all you want, but let's not forget what the other guys have been doing as well.
Nintendo has more exclusive franchises, more backwards compatability, and will cost less. Even when you compare the 360 and PS3 directly Nintendo comes out ahead. Screw polygon count and cpu speed; give me my Revolution.
Exclusive franchises are primarily through Nintendo's own IP. If you dig Mario, Metroid, and Zelda games, then that's great. Unfortunately, I don't think they've done a good job securing 3rd party exclusives (and neither has MS either). Hopefully that should change, as we see games that will ONLY work with the Revolution-style controller. However, on the flip side, there may unfortunately be developers who don't think the Revolution specs are good enough for their more "traditional" games, so only the PS3 and 360 will be getting those "prettier" games.
As for backwards compatibility, just chill. There's a big difference between what's announced and what we'll actually experience once the thing ships. It sounds great, but let's see it in practice. I have faith that they can pull it off, since they've done a great job with backwards compatibil
The price isn't as crucial as you might think. (Score:2, Insightful)
Meh. (Score:2, Insightful)