Lower-Price PS3 Mostly Upgradeable

jchenx writes "One of the biggest questions remaining after the Sony press conference and E3 last week was whether or not the core PS3 package could be upgraded to the premium one. It looks like that question has been answered. GI.biz reports that the core version can upgraded with WiFi and memory card adapters, as well as a higher capacity hard drive. However, HDMI output will be non-upgradeable."

Re:No HDMI?

[Winterblink]

Without HDMI, you don't. And without reasonable pricing, you probably don't want a premium one either. :)

The truth

[DorkusMasterus]

The truth here is that Sony has made a mis-step. First of all, they've got time to work on a better core system. However, if the only real thing driving the price from the core to the super-duper is the Blu-Ray Drive, then they should have exact same specs, but with no HDMI output.

I mean, I can understand that.

But to have other things crippled too? Lower hard drive (by that little amount of gig space) is not going to affect the price that much. And if you're losing near $400-500 per unit already, what's another $50?

But really, there's no excuse to not have the other bells and whistles, when WE KNOW that the reason for the cost justification is that HDMI output stuff. THAT'S the cost (well, at least 80% of it.) So I can justify that a little more. But the upgrades will likely be like the 360's where it will cost more to upgrade piece by piece than it would to buy the higher priced system. To have that, WITHOUT the ability to ever do HD graphics(which, IMO, is what next-gen is about, at least for Sony and MS), well, it's just sub-par.

I am NOT a fanboy of any of the three systems (actually I really liked the Turbo Grafix 16 back in the day :)) but Sony really is making some hardcore mistakes that will cost them in the long run in the gaming division.

I don't think they're out of business by ANY stretch of the words, but between the loss of rumble (for a less than stellar motion sensor) in the controllers, the price, and the lack of TRUE functionality on the core system, they're going to piss a lot of loyal customers off, enough to check out other systems (or at least NOT buy the PS3).

PS3 vs Nintendo Wii

[cheap_tibet]

I'd still rather buy the cheaper and more innovative Wii, which I won't need to spend more money to upgrade.

Re:Foolish

[RemovableBait]

What is most interesting about those charts that you linked to is that fact the the 3 most expensive consoles (Neo Geo, 3DO and Saturn) flopped, while their cheaper competitors (such as PS2 and SNES) were highly successful.

Sony should clearly see that releasing the PS3 at $600 is suicide born out of arrogance.

If I can't afford the actual, working PS3...

[cdogbert]

What makes you think I can afford to upgrade the crappy PS3?

Logic: 1, Sony: 0

All irrelevant

[pla]

How much it costs at launch really makes almost no difference. If you want a better idea of its "real" price, we need to ask how much will it cost 13 months after launch.

I expect we'll have the exact opposite opinions then... Because, while the Wii will probably only come down by 20-30% (a drop of around $50), the PS3 will most likely plummet to half its original cost.


$600 for a game console... Sony apparently learned nothing from NeoGeo's lesson.


However, Sony's mistake does have one positive side... I'll probably finally get around to buying a PS2 in the near future, as the price of both the console and its games plummets (and start appearing in used CD stores for a pittance).

compared to a blu-ray player its $300 less

[onebitcpu]

The real deal on this is not compared to a XBOX360 or a Wii, its when compared to a blu-ray player. The PS3 is $400 less than a blu-ray player, and its also a next-gen game player. I can see a lot of people who want to get a blu-ray player going for the PS3 instead, and then you have $400 to spend on games or movies.

Re:compared to a blu-ray player its $300 less

[Babbster]

You know what I can see? I can see people (especially the non-gaming movie watchers, who outnumber the gamers) asking themselves what the real difference is between an HD-DVD player and a Blu-Ray player, realizing that it's the price and skipping Blu-Ray altogether. The "flagship" HD-DVD players from Toshiba and RCA are $500 - half the cost of a Blu-Ray player and already matching the announced low-end PS3 price. And the HD-DVD player prices will inevitably go down much faster than the PS3 prices...

Re:compared to a blu-ray player its $300 less

[raitchison]

This is exactly what Sony is hoping for, sacrificing PS3 sales to try to push their Blu-Ray agenda. Unfortunatley it may be ultimately successful in establishing Blu-Ray as the winner in the next-gen DVD format wars.

Alternatively it could backfire and cause both Blu-Ray as well as the PS3 itself could end up failing.

wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong

[Ender Ryan]

Both Sony AND MS are insisting that the HD era is ready for primetime, and both companies are touting that aspect of their new consoles. Sony is not "the company trying to plug...," that's the entire movie industry and software industry, including MS. The fact is, Sony is distancing itself from that aspect of HD video. They have already promised to not use HDCP with their own movies. The reason for that is simply the lack of compatibility with over 90% of current HD televisions.

What is making life difficult for consumers is people like you and the OP who have no fucking clue what they're talking about and spreading FUD. Without all the FUD, it would be easy(ier) for consumers to make a decision they would be happy about in the end.

Re:compared to a blu-ray player its $300 less

[F_Scentura]

Except that people aren't chomping at the bit to upgrade to a Blu-Ray right now.

Re:wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong

[Babbster]

Sony can promise all they want in regard to their own movies. The minute a big studio decides to follow the "down-rezzing via component" path, however, is the minute that the $500 PS3 becomes a pain in the ass and not fully functional as a Blu-Ray player. That isn't FUD (or, if it is, then it's accurate, very possible FUD) because the people who pushed for the inclusion of that damned protection in the hardware are exactly the people who will be deciding whether or not to use it.

I get that this issue only affects a minority of potential owners, but that's the group of people who would most want an HD movie format in the first place. Pure gamers will only care about the games and the issue isn't that big for them. But, they should still be aware that this secondary functionality of the PS3 can be easily crippled by the movie industry.

Re:All irrelevant

[sqlrob]

What's the basis for saying the PS3 will likely drop to half its cost?

Because the PS1 and PS2 did?

Re:That's... really all that matters isn't it?

[DanHibiki]

No HDMI does not mean no HD video. You can play HD quality video on a low end PS3 just fine, in fact it's what every X-Box360 owner will be doing because X-Box360 has no HDMI (or DVI for that matter) at all.

Kind of expected

[DrXym]

The PS2 shipped with a removable backplate that you slot in a network adapter and hard drive. It makes sense that the wifi and smart card readers for the PS3 will be done in a similar way, possibly in the same module. It means Sony can flog wifi for $50, the larger HD for $150, the wireless controllers for $50 etc. and make the $100 difference between the two systems look like a good value proposition (of $200 value!). You'd might even find that the HDMI is some kind of internal daughterboard.

Microsoft did the same with the XBox 360, withholding things from the "Core" model to make people buy the regular model. At least all PS3s have a harddrive which will encourage games to make use of it.

Expensive + upgrades = still expensive

[moochfish]

$500 for the *basic* machine, and then the ability to individually upgrade it, presumably at a total higher cost than getting the $600 model is just not attractive to me as a consumer. A ton of reasons to get the PS3 are in the premium machine, and by gutting them out to save a $100 makes the lower end one look like crap.

Sony made a fatal error here. Allow me to illustrate using cars as the analogy.

Wii is the Honda.
Xbox 360 is the Lexus.
PS3 is the BMW.

Each targets a different audience, which is most clearly defined as you go lower (Wii) or higher (PS3). The type of consumer that can afford a PS3 is much less common that the type that can afford the Wii, just like with cars. Sony, in an attempt to compensate for their lower end model (a 3 series BMW), offers upgrades that will make it functioanlly the same as its higher model (a 7 series BMW). Unfortunately, the people that CARE about money aren't the type to want to buy the BMW in the first place, let alone dump MORE money on it to upgrade it. When's the last time you saw some guy driving around a tricked out BMW?

As it stands, the high end Xbox 360 is BETTER than the crap version PS3 since it includes a hard drive, has wireless controller support, has a large and established Xbox Live community, etc. So why is it a consumer is going to choose PS3? Brand loyalty? Banking on that alone is a tough sell, Sony execs. If you're coming late to the market and using HARDWARE as your most intesely marketed difference, you either give us better hardware for the same or lower price, or you start changing your pitch.

Re:Foolish

[SophtwareSlump]

I knew plenty of people that wanted to buy a Neo-Geo and even a few that were going to buy one.

But then they/we factored in the $200+ cartridges. That's what killed the Neo-Geo for even the die-hard gamers. The one video store here would rent out a Neo Geo with 5 cartridges for $40 for the weekend. Bargain of a lifetime.

In one way, I have to congratulate Sony for milking the early adopters, but the parents that see the PS3 for $600 this Xmas will remember that $600 when Johnny asks for it next spring or summer for his birthday. I remember the 3DO at $700, not later down the road at $500, or even at $399 when it was treading water in the worst kind of way. Initial pricing sticks in people's minds.

Re:Foolish

[ImTheDarkcyde]

not to mention MS and Sony being so money orientated. I don't recall hearing an announcement that there would be 2 Wii's. Only the expensive one gets the cool controllers.

This whole xbox360 'core' and 'premium' and then ps3 'high' and 'low' thing is RIDICULOUS. Good job Nintendo for giving everyone the same thing with a reasonable price, rather than a crippled machine for a lower price.

Re:Foolish

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

What the hell did the PS2 compete with that was in that list?

The reason why the 3DO and Saturn failed are games. The reason why the NeoGeo is ocnsidered a flop is the fact that the games cost as much as the system itself.

The problem here isn't price, it's games. Between Virtua Fighter 5, MGS4, and god knows what else for PS3... I'm buying a PS3 when I can afford it. The 3DO never had a killer app. The Saturn never had a killer app. The Neo's killer apps were just too damned expensive...

Let's get real though. The real flop here is the 3DO. You can still find Saturn enthusiasts. You can sure as hell find NeoGeo enthusiasts.

What killed the NeoGeo? SNK going under in 2001. 2001. For a console that debuted in the early 90's, living until 2001 and ahving the last game(Samurai Spirits Rei/Zero SPECIAL, AKA Samurai Shodown 5 Special) roll off the assembly line in 2004... I'd say it didn't flop.

What killed the Saturn was the PlayStation, which had a massive amount of great games. What would kill the PS3? An Xbox 360 with a library of great games. The problem is, when the PS3 drops, there will be no great Must Own Xbox360 game.

Re:You'd better hope that's true.

[Fozzyuw]

True, there might be more limits on what people 'feel' like doing with such an interactive game. However, their controller still have normal buttons and can be used in a normal way.

Also, how long do you think people can play DDR for? I'm sure I've seen some play that for hours and I wouldn't doubt that it's far more tiring than any other games.

I would prefer to see games that allow people to enjoy their game for 20-60mins then that person can feel good, put the thing down, and get back to interacting with the rest of life. Maybe I can finally get ride of my monitor tan?

Re:Put it into perspective

[robertjw]

The manufacturers have got to realize that if people can go buy one and turn right around and sell it for 2-3x markup, they're underpricing them.

The only reason this is true is because of the hype and artificial restrictions on supply. Why was Xbox 360 selling for $1000 plus at release? Microsoft restricted the release to a small number of units. The problem vendors have with setting the release price extremely high is twofold. First, it sours a large part of the market to the product based on price. All people remember is the initial high price and have a mental block against buying the product. Second, you can't lower your price too soon. If you do you will piss off all of the people that purchased at the release price.

To summarize, if Microsoft had release the Xbox 360 at $1000 price point as you suggest they would have had tremendous release sales by all the gamers and fanboys, but their sales would have tapered off immediately due to the product being overpriced for most of the market. If Microsoft had then quickly lowered their pricing, say in 1st quarter 06, to $399 everyone that bought the product before Christmas would have been furious. Anybody that gets burned that bad is going to remember, and next sales cycle everyone is going to wait for that big price drop before they buy.