Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

PS3 Problems Parried 177

Via Joystiq, an article on Gaming Horizon defending the PS3 from its detractors. The article looks at a number of the biggest concerns about the system (price, HD, rumble, blu-ray), and attempts to explain why most of these problems are nothing to worry about. From the article: "As Sony is a company that manufactures HD-TVs, it's in their interest to add that compatibility to give consumers another reason to upgrade. There's various numbers about how long it'll take for HD to 'replace' standard-feed televisions (just as broadband has all but eliminated dial-up), but it's conceivable that HD televisions will become affordable during the PS3's lifecycle, and for those of us that have been blessed by the high-def gods, it's another reason to take advantage of the highest-quality visual equipment available."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

PS3 Problems Parried

Comments Filter:
  • I thought I was at a fencing match.
  • So... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by The_Pariah ( 991496 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @02:37PM (#16097990)
    Defend it all you want. That doesn't change the fact it's still gonna cost $600, which I don't have.
    • But if you've been "blessed by the hi-def gods", $600 is likely a rounding error.

      • We bought a CRT-32" Toshiba Cinema Series tv about 6 years ago. Cost was $1300.

        We replaced it with a 40" Daytek LCD about 2 weeks ago. Cost was $1800. I could have gotten a 42" plasma (Hitachi, I think) for about $1500.

        Include inflation, and I'm sure it's even closer.

        And those are Canadian dollars. Divide by 1.2 to get your US dollar cost.

        • I'll stand by my original statement; I don't think 42 inches is a "blessing" in the hi-def world.
        • If those were HD with built-in tuners, that's a pretty good price from what I've seen.

          Still, you're talking about nearly $2,000 for a PS3 and the screen to make it worthwhile. No, thanks.
          • by /ASCII ( 86998 )
            Yeah, but his point still stands. The new 40" HDTV generation costs pretty much exactly as much as the 32" widescreen SDTV generation it replaces used to cost a few years ago, and those TVs in turn cost pretty much exactly as much as the 28" fullscreen SDTV generation it replaced used to cost a few years before that.

            In Sweden, you can get a HD plasma or LCD for 10,000-15,000 kr, I bought a 32" CRT five years ago for 11,000 kr. In 1996, when I bought my first TV, a new 28" CRT cost 10,000 kr, but I was a poo
            • The new 40" HDTV generation costs pretty much exactly as much as the 32" widescreen SDTV generation it replaces used to cost a few years ago, and those TVs in turn cost pretty much exactly as much as the 28" fullscreen SDTV generation it replaced used to cost a few years before that.

              Point taken, and then thrown in the wastebin because it's irrelevant.

              The pricepoint for the TV models mentioned above is substantially above $0.00. If I don't have or don't want to spend that kind of money, then no amount of ra
            • I bought a 32" CRT SDTV less than a year ago. I paid $125 for it.

              The cheapest 32" HD at the time was $400, and that had no tuner.

              I don't worship at the altar of television, so I have no desire to spend $1,000+ on a TV.
            • A LOT of people don't replace their TVs very often. Many people who bought a tv 5 years ago probably won't buy another (big screen for the living room) tv for another 5. Considering inflation it may be that cars cost less than they did 3 years ago but not everyone buys a new car every 3 years even if that's what they'd need to do to get the latest/greatest sound system installed in their car.
              • by /ASCII ( 86998 )
                Sure, there are lots of valid reasons for not buying a HDTV. Lack of interest, lack of money, etc.. The OP and a lot of other people claim that they are too expensive. I'm just saying that a HDTV today costs no more than an average TV used to cost five or ten years ago.
    • I have $600. I'm still not getting it. $800 will get me a better value on a Wii + games than PS3 + games.
    • Yeah? And is it going to stay at $600? And are there not plenty of crazy people out there who'll fork out $600 to have it on release or shortly thereafter (mainly just because of the name)?

      Sony may not make it quite the success with such a high start-off price, but if there are enough of the cash-laden pioneers (who get the arrows in the back) out there, then they may laugh more than Microsoft in the long run (albeit a kind of Mwah hah hah evil laugh).

      The launch price is not as important as how easily they
      • The launch price is not as important as how easily they can afford to drop the price subsequently, and how quickly. People thought the PS2 launch price was outrageous, and it was

        What are you smoking? The PS2 launch price of $300 was 'normal' by electronic standards. And Sony doesn't have a good record when it comes to cutting hardware prices. The PS2 is almost 6 years old now and it still hasn't hit the $100 mark (not counting Used or "Refurbished" ones.)

        You seem to have to idealist view that Sony would su

  • by SouthSideNick ( 98526 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @02:39PM (#16098012)
    The author must be having a dot-com bubble flashback about the rate of technology adoption. Nearly 1/3 of all active internet users in the US are still on dialup ( If that's "all but eliminated" I'll be happy to play poker with you.
    • by 4D6963 ( 933028 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @02:52PM (#16098111)

      Other than that, there is a real need for broadband, I mean a lot of people really feel the need broadband. But do people feel the need for HDTV? I don't think so, my point being that most people find the resolution of their TV to be good and just enough, actually many people don't see their screen good enough from where they usually watch it with the sight they have to be able to see a greater resolution than they do already.

      In other words, according to me, HDTV == luxury. Not that nobody will pick it up when it becomes trully affordable tho, I just mean that nobody really feels the need for it.

      • by hawkbug ( 94280 )
        For me it's not about quality, but picture size. When all TV programming gets formatted for HD, then it will become needed to get an HD set. When people start missing parts of sports programming because the sides are getting cut off, they will care.
      • More importantly - it's nigh on impossible to get a decent TV now, HD or not, for anything but silly money. Almost all the tellys on sale here in Ireland are now LCD or plasma. You have a choice of cheap and rubbish, expensive and rubbish, or really expensive and probably just about acceptable (if you choose well).

        The plasmas are rather silly due to the halving in brightness every X months/years. The LCDs have massive problems with resampling - they are designed for one native resolution (Usually one of 576
        • by alienw ( 585907 )
          Uh, dude, plasmas have the same "resampling" problem. You might want to look at higher-quality HDTVs, the digital stuff has been getting much better lately.
          • Yeah - I didn't bother saying anything more about plasmas though due to the dimming problem.

            I know you can get reasonable HDTV LCDs, but they are fearsomely expensive (any of the models below about 1800 seem pretty rubbish at displaying bog standard PAL TV - i.e. what we will be using here for quite some time more in conjunction with new and expensive HD services/media).
    • I think the author meant "all but eliminated" with respect to the target market for the PS3. A lot of the people are still on dialup because of the cost of broadband. These people aren't in the market for the PS3 anyway -- if they don't value broadband enough to pay $35-60/mo for it, then they are very unlikely to value the PS3 enough to pay $600.

      This doesn't take into account those people for whom broadband isn't available, who are going the way of the dodo (especially with satellite broadband).
      • by alienw ( 585907 )
        Satellite "broadband" is about as fast as ISDN, and is completely unacceptable for gaming due to latency and bandwidth limitations. In fact, you are probably better-off with dialup.
    • by rk ( 6314 ) *

      Another place where the analogy breaks down...

      "Just think how much faster I'll be able to play games and watch movies on my HDTV!"

      Downloading 100 times faster than my 28.8 modem and having it only cost 10 bucks more a month than my dialup ISP + 2nd phone line was way more compelling in 1999 than shelling out thousands of dollars to get a two to threefold resolution improvement with HDTV+(Bluray/HDDVD) over what I have now. Ten bucks times twelve months times seven years doesn't add up to even a thousan

    • are worth money? The question isn't how many dial up customers are there, it's how many are there you can sell crap to.
  • by aleksiel ( 678251 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @02:44PM (#16098047)
    whether the PS3 rocks or not, it's still going to be niche. the niche being people with much more disposable income.

    $600 for the system, $50 or so for a game, and $2000 for an HDTV if you want to get the most out of the system. thats quite a bit, even for me, and i have a lot of disposable income. the pricetag will turn off a lot of gamers who have control of their own fincances and find that they are too tight to splurge that much cash on a new game system.
    • by Thrymm ( 662097 )
      Agreed, I too have a "disposable" income, but I am waiting out the HD/BR wars and dont even know where to begin with what HD TV I would want to buy.... Plasma/LCD, different resolution modes... ffs, I like selection but I'll just wait. Its not like I am missing out anyway, since I really don't care as long as my PC is a nifty gaming rig.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by jizziknight ( 976750 )
      Correction: $60 - $90 for a game. Which makes it *that* much worse.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by aafiske ( 243836 )
      Indeed. I have much disposable income (I could afford a PS3 if I wanted without worrying about it) and a lot of my friends do as well. Although we _could_ afford it, no one wants to. And we already all have HDTVs, and I personally fall into the bleeding-edge customer group. I really think the price point they've chosen has passed some psychological mark, in the same way that $1.00 seems more expensive than $.99.
      • by elrous0 ( 869638 ) *

        some psychological mark, in the same way that $1.00 seems more expensive than $.99.

        I think $500 may be a barrier that people feel very uncomfortable going over without a good reason. And, as if that wasn't enough, factor in the $1,000+ barrier on an HDTV.

        I was an early adopter on DVD in 1997. The players then started at $450 and a decent TV with s-video was about $500. But I just can't bring myself to be an early adopter when a decent-sized HDTV is going to run about $1500 *alone*. Nor will I choose bet

      • by deek ( 22697 )

        Although we _could_ afford it, no one wants to.

        Then all Sony need to do, is to make you want it. If they came out with an exclusive game you _really_ wanted, then that'd probably entice you to get a PS3.

        If Sony came out with PS3 enhanced versions of ICO and Shadow of the Colossus, I know I'd be sorely tempted.
      • In 1993 I interviewed with 3DO (several of my former coworkers and friends were working there). They offered me a serious raise to move out there; the work was cool; the coworkers were great; the environment and perks rocked. Trip Hawkins himself interviewed me and gave me the hard sell. Later I described Trip Hawkins as having a "reality-distortion field" surrounding him. I left there convinced, but I'd told myself I wouldn't say yes or no until I had a chance to think.

        After getting home, I realized th
    • by monopole ( 44023 )
      The other part of the equation is that the expenditures are all in big chunks. I've got disposable income, but I tend to buy in small chunks. I'll buy a $20-30 game or DVD and a $150-250 console without too much indigestion. I tend to buy PC's in chunks the same way. On the other hand, get above $250 for the unit price of an item and the brakes go on real quick. At that point I really do a lot of research, rationalization and saving before buying a "big ticket" item.
      As a result I have a full set of Game Boy
    • by nxtw ( 866177 )
      and $2000 for an HDTV

      That sounds great, except HDTVs start at less than $600 (Example []) and LCD HDTVs (27" and 32") can be had for under $1000.
  • Yawn!!! 500,000 units should be more than enough for the PS/3 launch. This time last year most of my gamer friends where debating pre-orders of the Xbox360 versus standing in line for the initial release. Fast forward to now--only one of my friends is contemplating picking up a PS/3--and he has no plans to pre-order. Personally, I'll be waiting until the PS/3 has proven to be a must have.
  • it's conceivable that HD televisions will become affordable during the PS3's lifecycle

    That's all well and good, but if that's the case, why do we need to buy the console now? Why not just wait until we can afford HDTVs as well? Surely the price will be lower on the PS3 itself by then.

    I'm less worried about consumers taking the plunge. I'm more worried about game publishers worrying if consumers will take the plunge, and even with continued statement of Square's support of the console, it really still loo
    • I couldn't tell you what's launching on the PS3 other than Untold Legend and presumably Ridge Racer.

      I'm pretty sure that Sony's press conference was enough to burn into even the minds of dead Roman centurions and wooly mammoths frozen in ice that RRRRIDGE RRRRACER!!! RRRRIDGE RRRRACER!!!! was going to be on the PS3.
    • re:"Twilight Princess" - oh you mean that game that apart from some controller revisions is exactly the same product as the gamecube?

      Here's a way to save even more money.

      Don't get the Wii, get Zelda for the GameCube - enjoy exactly the same game - and wave a cucumber around from time to time.

      Yeah. Killer launch dude. Real "Next-Gen". Yowza. Oh look! Pac Man for the Atari 2600!
  • Holy crap they must be joking. Their points are all rediculous and terrible and actually bring up even more of the problems with the PS3.

    On the plus side they do discourage people from stupidly buying the 360 like they did.

    Blu-Ray is a non starter $600 is absurd, I don't care about inflation, they could choose their feature set and try and keep the price down, instead they decided to leverage their interests and build their tech base and launch at a price that doesn't appeal to consumers.

    2 Models, Jus
    • 2 Models, Just to confuse you? No... It's stupid it differentiates the biggest advantage of consoles...

      Actually, with the PS3, the model difference isn't a big deal. All of the base functionality is in the $500 system, you just miss out on the "extras" like 40GB extra hard drive space, HDMI, a memory stick reader, etc. It's not like the 360 where the base system doesn't even come with a hard drive...

  • Comparison Flawed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by WndrBr3d ( 219963 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @02:54PM (#16098133) Homepage Journal
    I hate how I see more and more people these days discussing the upgrade from 'Standard Definition' DVD's to HD-DVD (and the ilk) as being comparable to the upgrade from dialup to broadband, audio tape to CD or VHS to DVD.

    The HD-DVD format doesn't bring many other new features to the table other than higher quality audio and video.

    A more accurate comparison would push from VHS to SVHS (link []). The SVHS medium did not offer many new features other than an increase in quality.

    If anything, that only proved that consumers do not see value in a simple increase in quality.

    Off topic, but it needed to be said.
    • Most of those comparisons are flawed, it's true: switching from tape to optical media is a significant difference with an obvious difference in features.

      But when it comes to dial-up vs. broadband, I'm not so sure. Broadband is just like dial-up, only faster. I guess there's the "always-on" feature, but you could have that if you paid for an extra land line (which is frequently just as expensive as broadband).

      Now, you might say: "But with broadband comes all these crazy features that you could never have s
      • The problem with the broadband vs. dialup to HDTV vs. SDTV is this:

        Broadband gives you more time. Higher speed means less time spent waiting. Always on means less time spent getting connected. When I first switched over to DSL lo these many years ago, I thought "Oh, it'll just be nice to not wait as long for stuff to load on the web." NO - it changed the way I use the Internet on a fundamental level. I used to look stuff in the yellowpages or call information - now I use the 'net. I used to have to go get a
    • Consumers aren't drawn to relatively minor improvements in quality for moderately large price increases.

      SVHS is nicer. No doubt about it. If it'd offered the quality jump that DVDs offered, it'd been
      an easier sell and DVD would have had harder issues getting into the marketplace- IF the pricing
      wasn't compelling along with the nifty new features like effectively full random access to the
      movie, makings of, etc. that they throw into the DVDs these days when they come out.

      It's all about what do you get for th
  • by CaymanIslandCarpedie ( 868408 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @02:56PM (#16098155) Journal
    the PlayStation 3 will be releasing in just a few months

    Well I guess that depends where you live.

    Spin, hype, hate, and fanboy adoration are quite typical in this business

    True, but how often do you see such a large percentage of previous fanboys switch to being haters before the product even launches?

    Decided to stop there because the rest of the article is very contradictory and they "point - counterpoint" themselves without my help. Example:

    When defending the PS3 price they say well its got extra stuff like HDMI.
    When defending why the base system won't support HDMI they say because people don't really need it.

    Summarizing there a bit but thats how the rest of the article comes off.
  • PS3 Problems Parried
    PS3 = Daigo []
  • If at first you don't succeed, redefine 'success'.
  • by LordNimon ( 85072 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @03:33PM (#16098423)
    it's conceivable that HD televisions will become affordable during the PS3's lifecycle

    I won't dispute this statement, but it's not enough. Just because an HDTV is affordable doesn't mean that a person is going to buy it. If a person needs to buy a new TV in 1-2 years, he will probably find that HDTV's are affordable. But very few people find themselves in this situation. Even when all OTA signals are DTV, he'll probably buy a converter box instead of a new TV. With the exception of my first TV, all of my home electronic purchases have been upgrades, and I only bought them because I had the extra cash. Very few people will ditch their regular TV just for a PS3.

  • by Kesch ( 943326 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @03:45PM (#16098518)
    A quick rundown

    *Note, I'm not a Nintendo Fanboy, but I do have a bias towards the Wii*
    • PS3 Haters: The PS3 costs too much
      Dude 1: Look at your game shelf, odds are you have 10-12 mediocre games there which total up to as much a PS3. Which would you rather have?

      Me: A bit of misdirection since it doesn't factor in the extra 10-12 mediocre titles I'm eventually gonna end up with for the PS3

      Dude 2: The 360 is only $400, but the PS3 is better with stuff like WiFi plus it's cheaper than any other BluRay player and then there's the cost of Xbox Live.

      Me: I'll partly concede. The PS3 is a cheap BluRay drive, but I'm not sure I want a BR drive. I also don't feel that the PS3 will provide a $200 better gaming experience.

      Dude 3: Consumer Electronics are getting more expensive, people are used to paying more for advanced technology such as the latest HiDef video camera.

      Me: Ya, but that doesn't excuse Sony from having to justify costing more than its two competitors.
    • The specs for the PS3 keep changing, no HDMI support for the $499 version.
      Me: This point and resulting counterpoints are lame, I'm skipping it.
    • Conversely, not many people have High Definition televisions yet. Isn't it a bit early to start pushing so hard for a technology most can't afford?
      Me: Another semi-lame point. It is true that High Def is not an important feature for many people without the sets for it. I also believe that gameplay is always better than graphics. But I do not think that it is bad to start pushing HD on consoles. I think that HD saturation will become more common as the console's lifetime progresses. It's not like Regular Def TVs are left out (Unless you want to read the text in Dead Rising).
    • No "shock" in my Dual Shock. Is cheesy tilt-sensing worth the loss of force-feedback?
      Them: Not really in their control due to patent issues, tilt sensing is a shameless Wii rip off but it could be half decent, and Force Feedback is gimmicky anyways.

      Me: I see them both as minor features, I don't think this is a huge issue. That said, the Wii gets movement sensing AND rumble.
    • Sony says they won't have enough consoles to ship for launch. Only 500,000, they say.
      Them: Console launches have never had 'enough' units. Plus, it's the units shipped by end of year that really matters. Also, supply shortages have been over dramatized before to create demand

      Me: Fair point. Although I fo think that Sony might face a problem if supply is too short and people go in to pick up a Christmas present and end up walking out with a shiny new Wii since the 5 PS3's the store recieved have already been sold.
    • Sony is putting way too many figurative eggs in their metaphorical Blu-Ray basket. End users don't really care about formats so long as they work.
      Them: People said this about the PS2 and DVDs

      Me: I'm not getting into a HD-DVD vs BluRay vs Good Old DVD debate.
    • Developers say that the PlayStation 3 is difficult to work with or that the Cell processor is a pain to program for.
      Dude 1: They said this about the PS2 Emotion Engine. Game developers should get used to the Cell and later PS3 games should look really good.

      Me: Well, duh, they're going to get better at it if they use it a lot, but I don't see that doesn't mean its a good architecture.

      Dude 2: Launch titles are gonna suck anyways, they'll get better at it, and programmers are whiny.

      No comment

      Dude 3: Off the record, I have heard of problems from developers. However, a hard architecture means great exclusives, buggy ports.

      Me: Great exclusives are always nice, but I don't see Madden 0X running with less bugs on the XBox as a PS3 bonus.

      Dude 4: On the flip side the XBox development kit could be to simple or "ametuer" plus the guys working on Full Auto 2 really like
    • "Dude 3: Consumer Electronics are getting more expensive, people are used to paying more for advanced technology such as the latest HiDef video camera.

      Me: Ya, but that doesn't excuse Sony from having to justify costing more than its two competitors."

      Forget "Ya". I would want proof of this. As far as *I* can tell, everywhere I look either prices are dropping, or they remain the same while functionality increases.
    • by VJ42 ( 860241 )
      *Note, I'm not a Nintendo Fanboy, but I do have a bias towards the Wii*
      Same here, though my brother has been known to complain that my bias is reaching fanboy proportions.

      Ok. I feel like I just wasted a lot of time subjecting my opinions on anyone who reads this. However, I did want to refute some of their bad counterpoints.
      The entire article was full of lame points that needed refuteing; not only that, but they contradicted themselfs more than once. It needed refuting, and I'm glad somone else did, so
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      The PS3 is a cheap BluRay drive, but I'm not sure I want a BR drive.

      Agreed, and furthermore I worry that cheap-as-in-price may also turn out to mean cheap-as-in-quality. Assuming I DID want a BR drive, I'd rather pay $X for one that's likely to keep working forever than to pay $X/2 for one of dubious reliability.

      Them: Not really in their control due to patent issues

      It has always been in Sony's control. If they really wanted to keep controller rumble, they would have paid for a license of the patent or fou
    • At least the Xbox 360 launch had Call of Duty 2 and Oblivion (at least, if you go by Microsoft's definition of "launch title." Given, Kameo wasn't as impressive as it could have been, and Dead of Alive 4, while nice-looking, wasn't that much of a step forward from DoA3... but either way, I think Microsoft's launch sounded a lot better than Sony's upcoming launch.
    • re:"Me: Fair point. Although I fo think that Sony might face a problem if supply is too short and people go in to pick up a Christmas present and end up walking out with a shiny new Wii since the 5 PS3's the store recieved have already been sold."

      That one was interesting to me because on one hand, I don't think the Xbox 360 was helped by it's shortages, but the PS2 wasn't hurt either. Now you could argue that the PS2 didn't launch with another system launching the same season - but I do recall Sega's ads to
  • The NeoGeo 2 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by grapeape ( 137008 ) < minus author> on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @04:06PM (#16098692) Homepage
    Those are some flawed arguments. I cant even convine my brother in law to get high speed internet even thought the price difference is only about $5 a month. I would think most concider vastly improved access to information far more valuable than the ability to see the pimples on Jessica Simpsons forehead. If you cant convince over 1/3rd of the country to go to something that is actually more than just visually improved in over 10 years or so how long do you really think its going to take for true penetration of HDTV by the majority. One big difference is the upfront costs, Internet accounts are paid for monthly and as a recurring expense it easier to move about when desired. HDTV is a large upfront expense that doesnt make alot of sense to joe sixpack who's TV is working fine already. You can of course make the same argument about both Blu-Ray and HDDVD but only one of them is being forced on you. But then I guess im just surrounded by bumpkins and hillbillies since the "majority" gladly spend a grand upgrading their entertainment center all the time and I dont know anyone who does.

    I have a feeling the PS3 is going to be remembered as the NeoGeo of the current generation consoles. I remember when I was a teenager drooling over the Neogeo, I wanted one sooo bad but it was too expensive for my parents to be willing to buy it and all my attempts to save enough ended up in me spending it on something that I found I wanted more. Moms and Dads at christmas with more money than sense will buy junior a ps3 but I will bet the majority will be looking hard at the Wii. Regardless of your view of nintendo their price point is going to make it hard for parents shopping for a new console to reason the cost of the PS3 and probably even the Xbox 360.
    • If we weren't all dumbass hillbillies, we'd go get jobs as video game journalists. Then we could get a tax write-off for our PS3's and HDTV's as business expenses.

  • fanboy responses (Score:3, Insightful)

    by llZENll ( 545605 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @04:21PM (#16098810)
    Almost every one of their 'counter points' is just a canned fanboy response that doesn't make much sense. After reading this article I actually have less faith in the PS3 succeeding.

    "Much as the inclusion of the DVD format may have pushed many gamers over the edge to purchase the PS2 ("Hey mom, it can play movies too!"), if Blu-Ray ends up edging-out the HD-DVD format, it's another quality that'll make the system more versatile, which is never a bad thing."

    Comparing the DVD/PS2 upgrade to BlueRay/PS3 is completely different. DVD was a proven technology, provided MANY immediate consumer benefits (no rewinding, much higher resolution, much better sound, no media degridation, smaller format), and had no competing technology.

    Sony really should of delayed BluRay, only around 10-20% of US households have a HDTV and even less care about HD gaming. With the advent of DVRs and media streaming just around the corner, I wouldn't be surprised if both HDDVD and BlueRay never take off. Media streaming provides the next immediate consumer benefit (no media to physically move around).

    Sony putting BluRay in the PS3 will probably turn out to be the worst decision ever made in the companies history.
  • ... this [] won't have any bearing on the PS3's success once it goes commercial, right?
  • by RandomBabblings ( 949850 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @04:45PM (#16099066)
    "Ryan (TUS): Consumer electronics today have begun to cost more and more, and considering what comes included with the $599 PS3 super-package, I'm honestly surprised that it isn't more expensive." The cost appropriateness of the PS3 aside, does anyone believe the first part of this statement to be true? It seems to me, that by their very nature consumer electronics go down in price over time. Currently even high end PCs are considerably less expensive than low end PCs a decade ago. Even "new" entries into the market are less expensive than similar forrunners. When DVRs started to emerge they were less expensive than the original VCRs and the cost of even moderately sized HDTVs are less than the very first (black & white) consumer televisions. I know that people believe that prices increase over time, and that is true for many things, but I can think of very few cases where this is true in the consumer electronics market, especially for already existing markets.
  • The *only* real issue is the price, and that will come down. Here in NZ, the PS2 launched at over NZ$1000, it's now a couple of hundred bucks. The same will happen for the PS3. The PS2 was a huge success and the PS3 will be as well.

    *I* certainly won't buy one at launch prices, but I know that plenty of other people will, and eventually the price will drop to where I can afford it.
  • 1. It's not here. I repeat, it's not here and it'll miss the Christmas season (for me). That means Sony plans to sell zero of the potential units they could have sold during the Christmas season in Europe. If I remember anything about being a kid, it was two major gift showers, my birthday and Christmas. Only one of them is at the same time for everyone. Whoever missed getting a console last Christmas probably will this Christmas.

    2. It's 600$ alone, and it requires expensive games, accessories (they're expe
  • "As Sony is a company that manufactures HD-TVs, it's in their interest to add that compatibility to give consumers another reason to upgrade."

    This ignores whether or not consumers want to upgrade. Trying to charge consumers more in an effort to get them to upgrade is putting the cart before the horse.

    "There's various numbers about how long it'll take for HD to 'replace' standard-feed televisions (just as broadband has all but eliminated dial-up),"

    Bad metaphor. Broadband had a killer app, and its name was
  • In all of the flame wars about the competing HD movie formats, one thing I've not seen discussed much is that neither the Xbox 360 nor the PS3 are likely to be any good as movie players.

    I've got an Xbox 360. Due to the cooling required it is far too loud to be seriously considered as a movie player. It's bad enough when playing games.

    Obviously the PS3 isn't yet available, so we can't yet judge how noisy it will be. However, given the power requirements, it's unlikely to be any better than the 360.

    Also (and

1 1 was a race-horse, 2 2 was 1 2. When 1 1 1 1 race, 2 2 1 1 2.