Everyone Still Rumbling About PS3 492
To put things in perspective, the Curmudgeon Gamer has created graphs showing inflation-adjusted console costs. The PS3 is far from the most expensive console in history (that would be the Neo Geo, at almost $1000 adjusted price), but that hasn't stopped analysts, publishers, developers, and gamers from grumbling about it the week after E3. ABI Research has publicly stated that Sony may have 'hamstrung' itself with the console's high price. Publishers and developers are worried because (despite Sony's protests to the contrary), developers just don't have the kits to make the games. From the GameDaily article: "'A lot of developers have not gotten the kits,' said Sega of America president Simon Jeffrey while attending E3 last week. 'There certainly will not be a lot of titles available.' The result is that publishers that do want to take part in the PS3 launch will have to release games that don't fully take advantage of the power of the Cell processor, added Jeffrey."
Pre-E3... (Score:5, Interesting)
Comparing to the Neo geo is rather unfair... (Score:5, Interesting)
1) It was a console that had technology far exceeding any capabilities available at the time. When Neo-Geo was selling to the elitist rich kids, the masses were just beginning to poke their heads into the SNES/Genesis market. A system of comparable power to the Neo Geo was at least... what? 4 years away? Possibly 5?
2) It was a console that was not marketed for the masses. Its advanced technology was marketed only to the few that could afford it. They felt that point (1) justified that marketing. Sony cannot claim that for the PS3, because no matter how many processors its core system is equivalent to, the end user is not going to see a dramatic difference between it and, say, the XBox 360. It's not like it was back then, when gamers who were used to 2D pixels suddenly had a system powerful enough to render 3D scenes. THAT was a significant jump... the jump between the Neo-Geo and its peers at the time was infinitely larger than the jump between Sony and its peers in technology.
If Sony wants to market to an exclusive lot, that's fine and entirely their perogative. But they won't sell many copies that way, and they're not going to make a lot of money that way. Where's SNK right now? I think last I heard they went bankrupt. Sony could learn from that example.
Of course, in order to actually appeal to an elite few, you have to offer them a truly elite product. They're going to need to beef up those system specs if they want to hit a market like that... and beef it up in such a way that an actual end user could visibly tell the difference in each and every licensed game they purchase.
Actually, you know. (Score:3, Interesting)
Step back a minute and think about it. A few weeks ago, Nintendo announced the name "Wii". Everyone was doom and gloom for Nintendo, nothing but lamenting, ...but they were the talk of the town.
This week, Sony says "$500"! And everyone is doom and gloom. But they're the talk of the town.
From a marketing perspective, it's far better for people to be passionate in either direction (love or hate) about something than for them to be indifferent about it.
Re:Inflation-adjusted Insanity (Score:2, Interesting)
Grumbling or grassroots? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's pretty funny to hear people complaining for example that the console is "really" $600 and not $500 (base model) because it lacks HDMI and therefore you'll not be able to play games in HD. Except that the 360 lacks an HDMI interface on ANY model...
Linux is the selling point for me. (Score:0, Interesting)
Nintendo Pricing Always $200? (Score:4, Interesting)
Furthermore looking at the inflation adjusted model I have to say thanks to the big N for bringing us newer and better systems cheaper each time!
Sony can go jump in a lake.
-Ian
Notice... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Basically (Score:1, Interesting)
Now, for some unknowable reason, most of the US hard-core gamers (ie, the ones that blow the most money), are Japan-o-philes (despite the fact that actual Japanese people would despise them). So games like Metal Gear Solid 4 and Final Fantasy XIII, which are PS3 exclusives, are likely to heavily influence Japanese gamers. Don't forget that the most popular MMORPG in Japan is Final Fantasy XI, despite FFXI being less than 1/6th the size of World of Warcraft worldwide!
Because Japan hates American games, and American gamers return the favor by loving Japanese games, Japan is likely to factor heavily into who wins this generation. My perdiction is that Nintendo will come out on top due to price and innovation, but the PS3 will keep a close second for no other reason than the Japanese gaming public sticking with the PS3 over the XBox360. When the surprisingly large crowd of Japan-o-philes in the US decides what console to get after the Wii, they'll go for the console with MGS4 and FF13. (While, at the same time, complaining about sequels, of course.) So even though the XBox360 is almost certainly going to be superior to the PS3, it's still probably going to lose simply due to Japan and Japan's influence on the US gaming market.
Which is BS, but there's no accounting for taste in the American public.
Re:Aww. (Score:5, Interesting)
Lets say you're a manufacture of equipment and are choosing which player to make. The HD-DVD player is easier to build and cheaper, while the Bluray player is more expensive but has more storage and possibly better quality video. Now, when you look at your bottom line you can sell an HD-DVD player for $500-$700 but your Bluray player will sell around $800-$1000.
Now, here comes Sony with their BluRay equipped $500-$600 PS3. You know that you'll be selling your Bluray player at a loss if you sell it any less than $800 and you know anyone that wants a Bluray player will just get a PS3 since it's cheaper. You also know you can't compete against it with Bluray but can easily compete with an HD-DVD player and even the XBOX 360 plus HD-DVD will be in that $500-$700 competitive range your player will be in.
As a manufacture looking out for your Shareholders, what are you going to build?
Basically, the PS3 will be the only Bluray player in the market because it will drive the market away from it and toward the cheaper HD-DVD. That is until Bluray drops in price, and by then, the format war will be over and HD-DVD will be the winner.
As for Japan, if it says Sony, it sells regardless of what it is. Those Aibo robot dogs were a great example since they were selling those for $1000+ and still couldn't make them fast enough.
Re:Inflation-adjusted Insanity (Score:3, Interesting)
Inflation is a fact of life these days with current economies.
A loaf of bread costs more right now than it did 20 years ago too. So do houses.
Electronics are slightly different in that the quality for a given price point increases dramatically with time (Moore's law and all that). In that sense, consumer electronics tend to hit a good selling price then stay there.
A $1500 computer 10 years ago would do for you then what a $1500 computer will do for you today, but you'll get a lot more (relative) computer out of it. Its still about the same point on the Bell curve of quality though compared to its peers.
I would assume the PS3 will sell out at $500 and $600, allowing them to continue manufacturing, driving the price down until they're profitable (very quickly, looking at Sony's sales history in this regard), at which point they'll start dropping the price (probably 8 months after release). I'd expect it to be a full $100 cheaper by next Christmas, and have a lot of games available too.
what about the price of the games? (Score:3, Interesting)
in my opinion, the success of a game console hinges as much on the cost and availability of games as well as the console.
what i'd like to see is a development cost comparison of games for the different consoles and a comparison of the average retail cost of the games for the different consoles.
as i understand it, the reason why sony was able to break into game consoles was that the original playstation was not only competitive with sega and nintendo (remember that at that point, sony had virtually zero experience selling game computers) but was very simple and cheap to develop for. sony even offered a development platform for hobbyists. hobby programmers were responsible for a number of significant games on the original playstation (i think parrapa the rapper was one of these). paradoxically, sony, microsoft, and nintendo have been making a habit out of making it hard and expensive to develop console games so as to force developers to be exclusive to one or another platform.
Re:Neo Geo was NOT a console (Score:4, Interesting)
Is the XBox a console? After all, it can run Metal Slug 3 without any slowdown (a problem that hindered the arcade and Neo Geo releases).
You should head over and fix Wikipedia's article on Neo Geo [wikipedia.org], it's listed as a console there. In fact, this whole console vs. arcade recreator "debate" isn't even being discussed [wikipedia.org]!
Re:history isn't very good (Score:2, Interesting)
So, why should the most expensive get compared? From what I can tell, the PS3 has a web browser, the 360 has memory card slots, and the PS3 is $100 more. (am I missing anything, feature wise, to bump my comparison to the $600 model?)
However, to play online, you pay $59/year with the 360 and $0/year with the PS3. Now, I know that there are a lot of people that have no interest in playing online, but I'm not one of them. So, over time, the PS3 actually becomes a better bargain for me, starting at year two.
Kinda strange to think about, huh? Putting a wireless adaptor on the 360 to compare to the upper-end PS3 makes the situation even worse, since you now have HDMI and 60GB worth of space to play with.
In addition, if Sony does not increase their licensing fees, keeping the games at $50 per, you could see another $150 or so difference after that same time frame, with it only getting better...
Sony needs to step up fast with killer software (Score:2, Interesting)
The PS3 is an impressive chunk of hardware, few would disagree. And the announced price is very high. Potential customers are gong to have a hard time understanding why they would want a console with a big harddrive, multiple processors, multiple cardslots, WiFi, HighDef and BluRay. They might know vaguely why these pieces are cool individually but (as Steve Jobs once famously said), its very hard to explain to customers a groundbreaking idea if they've never seen anything like it before.
What Sony needs is an iLife for PS3. It needs to be a PVR. It needs to be a photo editor connected to the web. It needs a video chat application. It needs a very polished iTunes-type storefront. All these things.
It seems to me that where Sony is making the mistake is not necessarily in how they have built and priced the PS3, but rather in articulating the long term vision that Sony has in mind. Microsoft has been very good at this. Nintendo has sucked, but the Wii controller is so whizzy that people forget about that.
I don't quite think people get it... (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, it's more expensive than the XBox360 and will almost certainly cost more than the Wii, but face it: game consoles are luxury items and luxury items don't usually follow the same rules of supply and demand that non-luxury items do. If they did, why would anyone in their right mind buy a Hummer H2 when it's almost exactly the same as a similarly-sized GMC? Or a $200 pair of running shoes that are indistinguishable from a set that goes for $50? Or an iPod. Or Revo sunglasses. Or anything that's "more expensive than it needs to be."
Sony is used to this. Trinitron TVs have always been more expensive than their competitors. Their digital cameras, which also tend to be more expensive than most of the competition, are second only to Canon in sales (per IDC). Sony's customers have always appeared to be comfortable with Sony's prices and I don't see that changing with the PS3.
What everyone seems to ignore about the price... (Score:3, Interesting)
We just saw a Toshiba HD Disk Player debut at $500 [themanroom.com] (and it apparently sucks in general, though renders well - this is from a different review).
Yes, the $599 USD price is a lot in one bang, but I think most first adopters see the reality that they're getting two systems. Two first generation systesms, a $500 Blu-Ray disk player, and a $99 next gen console. (You can move the numbers about to taste.)
If you're a scrimping College kid, then yes, this system is a little pricey for you, but I think many will pony up.
I've debated... (Score:2, Interesting)
Quiet frankly I'm not too surprised. I had a strong guess that the price point would be around $500 (US). Future consoles aren't going to go down in price, they're going to go up. You are a fool to believe that the more bleeding edge tech that comes in these things is going to come cheap.
For instance look at gaming video cards for the PC. The more advance they get the more expensive they are becoming when they first come out. As it has been all the people wanting to be first in line and on the bleeding edge will suck up the cost for the rest of the populace. After they've paid back to the company what it was losing then they normally drop the price. I remember when the latest graphics cards were around $200(US). Now bleeding edge cards cost around $500(US). Oh wow look at that $500 bucks just for a video card. Now compare this to the PS3 that is going to be a full system. If you were to build a PC that would be anything near the PS3 then you would be plopping down over $1k for sure.
Granted Blue-ray did up the cost on the system by a lot. Say $200(US). So with that in mind the system should cost somewhere around $300(US) for the core system. And the argument that was suggesting Sony shot themselves in the foot with the Blue-ray was interesting. I belive it made a good point. Which is why I'm still shaky about pre-ordering. But that is assuming all the stand alone Blue-ray players are going to be above the $500/$600(US) mark. And why is this any different from MS offerring a HD-DVD drive for the xbox for a price that is also cheaper than an HD-DVD player?
I believe in the end gamers will choose based on the games that come out for each console. And from what I've seen of the E3 information PS3 looks to be a winner in that area. There were maybe a total of 3 games that looked like complete winners for the Xbox 360, whereas I saw about 5 games for the PS3. And it seems some games you can actually get for the PC; Halo? As I recall a port of Halo2 is supposed to come to the PC unless they've decided to nix that idea. Xbox's ability to play some Xbox titles is a step in the right direction. Although they require a downloaded emulator.
Re:Aww. (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree with the OP that HD-DVD will probably win for that reason - it's cheaper. But considering how consumer-unfriendly both of the formats are, I can't imagine either one faring too well.
For the most part, people aren't going to pay a big premium for a product marginally better that'll cause more headaches. Consider standard DVD players - a $50 player is going to have cheap DACs and no optical audio or digital video output, while a $200 player is going to have optical, HDMI and quite possibly HD upscaling. The picture quality difference is there, but not that noticible. Now consider that (ironically, due to the cheaper parts) the $50 player has a much easier time dealing with scratched and dirty discs than does the $200 player. I work at a video store, and whenever someone says that the disc didn't work, I ask if they have an expensive player. Unless the disc took some nasty damage, the answer is universally 'yes'. What's the outcome of this? More expensive stuff gives you a lot more headache for marginal improvement. HD players are no different, and that means that more people are going to stick with the cheap stuff.
Also, regarding the general PS3/Blu-Ray and PS2/DVD argument. DVD didn't have a competing format. Blu-ray does. The PS2 helped DVD adoption, but it had a fairly substancial improvement over tapes and no format that was going against it. Both HD formats are competing, with PS3 supporting Blu-Ray and the Xbox360 likely to have an (external?) HD-DVD drive by the PS3's launch. The 360 already has market saturation, while the PS3 has the whole Sony ignorant cult following that ensures the system will move once it's released (meanwhile, the Wii is looking quite appatizing to most relative to both of the other systems, according to numerous polls and outright common sense). So, there will be players for both formats out there in decent quantity in a few months (the HD-DVD players being marginally cheaper than the Blu-Ray, assuming a $100 external HD drive for the 360), thus the battle will be about which is cheaper to buy your movies on, not to mention who has better movies.
You got it. (Score:1, Interesting)
To any one bitching about Zonk
Yeah sure. (Score:1, Interesting)
Yeah sure, because Sega know exactly how many dev kits third party developers have at any one time. In fact, they have unfetted access to all studios around the world. __rolls eyes__. Define "many" Sega.. I can tell you this isn't the case right now, studios have final dev kits.
"It's just Sega talking out of their arse because they, and their partner studios, are probably going to miss launch with the PS3. -- Me"
But seriously, this is Sega speculating, much like my statement above is...
Re:silly conjecture (Score:2, Interesting)
Both formats have strong support. What I find hilarious (which may be due to inaccuracy) is that Warner Home video supports Blue Ray [wikipedia.org] when Warner Bros. supports HD-DVD [wikipedia.org].