Which Console? Part 2!

[Radd]

However, I'm thinking about getting a PS3 since all the other video game companies are all up on SONY's nutsack and as a result of this, these companies usually make all the good and appealing games and make me want to go out and get the system.

401990[/snapback]

A case of someone observing the tail wagging the dog. If Sony doesn't move more PS3s than 360s and Wiis in the market, a great deal more, developers will spread support more evenly. If, on the off chance, Microsoft or Nintendo manage to actually gather more market saturation than Sony, developers will favour whoever accomplishes that.

With the cost of the PS3 console, cost of developing games that make use of the system's power, the likelihood that PS3 games will cost as much or more than 360 games (which seem to average $60), the much lower prices of both competing consoles, and other factors seem to be stacking against Sony retaining it's formidable lead of the PSX and PS2 generations. If this recent news that Sony might still be planning to curtail the used game market turns out to be true, that's another strike against the company in a growing list.

[JB0]

However, I'm thinking about getting a PS3 since all the other video game companies are all up on SONY's nutsack and as a result of this, these companies usually make all the good and appealing games and make me want to go out and get the system.

The game developers are NOT "all up on Sony's nutsack."

They're making games for the system that gives them the widest audience, and thus the most sales. If Microsoft or Nintendo becomes #1, or even a close 2, they'll ditch Sony.

...

Which is pretty darn likely if the 600$ price tag stays.

Does anyone remember the "Divx" DVD's and DVD systems back around 1999 or so (I believe it was exclusive through Circuit City)?  It followed basically this same model (if Sony does this with the PS3).  When you bought the disc, in a way you weren't buying the disc, just the rights to play it.  Divx died off pretty quickly...

401991[/snapback]

Actually, Divx wasn't the same model because you had to pay for every viewing.

And there were a lot of things that killed Divx.

1. Marketing wasn't sure if they were selling or renting, so the ads sent mixed messages("You own the movie! But you have to pay us to watch it because it's a rental! But you never have to return it because you own it!").

2. Divx players cost a hundred bucks more than equivalent regular DVD players(at a time when the cheapest players were 200).

3. You could only get them at Circuit City. No one else wanted to carry them.

They expected the low cost of disks to push their market share, but they didn't.

Anyways, this is more like PC software licensing. You buy it and use it as much as you want. You just "don't own it."

[Gaijin]

Thought this rumor was put to rest, but...

Sony to prevent resell of PS3 games.

So basically, once you've bought a PS3 game, you're stuck with it.  I can understand why Sony might want to create a business model that would encourage sales of new, unopened games instead of used ones which result in no additional sales and revenue for Sony, but if a player is stuck with a game "forever", aren't people going to be much more picky on what they buy resulting in even less sales of new games?  What about people being able to rent games from like Blockbuster or Hollywood Video?

If this is true, Sony has just shot itself in the foot again.

401976[/snapback]

Not gonna happen. This is just a UK site rumor trying to strum up traffic...with an old rumor. You can rest easy and keep on selling and buying used PS3 software.

Edited May 25, 2006 by Gaijin

[Keith]

Even if it did happen, do you honestly think that would stop people from re-selling their games? Also, seems somewhat silly to try & make it illegal to re-sell something, not even with the power of Disney would they be able to pull it off.

[David Hingtgen]

"the power of Disney" LOL, I'm going to use that.

[Gaijin]

Even if it did happen, do you honestly think that would stop people from re-selling their games? Also, seems somewhat silly to try & make it illegal to re-sell something, not even with the power of Disney would they be able to pull it off.

402131[/snapback]

The wording was in-correct. They don't mean illegal in the sense in a law is passed...they meant that the disc would only work on one PS3.

But this is all moot since it isn't going to happen.

[Phalanx]

Well since SONY was successful in having two of their Playstation consoles the most popular in the world, there's a grim possibilty that their third incarnation of may win the hearts of all fans all over the world. But I'm still pondering on whether or not I should shell out 600$ buckaroos for this baby. Even better, I might go for a goal to get all three next-gen-consoles,heh.

[JB0]

Well since SONY was successful in having two of their Playstation consoles the most popular in the world, there's a grim possibilty that their third incarnation of may win the hearts of all fans all over the world.

You, like Sony, are ignoring what pushed them to the front in the FIRST place.

The PS1 was 300$. The Saturn was 400. This was a BIG deal, as 400 was the upper limit of what people were willing to pay at the time. It still is, as far as I can tell.

The PS1 stayed profitable during the ensuing price wars down to 200, while Sega lost money on every Saturn they sold during the war(a redesign eventually made the Saturn profitable at 200, but it was too late to do a lot of good).

The PS1 launched with a good software collection and a continuous flow of new titles, while the US Saturn launch was COMPLETELY messed up.

The N64 was late to the party. Massively. By the time it got there, many of Nintendo's long-time developers had jumped ship for Sega and Sony. And when the Saturn folded, they moved to Sony because the PS had a larger user base and cheaper media(That, not size, was the deciding factor behind the move to CD. You can MAKE a huge ROM cart, it's just expensive. And ANY size ROM cart costs more to make than a CD/DVD).

At the time, Sony was also the least abusive of the 3 companies. Developers were greeted with no exclusivity contracts, no minimum game requirements, and no painfully high licensing fees.

In short, they took the #1 slot by being first to market(with a strong launch, too), cheaper than the competition, and very developer-friendly.

The PS2 wasn't absurdly overpriced, but it had a bad launch and wasn't profitable for the first year or 2. It beat the Dreamcast due mainly to marketing, though Sega's reputation from the 32x and Saturn certainly didn't help.

Marketing only gets you so far, though. They lost signifigant ground to the XBox, and would've lost more if it had launched close to the PS2.

Sony's also become a much more abusive licensor since they became the primary market force, doing things like requiring developers make PSP games to get PS2 games licensed(you might have noticed the PSP has a lot of ports in the pipeline. That's why) and blocking releases on a whim(rumors that they deny licenses merely for being graphically unimpressive have been confirmed multiple times).

Nintendo's done a lot this generation to shake the damage the N64 did to their image, and has some features on their next system that have people very interested. If they can sustain momenteum this time, they'll be a force to be reckoned with next generation.

The "virtual console" gives them a very strong footing in the nostalgia market, as well. The systems emulated on the Wii all have a fair bit of appeal(PCEngine/TG16 was a big deal in Japan).

The 360 has pulled out of it's launch slump. It's going to take a very strong PS3 launch AND a price cut for it to be immediatly competitive. A price cut which MS will likely match to stay ahead.

Both MS and Nintendo are making active efforts to court developers while Sony is telling them to bend over and take it up the ass.

Sony's making the same mistakes that Nintendo, Sega, and Atari made back when THEY were the big fish. And only one of those stories came close to a happy ending.

The PS3 as it exists now is an almost unparalleled screwup.

If the PS3 stays at currently announced pricing, the 360 and Wii WILL take a large portion of Sony's market share, regardless of launch library.

And when Sony is not the overwhelmingly dominant force, developers WILL leave Sony for a friendlier company. They have no reason to stay if Sony doesn't have a LARGE lead on the competition.

And when Sony loses sofware support they'll lose more marketshare, because game machines are ultimately sold on the strength of their library, not technical specifications, cool logos, or manufacturer names. Depending on how fast Sony reacts, they could lose #1 entirely.

[Black Valkyrie]

Let`s see if this really happens cuz you never know, Its too early to judge since ps3 and Wii are not released yet but one thing for sure there are too many FF fan boys and girls .

I`m wondering Nintendo didn`t mention if its possible to have import ver. of any game in the virtual console.

[JB0]

Let`s see if this really happens cuz you never know, Its too early to judge since ps3 and Wii are not released yet but one thing for sure there are too many FF fan boys and girls . 

SquareEnix isn't locked down to Sony either. And the fanboys have been known to pass games up too. It'll have to be a very appealing FF to move a 600$ console.

I`m wondering Nintendo didn`t mention if its possible to have import ver. of any game in the virtual console.

402304[/snapback]

I don't see that as likely.

2 possibilities I see are vintage translations and and, less likely, new translations(Hey, Nintendo! Rondo of Blood, please.)

[mikeszekely]

Well since SONY was successful in having two of their Playstation consoles the most popular in the world, there's a grim possibilty that their third incarnation of may win the hearts of all fans all over the world.

You, like Sony, are ignoring what pushed them to the front in the FIRST place.

The PS1 was 300$. The Saturn was 400. This was a BIG deal, as 400 was the upper limit of what people were willing to pay at the time. It still is, as far as I can tell.

The PS1 stayed profitable during the ensuing price wars down to 200, while Sega lost money on every Saturn they sold during the war(a redesign eventually made the Saturn profitable at 200, but it was too late to do a lot of good).

The PS1 launched with a good software collection and a continuous flow of new titles, while the US Saturn launch was COMPLETELY messed up.

The N64 was late to the party. Massively. By the time it got there, many of Nintendo's long-time developers had jumped ship for Sega and Sony. And when the Saturn folded, they moved to Sony because the PS had a larger user base and cheaper media(That, not size, was the deciding factor behind the move to CD. You can MAKE a huge ROM cart, it's just expensive. And ANY size ROM cart costs more to make than a CD/DVD).

At the time, Sony was also the least abusive of the 3 companies. Developers were greeted with no exclusivity contracts, no minimum game requirements, and no painfully high licensing fees.

In short, they took the #1 slot by being first to market(with a strong launch, too), cheaper than the competition, and very developer-friendly.

The PS2 wasn't absurdly overpriced, but it had a bad launch and wasn't profitable for the first year or 2. It beat the Dreamcast due mainly to marketing, though Sega's reputation from the 32x and Saturn certainly didn't help.

Marketing only gets you so far, though. They lost signifigant ground to the XBox, and would've lost more if it had launched close to the PS2.

Sony's also become a much more abusive licensor since they became the primary market force, doing things like requiring developers make PSP games to get PS2 games licensed(you might have noticed the PSP has a lot of ports in the pipeline. That's why) and blocking releases on a whim(rumors that they deny licenses merely for being graphically unimpressive have been confirmed multiple times).

Nintendo's done a lot this generation to shake the damage the N64 did to their image, and has some features on their next system that have people very interested. If they can sustain momenteum this time, they'll be a force to be reckoned with next generation.

The "virtual console" gives them a very strong footing in the nostalgia market, as well. The systems emulated on the Wii all have a fair bit of appeal(PCEngine/TG16 was a big deal in Japan).

The 360 has pulled out of it's launch slump. It's going to take a very strong PS3 launch AND a price cut for it to be immediatly competitive. A price cut which MS will likely match to stay ahead.

Both MS and Nintendo are making active efforts to court developers while Sony is telling them to bend over and take it up the ass.

Sony's making the same mistakes that Nintendo, Sega, and Atari made back when THEY were the big fish. And only one of those stories came close to a happy ending.

The PS3 as it exists now is an almost unparalleled screwup.

If the PS3 stays at currently announced pricing, the 360 and Wii WILL take a large portion of Sony's market share, regardless of launch library.

And when Sony is not the overwhelmingly dominant force, developers WILL leave Sony for a friendlier company. They have no reason to stay if Sony doesn't have a LARGE lead on the competition.

And when Sony loses sofware support they'll lose more marketshare, because game machines are ultimately sold on the strength of their library, not technical specifications, cool logos, or manufacturer names. Depending on how fast Sony reacts, they could lose #1 entirely.

402293[/snapback]

While you've raised several valid points, I think you missed one major point when it comes to software. It's not just about how Sony treats developers/publishers vs Microsoft or Nintendo, or about how the high price-point will have developers thinking twice before developing for the PS3. Rising development costs means that, in order to make a profit, they have to reach the widest possible audience, which will more often than not mean releasing a game on multiple platforms. There will be far fewer 3rd party exclusives. Suddenly, it's less about buying the system that has the games you like, and more about which system with the games you like do you want to buy? The $400 one or the $600 one? Microsoft already has a lot more Japanese support this time around, too.

First and second-party franchises could define the difference between Microsoft and Sony, and while Microsoft has fewer, I think games like Halo and Fable stand out a bit more than Jak and Daxter or even Killzone. God of War could have helped Sony, but the next one is coming for PS2, leaving time for a healthy price drop on the 3 before a third God of War, and Gran Turismo has always been big for Sony, but then again, Microsoft's Forza Motorsport was no slouch.

Nintendo obviously has the most first party franchises up their sleeves, and nobody makes games quite like Nintendo. Plus, the Wii is different, and being different paid off big-time for the DS. I think a lot of people are going to be very curious about the Wii, and it will likely do much better than the N64 and Gamecube. That said, though, I think outside of Nintendo's loyalist fanbase, many people looking at the Wii are looking at it in addition to another console. Say, a 360 for their tradition hardcore gaming, and a Wii to try something different.

In the end, though, the fanboy factor can't be dismissed. Sony knows it (see SCEE CEO's earlier remarks

about being able to sell 5,000,000 units without any launch software), and we know it too. Ken Kutaragi could crap in a bag and slap the PlayStation logo on it, and fanboys would rush out to buy it. That fanboy factor is going to keep Sony in the game.

[Zentrandude]

very good points.

To me its the price point that I will never buy a ps3, my luck ill get a ps3 with disk read error or what ever problem then I would have to buy another one or two.

[Gaijin]

very good points.

To me its the price point that I will never buy a ps3, my luck ill get a ps3 with disk read error or what ever problem then I would have to buy another one or two.

402526[/snapback]

Won't be $600 forever. In fact, won't be $600 for too long. And this is rather moot but if you add up what's in a PS3 and tried to do the same with a 360, a 360 would be in the same range or higher

scenario:

$399 360

$100 WiFi (yeah you could get a 3rd party one but for the sake of price comparison)

$199 HD DVD *estimate only..even if the add on is $100(which won't happen), we're at $600 to match* which steals a USB port and no HDMI*.

Add up and you're still 40 GB short, HDMI-less, USB port less and missing some media slots (I'll be the first to admit these shoulda gone), and no motion sensing control(rip off or not, it's there now),SACD supportless, blah blah.

I'm not saying $600 PS3 is a gift from the heavens (far from it actually)...but it isn't exactly gouging you for what you get either. Even if MS cuts $100 off the 360, it still matches the PS3's price when you figure in the add ons.

Disclaimer: Everything I mentioned the PS3 has doesn't interest me much so much as BD support.

Edit: And yes, I think $600 is a hella chunk of change for the mass market. Too much. But I've owned Neo cart AES' so I'm jaded. What bothers me most about price is PC gamers who justify $3000 gaming rigs to play a single game. Or $500 graphics cards.

Edited May 26, 2006 by Gaijin

[JB0]

very good points.

To me its the price point that I will never buy a ps3, my luck ill get a ps3 with disk read error or what ever problem then I would have to buy another one or two.

402526[/snapback]

Won't be $600 forever. In fact, won't be $600 for too long. And this is rather moot but if you add up what's in a PS3 and tried to do the same with a 360, a 360 would be in the same range or higher

scenario:

$399 360

$100 WiFi (yeah you could get a 3rd party one but for the sake of price comparison)

$199 HD DVD *estimate only..even if the add on is $100(which won't happen), we're at $600 to match* which steals a USB port and no HDMI*.

Add up and you're still 40 GB short, HDMI-less, USB port less and missing some media slots (I'll be the first to admit these shoulda gone), and no motion sensing control(rip off or not, it's there now),SACD supportless, blah blah.

I'm not saying $600 PS3 is a gift from the heavens (far from it actually)...but it isn't exactly gouging you for what you get either. Even if MS cuts $100 off the 360, it still matches the PS3's price when you figure in the add ons.

Disclaimer: Everything I mentioned the PS3 has doesn't interest me much so much as BD support.

402616[/snapback]

Here's my problem.

I don't see the PS3 as a 60GB media center with SACD playback, BluRay movie playback, etc.

I see it as a game machine.

The 360's 20GB hard drive is more than adequate for a game machine.

High-density optical media isn't needed for a game machine.

HDMI isn't needed for a game machine, since there's no HDCP on video games so you can output high-def through component video or standard DVI(which the 360 supports).

WiFi is the one feature I think the 360 really needs from the PS3 and Wii, mainly because it makes it a lot easier to hook up to a network. But it's a fully functional game machine without it.*

FlashRAM slots would be nice, just because they increase your options for portable storage(the 360 memory card needs to die, as do all proprietary cards). At least it supports USB mass storage devices, though I'm not sure if it allows more than media through them.

Hypothetically, it should be possible to add DVDAudio playback to the 360 with a simple OS update. SACD likely requires a new drive due to some of the copy-protection features. DVDA is supposed to be the better standard anyways, though.

The specs I'm seeing say the 360 only has 48KHz, 16-bit audio. That will limit the output quality from a DVDA source, though you'll still get better than CD-DA. And since part of the advantage of HDAudio formats is just a matter of how they were mastered(since they target audiophiles, HDAudio tends to have better mastering than CD-DA), you'll get another quality boost there.

*WiFi is kind of complicated.

The 360 will ONLY work with MS' 100$ WiFi adapter.

BUT you can buy a wireless bridge, that will convert the wired ethernet to 802.11, and the 360 never knows it's there. Bridges start at 30$, as far as I know.

These also work on XBox, PS2, GameCube, and anything else with ethernet ports.

Edited May 26, 2006 by JB0

[Gaijin]

very good points.

To me its the price point that I will never buy a ps3, my luck ill get a ps3 with disk read error or what ever problem then I would have to buy another one or two.

402526[/snapback]

Won't be $600 forever. In fact, won't be $600 for too long. And this is rather moot but if you add up what's in a PS3 and tried to do the same with a 360, a 360 would be in the same range or higher

scenario:

$399 360

$100 WiFi (yeah you could get a 3rd party one but for the sake of price comparison)

$199 HD DVD *estimate only..even if the add on is $100(which won't happen), we're at $600 to match* which steals a USB port and no HDMI*.

Add up and you're still 40 GB short, HDMI-less, USB port less and missing some media slots (I'll be the first to admit these shoulda gone), and no motion sensing control(rip off or not, it's there now),SACD supportless, blah blah.

I'm not saying $600 PS3 is a gift from the heavens (far from it actually)...but it isn't exactly gouging you for what you get either. Even if MS cuts $100 off the 360, it still matches the PS3's price when you figure in the add ons.

Disclaimer: Everything I mentioned the PS3 has doesn't interest me much so much as BD support.

402616[/snapback]

Here's my problem.

I don't see the PS3 as a 60GB media center with SACD playback, BluRay movie playback, etc.

I see it as a game machine.

The 360's 20GB hard drive is more than adequate for a game machine.

High-density optical media isn't needed for a game machine.

HDMI isn't needed for a game machine, since there's no HDCP on video games so you can output high-def through component video or standard DVI(which the 360 supports).

WiFi is the one feature I think the 360 really needs from the PS3 and Wii, mainly because it makes it a lot easier to hook up to a network. But it's a fully functional game machine without it.*

FlashRAM slots would be nice, just because they increase your options for portable storage(the 360 memory card needs to die, as do all proprietary cards). At least it supports USB mass storage devices, though I'm not sure if it allows more than media through them.

Hypothetically, it should be possible to add DVDAudio playback to the 360 with a simple OS update. SACD likely requires a new drive due to some of the copy-protection features. DVDA is supposed to be the better standard anyways, though.

The specs I'm seeing say the 360 only has 48KHz, 16-bit audio. That will limit the output quality from a DVDA source, though you'll still get better than CD-DA. And since part of the advantage of HDAudio formats is just a matter of how they were mastered(since they target audiophiles, HDAudio tends to have better mastering than CD-DA), you'll get another quality boost there.

*WiFi is kind of complicated.

The 360 will ONLY work with MS' 100$ WiFi adapter.

BUT you can buy a wireless bridge, that will convert the wired ethernet to 802.11, and the 360 never knows it's there. Bridges start at 30$, as far as I know.

These also work on XBox, PS2, GameCube, and anything else with ethernet ports.

402619[/snapback]

No, I see where you're coming from. But the lines between game consoles and PC's are beginning to blur and it's not likely to stop anytime soon. The black box is one step closer to reality whether we like it or not.

I didn't know that about the 360's WiFi...interesting.

EDIT: and on an un-related note, I bought Guitar hero for my PS2 a few days ago but have yet to open it up. Anyone else here ever try it?

Edited May 27, 2006 by Gaijin

[JB0]

No, I see where you're coming from.  But the lines between game consoles and PC's are beginning to blur and it's not likely to stop anytime soon.  The black box is one step closer to reality whether we like it or not.

I didn't know that about the 360's WiFi...interesting.

402701[/snapback]

I'm not actually AGAINST extra features, but they shouldn't come at the cost of game functionality or drive the price up past a certain point.

The fundamental problem with building up game consoles is that once the price rises to where they're competing with PCs, they get stomped by the PCs.

Consoles can't fight with PCs on an even footing. They're far lower-end, but they're far cheaper because of it. That price is what makes them a viable option.

I've already got a PC that can do more than a PS3 or XBox 360.

The fact that it can't do BluRay right now is a minor issue, given that a BR drive takes about 5 minutes to add.

If they want to blur the lines, they should just make a PlayStation Vaio and be done with it. Put a keyboard on the system case like the old Commodore64 and company, ship with a Vaio-branded USB gamepad, and just call it a day.

Competing with PCs isn't a winnable fight.

Edited May 27, 2006 by JB0

[yellowlightman]

EDIT:  and on an un-related note, I bought Guitar hero for my PS2 a few days ago but have yet to open it up.  Anyone else here ever try it? 

402701[/snapback]

My friend has a copy, so I've played through it a bit. It's fun, if you like those kinda games. Music quality is pretty good for covers, but could use some better songs.

[Gaijin]

No, I see where you're coming from.  But the lines between game consoles and PC's are beginning to blur and it's not likely to stop anytime soon.  The black box is one step closer to reality whether we like it or not.

I didn't know that about the 360's WiFi...interesting.

402701[/snapback]

I'm not actually AGAINST extra features, but they shouldn't come at the cost of game functionality or drive the price up past a certain point.

The fundamental problem with building up game consoles is that once the price rises to where they're competing with PCs, they get stomped by the PCs.

Consoles can't fight with PCs on an even footing. They're far lower-end, but they're far cheaper because of it. That price is what makes them a viable option.

I've already got a PC that can do more than a PS3 or XBox 360.

The fact that it can't do BluRay right now is a minor issue, given that a BR drive takes about 5 minutes to add.

If they want to blur the lines, they should just make a PlayStation Vaio and be done with it. Put a keyboard on the system case like the old Commodore64 and company, ship with a Vaio-branded USB gamepad, and just call it a day.

Competing with PCs isn't a winnable fight.

402706[/snapback]

Right now...but the line is thinning. And as an entertainment medium, Sony wants the Playstation to spearhead all forms of media entertainment in the future.

And on one hand, while the cost is great to add up all the tech, the fastest way to bring down the prices of new tech is to sell a boatload. The PC argument ...sure technically a PC can do any console game...but they don't. You get FPS's MMO's, and some strategy and simulation titles. Plus...I use my computer for what it is...I don't bother playing games on it...so I guess I'm in the opposite end of where you are. I want a console that will do more but don't really want a full on PC to do it.

[JB0]

And on one hand, while the cost is great to add up all the tech, the fastest way to bring down the prices of new tech is to sell a boatload.  The PC argument ...sure technically a PC can do any console game...but they don't. 

XBox does, and it's a PC.

It's all a matter of how it's marketed. Put it in the right box, with the right software running, and no one cares.

Which was really my point.

Like I said... start with a Vaio. Sony doesn't HAVE to sell a boatload of them to lower the tech price. HP, Dell, and everyone else does it for them.

Use XPEmbedded. Add a Media Center-style interface to it(which is really what the PSP and PS3 have). Add a few proprietary software hooks for drop-in gaming. Maybe use a custom graphics card variant(again, like the PS3 and XBox).

You have a system with virtually no hardware development costs, that performs as well as anything you could've developed in-house, and it's still got a console-like hardware consistency and interface.

Plus...I use my computer for what it is...I don't bother playing games on it...so I guess I'm in the opposite end of where you are.  I want a console that will do more but don't really want a full on PC to do it.

I actually don't do a lot of gaming on my PC.

I just don't see where a 600$ game machine justifies itself when it's half-assing a home theater PC's job.

PS3 actually matches the price of a low-end HTPC, and it's a much more limited device. You're locked in to Sony's music store, Sony's movie store, Sony's choice of formats, etc.

The quick and dirty example of this is the ubiquitous iPod. Got a pile of iTunes tracks you wanna listen to?

If you have a HTPC, it's no issue.

If you have a PS3... it is.

[mikeszekely]

I think JB0 hit on a lot of the points that I was going to make. Yeah, if you look at the PS3 as primarily a Blu-Ray player, then compared to the other players that will be on the market, $600 is a bargain, and it even plays games! But if I wanted a Blu-Ray player, which I honestly don't at this point, I'd wait for the tech to come down, and maybe wait for one of the players LG is working on that can read Blu-Ray AND HD-DVD.

And that's just it. While some technophiles and early adopters are thinking "Blu-Ray," I think most people are looking at the game console, decended from the PS2 game console, decended from the original PlayStation game console. And $600 is just too much for a game console, even one with features that many of us don't care for or need.

[Uxi]

Here's my problem.

I don't see the PS3 as a 60GB media center with SACD playback, BluRay movie playback, etc.

I see it as a game machine.

You don't, but Sony does. Sony doesn't give two licks about the console segment, much less the XBOX 360 itself. Sony's crosshairs are on Toshiba and HD-DVD... The PS3 is Sony's budget first gen Blu-Ray player.

They have the gimped version for people like you. They arguably should have gimped it even more. They should have the price on the gimped version at least to $399 but that may not have been possible. If you don't want need Blu-Ray, etc then don't bother bringing up $599 as $499 is for you. If $599 bothers, you most likely don't give a lick about HDMI, etc and 20GB is more than enough. You don't need to worry about memory cards or any such, either. That the specs of PS3 compare quite favorably to the 360 (especially with the reputed price of the HD-DVD add on, MS' price for their OEM wifi, etc) and outperforms it, too, as well as exceeding the technical potential of the Toshiba HD-A1 HD-DVD player (1080p > 1080i) is Sony's goal.

Even so, I'll be very surprised if the $599 price point remains for very long. Certainly for the initial run, which is about guaranteed to sell out (I'm very interested in anyone thinks it WON'T). I'll bet by Christmas 2007, PS3 is at $499/$399.

Prices that people are willing to pay HAVE come up. I never thought the PSP would have been successful due to it's price point and feature set versus something like the DS... but it has been. The XBOX did not make a significant imprint in Asia and the 360 has been lackluster. This shows with development and PS3 is going to have more wow titles sooner. I enjoy my 360 premium but there are still no MUST HAVE titles and except for Oblivion and GRAW I haven't been playing it so much recently...

[mikeszekely]

Here's my problem.

I don't see the PS3 as a 60GB media center with SACD playback, BluRay movie playback, etc.

I see it as a game machine.

They have the gimped version for people like you. They arguably should have gimped it even more. They should have the price on the gimped version at least to $399 but that may not have been possible. If you don't want need Blu-Ray, etc then don't bother bringing up $599 as $499 is for you. If $599 bothers, you most likely don't give a lick about HDMI, etc and 20GB is more than enough. You don't need to worry about memory cards or any such, either.

Even so, I'll be very surprised if the $599 price point remains for very long. Certainly for the initial run, which is about guaranteed to sell out (I'm very interested in anyone thinks it WON'T). I'll bet by Christmas 2007, PS3 is at $499/$399.

Prices that people are willing to pay HAVE come up. I never thought the PSP would have been successful due to it's price point and feature set versus something like the DS... but it has been. The XBOX did not make a significant imprint in Asia and the 360 has been lackluster. This shows with development and PS3 is going to have more wow titles sooner. I enjoy my 360 premium but there are still no MUST HAVE titles and except for Oblivion and GRAW I haven't been playing it so much recently...

402786[/snapback]

Actually, my TV does have HDMI, and HDMI isn't just some fancy input for Blu-Ray players, it's a digital step up from component video. Not to mention that the $500 PS2 is also missing slots for memory cards, doesn't support wireless networks, has a smaller hard drive, and still costs more than I'm willing to pay for a console? The gimped version isn't for "people like me." No one in their right mind should be considering the gimped one.

That the specs of PS3 compare quite favorably to the 360 (especially with the reputed price of the HD-DVD add on, MS' price for their OEM wifi, etc)  and outperforms it, too

Remember that the $500 PS3 doesn't have wi-fi either. And that the actual technical superiority of the PS3 is still debatable, or that developers aren't planning on making PS3 games look any better than 360 games. $500 is no bargain.

Sony doesn't give two licks about the console segment, much less the XBOX 360 itself. Sony's crosshairs are on Toshiba and HD-DVD... The PS3 is Sony's budget first gen Blu-Ray player.

I think this is actually the crux of the issue. Sony isn't all that interested in next-generation console gaming. They're more interested in using the PlayStation brand and the naivity of the masses as a trojan horse to get Blu-Ray into more household. If I was in Sony's shoes, I'd probably be doing the same thing... their consumer electronics division has been hurting bad. Sony is gambling the future of the company on the success of Blu-Ray, and the PS3 is their ace in the hole.

But if Sony's not interested in gamers beyond using us as a means to establish Blu-Ray in the marketplace, why should be we interested in their product?

[Gaijin]

Here's my problem.

I don't see the PS3 as a 60GB media center with SACD playback, BluRay movie playback, etc.

I see it as a game machine.

They have the gimped version for people like you. They arguably should have gimped it even more. They should have the price on the gimped version at least to $399 but that may not have been possible. If you don't want need Blu-Ray, etc then don't bother bringing up $599 as $499 is for you. If $599 bothers, you most likely don't give a lick about HDMI, etc and 20GB is more than enough. You don't need to worry about memory cards or any such, either.

Even so, I'll be very surprised if the $599 price point remains for very long. Certainly for the initial run, which is about guaranteed to sell out (I'm very interested in anyone thinks it WON'T). I'll bet by Christmas 2007, PS3 is at $499/$399.

Prices that people are willing to pay HAVE come up. I never thought the PSP would have been successful due to it's price point and feature set versus something like the DS... but it has been. The XBOX did not make a significant imprint in Asia and the 360 has been lackluster. This shows with development and PS3 is going to have more wow titles sooner. I enjoy my 360 premium but there are still no MUST HAVE titles and except for Oblivion and GRAW I haven't been playing it so much recently...

402786[/snapback]

Actually, my TV does have HDMI, and HDMI isn't just some fancy input for Blu-Ray players, it's a digital step up from component video. Not to mention that the $500 PS2 is also missing slots for memory cards, doesn't support wireless networks, has a smaller hard drive, and still costs more than I'm willing to pay for a console? The gimped version isn't for "people like me." No one in their right mind should be considering the gimped one.

That the specs of PS3 compare quite favorably to the 360 (especially with the reputed price of the HD-DVD add on, MS' price for their OEM wifi, etc)  and outperforms it, too

Remember that the $500 PS3 doesn't have wi-fi either. And that the actual technical superiority of the PS3 is still debatable, or that developers aren't planning on making PS3 games look any better than 360 games. $500 is no bargain.

Sony doesn't give two licks about the console segment, much less the XBOX 360 itself. Sony's crosshairs are on Toshiba and HD-DVD... The PS3 is Sony's budget first gen Blu-Ray player.

I think this is actually the crux of the issue. Sony isn't all that interested in next-generation console gaming. They're more interested in using the PlayStation brand and the naivity of the masses as a trojan horse to get Blu-Ray into more household. If I was in Sony's shoes, I'd probably be doing the same thing... their consumer electronics division has been hurting bad. Sony is gambling the future of the company on the success of Blu-Ray, and the PS3 is their ace in the hole.

But if Sony's not interested in gamers beyond using us as a means to establish Blu-Ray in the marketplace, why should be we interested in their product?

402845[/snapback]

Because they still are holding most of the cards. They could lose a lot of them at the end of this generation but for now, they still have the titles I want to play.

[JB0]

Here's my problem.

I don't see the PS3 as a 60GB media center with SACD playback, BluRay movie playback, etc.

I see it as a game machine.

You don't, but Sony does. Sony doesn't give two licks about the console segment, much less the XBOX 360 itself. Sony's crosshairs are on Toshiba and HD-DVD... The PS3 is Sony's budget first gen Blu-Ray player.

That's a damn foolish thing to do, given that the PlayStation has been the only thing keeping them from bankruptcy recently.

I think it was less than a year ago that Sony Computer Entertainment(AKA the PlayStation division) was the ONLY part of the company to post a profit.

They NEED to focus on the actual game market until their finances stabilize.

They have the gimped version for people like you.  They arguably should have gimped it even more.  They should have the price on the gimped version at least to $399 but that may not have been possible.  If you don't want need Blu-Ray, etc then don't bother bringing up $599 as  $499 is for you.

The 500 unit still has BluRay. Which is a large part of the problem. BluRay just isn't cheap enough for mass market yet.

And the gimped version isn't for people like me. It's still a grossly overpriced game console. I think 400 is a grossly overpriced game console, actually. I'm watiing for the 360 to have a round of price cuts before I start seriously looking at it.

If $599 bothers, you most likely don't give a lick about HDMI,

That depends on if the PS1's multi-out connector makes good enough connection for hi-def component video.

etc

Flash RAM slots matter to me. That's it, though.

and 20GB is more than enough. 

I think I said as much earlier.

You don't need to worry about memory cards or any such, either.

Unless I want to move some data off the system. Maybe take it to a friend's house, or import some PS1/2 saves(which will also require the purchase or construction of a memory card reader).

That the specs of PS3 compare quite favorably to the 360 (especially with the reputed price of the HD-DVD add on, MS' price for their OEM wifi, etc)  and outperforms it, too, as well as exceeding the technical potential of the Toshiba HD-A1 HD-DVD player (1080p > 1080i) is Sony's goal.

We don't know that the PS3 outperforms the 360, and won't until software is actually available.

I have serious concerns, given the Cell is almost all floating-point math and video games are primarily integer math. The 360 processor has 3x the integer power of the PS3 processor, given they both run at 3.2 GHz.

And there's the possibility of major bottlenecks in the system design. All the processing power in the world isn't any good if you can't move the data around equally fast. Such bottlenecks plagued the PS2 for it's entire life.

Even so, I'll be very surprised if the $599 price point remains for very long.  Certainly for the initial run, which is about guaranteed to sell out (I'm very interested in anyone thinks it WON'T).  I'll bet by Christmas 2007, PS3 is at $499/$399.

But the damage from the initial price is done. A lot of people are pissed about it, even though it won't really be available at launch.

And 4-5 hundred is STILL too much in my opinion. I consider 300 the price cap for a game console, as do a lot of other people(there's a very good reason MS has 2 versions of the 360).

Edited May 27, 2006 by JB0

[Black Valkyrie]

I know all there is to know about the crying game

Edited May 29, 2006 by Black Valkyrie

[Gunbuster]

I hope this doesn't offend anyone, but if this was the Ps3 and it cost $600, I would buy 2 of them

[Sharrdd]

They NEED to focus on the actual game market until their finances stabilize.

I'm not sure it will stabilize, when everything was CRTs they had a major advantage by using aperture grill over shadowmask but with projection they don't have the high quality that justifies paying for the Sony name, everything now is a price break.

Not to mention they keep shooting themselves in the foot with ideas/products/partnerships that waste money and lowers overall quality.

.....I use to work at their San Diego Plant , we made 20/27/32 TVs and 17/19 monitors.

[JB0]

They NEED to focus on the actual game market until their finances stabilize.

I'm not sure it will stabilize, when everything was CRTs they had a major advantage by using aperture grill over shadowmask but with projection they don't have the high quality that justifies paying for the Sony name, everything now is a price break.

Not to mention they keep shooting themselves in the foot with ideas/products/partnerships that waste money and lowers overall quality.

.....I use to work at their San Diego Plant , we made 20/27/32 TVs and 17/19 monitors.

404664[/snapback]

The second point is what drove them into trouble in the first place.

All their diffrent divisions were actively sabotaging each other, so Sony was developing lots of products they never released(or crippled, if you remember the introduction of DAT{co-developed with Philips} and MiniDisk), buying outsider products when they had internal projects that did what they needed, and in general acting retarded.

[JB0]

New Smash Brothers characters reveealed!

...

Or not.

[Zentrandude]

New Smash Brothers characters reveealed!

...

Or not.

405093[/snapback]

That picture just screams hentai.

[yellowlightman]

That picture just screams hentai.

405124[/snapback]

Underage school girls = porn?

You perv.

[Zentrandude]

That picture just screams hentai.

405124[/snapback]

Underage school girls = porn?

You perv.

405164[/snapback]

Heh you don't need to watch hentai to know whats going to happen here.

Wonder if the next shot has gannon or bowser showing up with tenticals popping out

Edited June 4, 2006 by Zentrandude

[JB0]

That picture just screams hentai.

405124[/snapback]

Underage school girls = porn?

You perv.

405164[/snapback]

Heh you don't need to watch hentai to know whats going to happen here.

Wonder if the next shot has gannon or bowser showing up with tenticals popping out

405167[/snapback]

I'd like to see them try it.

My money's on Yuki.

[Ali Sama]

i bought a 360 surpriseingly. I;ll definalty pikc up a ps3 and a wii. Damn toriyama and the guys who made chrono trigger for making blue dragon a 360 exclusive.

[Mechafan]

I just saw this news.

PS3 Hardware Slow and Broken.