PS3 Prices Revealed

[Whisper]

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/705/705838p1.html

20GB version: $499
60GB version: $599
(USD)

Surprised no one has talked about this yet.

[vman]

wow, i didnt they'd do it, but they did.... just wow.

[CarGuy]

$100 dollars for 20 gigs? WTF is that?

[vman]

whisper posted wrong

The price? $499 dollars or 499 Euros for the 20 gig version, and $599 dollars or 599 Euros for the 60 gig version.
you are paying $100 for 40 gigs

[pjh13]

damn i wanted to get one too, but no way in hell am i spending that much, i am not even sure if my car is worth that much.

[CarGuy]

whisper posted wrong

you are paying $100 for 40 gigs


No, i'm not. Ever.

[Nato King]

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/705/705838p1.html

20GB version: $499
40GB version: $599
(USD)

Surprised no one has talked about this yet.


Talk about this I saw this information yesterday and I was debating if I should put it up or not because it's about a product I don’t support.

[vman]

No, i'm not. Ever.
lol, ok maybe you wont, but for the ppl who actually are dumb enough to purchase the system.

[Mwright]

i was thinking about getting this system by saving up money over summer and get it but i dont think i ever could save up enough... plus to get wireless built in you gotta get the 599 one...which means you CANT upgrade and buy an adapter later...i cant believe i just typed 599 for a system cost...my god it was only 299 5 years ago........i really think now...MS won market share.....ill wait A LONG TIME for a price drop 4 this one...iv never been so glad i got my 360

[ShadedNine]

I'll take a long hard look at the Wii before I bother with a PS3. Particularily since it's really starting to look like HD-DVD is going to either win, or at least pull out ahead in the format war.

[swivel]

i was thinking about getting this system by saving up money over summer and get it but i dont think i ever could save up enough... plus to get wireless built in you gotta get the 599 one...which means you CANT upgrade and buy an adapter later...i cant believe i just typed 599 for a system cost...my god it was only 299 5 years ago........i really think now...MS won market share.....ill wait A LONG TIME for a price drop 4 this one...iv never been so glad i got my 360

Microsoft would have to sell the HD-DVD add-on for $100 to match the cost of the PS3. I don't think they can do this, which means the PS3 has a much better price-point than the XBox2. You have to keep in mind that the PS3 has functionality built-in that Microsoft at first said they didn't want, and now have shown a device to clutter your shelves to do the same thing.

Also, it is pretty clear to me that the XBox2 was underpriced, which means the PS3 pricing is more accurate. When demand keeps outstripping supply, like it did with the XBox2, you have your price too low. Look at what people were paying on EBay for the XBox2 and I think you will have to admit that the PS3 is going to fly off the shelves at $600. I paid $500 for each of my two video-cards!

Just being the devil's advocate here.

[Mwright]

Microsoft would have to sell the HD-DVD add-on for $100 to match the cost of the PS3. I don't think they can do this, which means the PS3 has a much better price-point than the XBox2. You have to keep in mind that the PS3 has functionality built-in that Microsoft at first said they didn't want, and now have shown a device to clutter your shelves to do the same thing.

Also, it is pretty clear to me that the XBox2 was underpriced, which means the PS3 pricing is more accurate. When demand keeps outstripping supply, like it did with the XBox2, you have your price too low. Look at what people were paying on EBay for the XBox2 and I think you will have to admit that the PS3 is going to fly off the shelves at $600. I paid $500 for each of my two video-cards!

Just being the devil's advocate here.
woah just wait a minute there....not every1 whats a 100 media slots...not every1 needs blueray....and the worse thing about the ps3 is you can not upgrade..so that means if you want wireless later you have to get the 599 one....just step back and look at the picture....they are trying to sell a system for 599..there is no way some parent will get that 4 their kid over a 399 system which does the same thing...they lost market share and even G4 is saying the samething...plus we have halo 3 now...and iv already had a few friends saving up 4 the system now that they no that game is on the way

[Codefox]

The 360 wasn't available on store shelves because MS production was at capacity. If it had been, there'd be close to 8 million units. The only feature that the PS3 has that the XBox doesn't have built in is BluRay vs HD-DVD and last I checked...I can play video games without the HD-DVD.

[vman]

Also, it is pretty clear to me that the XBox2 was underpriced, which means the PS3 pricing is more accurate. When demand keeps outstripping supply, like it did with the XBox2, you have your price too low. Look at what people were paying on EBay for the XBox2 and I think you will have to admit that the PS3 is going to fly off the shelves at $600. I paid $500 for each of my two video-cards!
all consoles are underpriced. at least these past two generations. otherwise, nobody would buy them if they were priced what they are worth. PS3 costs more money to make than 360. that is the only reason its priced higher. Sony couldnt afford to lose too much money right away. and when supply is lower than demand, it only means just that. it has nothing to do with price. i guess you could argue that a higher price would stiffle demand thus increasing supply but the 360's price is perfect.

[CarGuy]

Microsoft would have to sell the HD-DVD add-on for $100 to match the cost of the PS3. I don't think they can do this, which means the PS3 has a much better price-point than the XBox2. You have to keep in mind that the PS3 has functionality built-in that Microsoft at first said they didn't want, and now have shown a device to clutter your shelves to do the same thing.

Also, it is pretty clear to me that the XBox2 was underpriced, which means the PS3 pricing is more accurate. When demand keeps outstripping supply, like it did with the XBox2, you have your price too low. Look at what people were paying on EBay for the XBox2 and I think you will have to admit that the PS3 is going to fly off the shelves at $600. I paid $500 for each of my two video-cards!

Just being the devil's advocate here.


I heard yesterday they'll be selling the HD DVD add on for $100..

[Mwright]

wow..iv now learned how important halo 3 and that price of the ps3 is effecting every1 my age...(teenagers) atleast. some of them said they now are getting the 360 because the know halo 3 is coming and thats the only reason they were gonna get the 360..and the people sitting on the fence on getting the 360 or PS3 have all said they are getting the 360 because of the price..i really feel like sony has lost this round...it OUR turn to have market share

[swivel]

I think you guys are a little quick to write-off Sony just because the system is $100 more. The cheapest HD-DVD and Blu-Ray players I've seen are both $599 right now. Millions of people are going to buy a PS3 just to play Blu-Ray movies if the system is the same price as a standalone player. Those sorts of A/V people trust the Sony brand outside of gaming and will be snatching this thing up.

It sounds like many of you think that most consoles go to kids who are still in school. That isn't even close to being accurate. The demographic that MS and Sony target are the 25-35 age range. People that work for a living and spend $3,000+ on their TV's.

I see how your perspective, if you are a dependent, will be much different, but trust me... people are going to pay $100 extra to get the extra hardware ability. If they were not willing to do this, where is the outrage that MS is making an HD-DVD player for $100? That sort of lopsided thinking will lead you down Fanboy Lane, where logical thinking is no longer allowed. Resist that urge.

Others of you are saying that your friends are going to pay over $500 in order to play Halo3. That seems a little strange to me. I understand that the XBox got away with having a single franchise pull it along, but I do not think the next generation of console is going to get away with that.

I predict that the next generation will consist of XBox2 owners who were XBox owners and PS3 owners who were PS2 owners. Everyone wants to stay with the franchises they know, and keep their library moving with them. Very few people will make the switch, and if they do, I think it will be to the Wii.


And vman, supply and demand are very closely entangled with price. Price is what modifies the relationship between supply and demand. Another way to look at it is that price is dictated by supply and demand. These are the foundations of economics. I am not talking about what the price of the systems should be according to what they cost to manufacture, because there are additional rewards besides pure profit on hardware that you have to factor in, like rate of adoption. I am saying that the Ebay economy proved that the market price for the XBox2 was much too low. You will not find a sober economist on the planet who will disagree with me.

[Mwright]

I think you guys are a little quick to write-off Sony just because the system is $100 more. The cheapest HD-DVD and Blu-Ray players I've seen are both $599 right now. Millions of people are going to buy a PS3 just to play Blu-Ray movies if the system is the same price as a standalone player. Those sorts of A/V people trust the Sony brand outside of gaming and will be snatching this thing up.

It sounds like many of you think that most consoles go to kids who are still in school. That isn't even close to being accurate. The demographic that MS and Sony target are the 25-35 age range. People that work for a living and spend $3,000+ on their TV's.

I see how your perspective, if you are a dependent, will be much different, but trust me... people are going to pay $100 extra to get the extra hardware ability. If they were not willing to do this, where is the outrage that MS is making an HD-DVD player for $100? That sort of lopsided thinking will lead you down Fanboy Lane, where logical thinking is no longer allowed. Resist that urge.

Others of you are saying that your friends are going to pay over $500 in order to play Halo3. That seems a little strange to me. I understand that the XBox got away with having a single franchise pull it along, but I do not think the next generation of console is going to get away with that.

I predict that the next generation will consist of XBox2 owners who were XBox owners and PS3 owners who were PS2 owners. Everyone wants to stay with the franchises they know, and keep their library moving with them. Very few people will make the switch, and if they do, I think it will be to the Wii.


And vman, supply and demand are very closely entangled with price. Price is what modifies the relationship between supply and demand. Another way to look at it is that price is dictated by supply and demand. These are the foundations of economics. I am not talking about what the price of the systems should be according to what they cost to manufacture, because there are additional rewards besides pure profit on hardware that you have to factor in, like rate of adoption. I am saying that the Ebay economy proved that the market price for the XBox2 was much too low. You will not find a sober economist on the planet who will disagree with me.

are you serious...man i dont think you have that who age group right..the ps2 kicked ass so much because kids wanted them and parents would buy them...sure they are not the whole market but step back and think...599 for a game system..599..plus we dont know what the games will cost or anything else...

[swivel]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2004/12/18/MNGUOAE36I1.DTL

http://www.boston.com/business/personaltech/articles/2005/12/05/video_game_ads_work_study_says/

http://www.csinsights.com/index.php?action=pg_article&id=25

The average gamer is 28.

Seriously, dude. This is too well-documented to argue with. The gaming demographic is not a group of people that ask their parents to buy them hardware. The gaming demographic is people that put their kids to sleep so they can play a few hours of games.

If you are not a part of this demographic, then you probably don't know that it exists. Some of our most hard-core gamers on this site are in their late 20's, 30's, even 40's. They are the generation that grew up with Pong and Colecovision and Atarii.

I'm afraid that you are making the hubristic fallacy of assuming that what you are, and what you are surrounded by, is the norm.

Not trying to be rude about any of this, and I hope I'm not coming across poorly, just trying to keep the facts straight. Trust me on this one, no gaming company, not even Nintendo, is making games and hardware for kids anymore. Nintendo is targeting females and an even older crowd. Look at what they did with Nintendogs and the Brain Train series.

Trust me, the people that are going to be buying these systems are going to be driving in their own cars to pick them up. A vast, vast, vast minority of console-owners will be below the age of 18.

[mattgame]

That price is daunting. It's going to make people think twice but Sony will still do well. I may not get it because the Sony exclusive games are just not worth 600 bucks. It really doesn't make sense to have both unless you are a die hard metal gear fan.

[swivel]

Without the brand loyalty, I think MS would win this war easily. Most of the big games will come to both systems, with only a few A+ exclusives on either system. So I think more people would pick the cheaper system if it will do both.

Then again, if people are in the store vacillating between the two, and they think that Blu-Ray has a chance of sticking, they are likely to go that route.

I think MS and Sony are both going to be surprised when Nintendo increases their market share with the Wii. I would not be surprised to see MS in third place 3 years from now when it comes to gross number of consoles sold. I think they will be second in the U.S., but not very far ahead of Nintendo.

If this comes to fruition, MS will change their strategy completely. They will look to their OS department and try to sell the PC as the living-room entertainment center. The OS after Vista will be the XBox 3.

[Mwright]

http://img400.imageshack.us/img400/6465/ps3liebackend7qe.jpg

i dont wanna pay 600 dollars for LIES..i tried saying something a year ago how THEY ALWAYS over hipe their system to make it seem better than it really is...

[StudioAlex]

The average gamer is 28.

Seriously, dude. This is too well-documented to argue with. The point isn't the age of the average gamer, but the age of the average playstation gamer, which is lower than the average Xbox gamer. Xbox had the most leeway in pricing as, obviously, the older you are the more you can afford.

Sony is giving in to hubris. People don't care about blu-ray (or hd-dvd for that matter) and it won't be enough to sell the system. Ask ten people on the street if they are unsatisfied with DVDs. My estimate would be that 8 or 9 out of 10 would say "no".

For the price of the PS3 I could get a 360 and a Wii. I think I'll go with the latter. The wii will have awesome unique games while 90% of what will be on the PS3 will be on the Xbox 360. I won't be getting it until it at least halves in price, if not more. I liked God of War, but not that much.

I have no desire to subsidize sony's efforts to monopolize the next movie format.

[Uchiha Sasuke]

http://img400.imageshack.us/img400/6465/ps3liebackend7qe.jpg

i dont wanna pay 600 dollars for LIES..i tried saying something a year ago how THEY ALWAYS over hipe their system to make it seem better than it really is...

Umm they reported on IGN that the cheapier bundle will have less ports.

May 8, 2006 - The announcement earlier tonight that the PS3 would come in two separate configurations easily caught the ear of PS3 fans eager for any news of Sony's system. However, upon closer analysis of the images for the systems itself, a rather curious system feature seemed to be missing from the 20 gig configuration.

Looking at the official press site of SCEA, we noticed that the PS3 with the 20 gigabyte hard drive seemed to lack HDMI support. This seems to be confirmed by an offical press release from SCEA, which indicates via comparison between the two systems. However, it also indicates that the 20 gigabyte system won't have Memory Stick, SD or Compact Flash reading capability or WiFi support. Even worse, it appears that rumble doesn't appear to be included with the new six axis sensing controller.

Could the 20 gig become a gamer shunned system? When Microsoft launched the Xbox 360, consumers hated the Core system that didn't come with a hard drive and other features, quickly dubbing it the "tard pack." Will the 20 gig suffer the same fate? We'll have more details as we get them from the show.

Update: It also appears that Sony has ditched dual-HDMI support altogether, even from its high-end 60GB system. Whether or not the system is still capable of running dual-displays by using both HDMI and the AV multi-out is unknown.

Also, Sony announced that the Blu-ray disc drive in the PS3 will run at 2X, or roughly 72Mbps.

~Will

[mattgame]

I just toured the net and the ps3 is getting it's ass handed to it. I said ps3, I meant ps?.

[pjh13]

I just toured the net and the ps3 is getting it's ass handed to it. I said ps3, I meant ps?.


i did the same and got the same results. i assumed it was just this website that was bashing it because we are an xbox website, but everywhere i went i would say around 3/4's or 2/3rds of the reaction was negative

[vman]

And vman, supply and demand are very closely entangled with price. Price is what modifies the relationship between supply and demand. Another way to look at it is that price is dictated by supply and demand. These are the foundations of economics. I am not talking about what the price of the systems should be according to what they cost to manufacture, because there are additional rewards besides pure profit on hardware that you have to factor in, like rate of adoption. I am saying that the Ebay economy proved that the market price for the XBox2 was much too low. You will not find a sober economist on the planet who will disagree with me.
oh, ok, gotcha. now that i understand, i agree with you bro.

The cheapest HD-DVD and Blu-Ray players I've seen are both $599 right now.
Toshiba is advertising their HD-DVD player (HD-A1 model) for $499.

Personally, I don't think that the PS3 will be very successful. At least not as successful as last gen. They will only keep a fraction of their Fanboys and a lot of the rest of their fanbase(casual/impartial gamers) will switch to either the 360 or Wii. But thats just my guess.

The "core" model they have is only useful for playing the games. It won't even take full advantage of the HD or BluRay capabilities the 'premium' model has. At least you can UPGRADE the core 360. Thats one of the bigger mistakes Sony has made. VERY limited upgradable capablities. Sony just did a huge faceplant and everyone has seen it. The world is just pointing and laughing right now... just pointing and laughing.

[swivel]

I have no desire to subsidize sony's efforts to monopolize the next movie format.

That is also the reason that I will not be purchasing a PS3. For all of the devil's advocating I do around here, none of you could possibly be as anti-Sony as I am. I'm not anti-Playstation, I am upset at all of Sony, and wouldn't mind watching the company go out of business.

There is no reason that Blu-Ray and HD-DVD shouldn't have ironed things out and heralded a united format. A format that would have been greeted with cheers, not jeers. Greed isn't even a good excuse for what they did, because they both stand to lose out as they alienate consumers.

And I agree with the above poster that most people are satisfied with DVD's. I got an upscaling player that makes my DVD's look almost Hi-Def, and I am good to go. The only reason I look forward to Hi-Def movies is in the anticipation that DVD prices will go down a little in the next couple of years.


When these three systems were first discussed, I thought Nintendo was out of their mind. I was shaking my head and saying bye to an old friend. Now, with MS stumbling out of the gate, and Sony being criticized for every move, the only positive things I keep hearing from the press is how much fun the Wii is. Fun. Imagine that.


So, I'm not pulling for Sony by any means. But I still say the price is right. They will sell millions of these things, and the people that own them will buy Blu-Ray movies, and media stores are going to get more and more confusing.

[Theshroud]

Swivel is right. I am in one of those demographics (mid 30's) where we are sometimes forgotten about. After slaving away at work I can come home, put the kids to bed, and submerse myself in some fantasy-type world for a couple of hours. The reason I have the xbox 360 is that I had the original and it was just a normal progression. Before that it was the super nintendo and the Atari. I believe the price won't be a major factor because the tried and true PS owners will just follow on. Sure it will stifle the teenages and younger generation due to the price but I believe they will pick up a few due to blue-ray.

I am in the enviable position as swivel says, that if I wanted the PS3 I would just hop in the car and go and get it. This is the real demographic each company is aiming for. Why wouldn't they? Think of the disposable income. With a library of 40 xbox and xbox 360 games it is fair to say that I am a hard-core gamer and one where either company would ideally like to target. The flow down affect to our children is also a major demographic, my kids are already asking for games for themselves. I would say just wait and see as I believe the price is probably about right for the PS3 system.

[swivel]

Thanks for chiming in, Threshold. I think most gamers our age aren't on forums as much, which makes us seem like a small group, when in reality, we dominate the gaming landscape.

It is tiring to have to keep sticking up for any of the companies in order to maintain perspective. What people don't seem to realize is that gaming is the present and future of entertainment. Theater-goers are evaporating. Music sales are down. But gaming is going through the roof, overtaking both in terms of sales.

The current fanboy-fest makes it seem like there is only room for one console, which is bollocks. That would be like saying only one movie studio, or recording studio is needed. The fact is that all three systems are going to sell millions and millions of units, gauranteed. All three are going to have some great games and some truly awful ones. And if you only own one console, you will keep hyping what you have and dissing the others in an inane feud with what should be your allies.

[ShadedNine]

I'm definitely glad to see Nintendo getting back on their feet, after what I see as a series of failed consoles barely kept alive by a few good games, and money from their more succesful portable line.

Not that I care for the arrogance Nintendo had in the days of the NES, SNES and N64, and their horrid treatment of 3rd party developers, but as I see it, they've learned a lesson, adapted, and are looking to make a comeback while trying some entirely new concepts.

Sony on the other hand, seems to be making many of the same mistakes as Nintendo did some 6ish years ago.

I'll probably buy a Wii when it comes out, but I think I might base that decision on the condition that the next Zelda game's art not be headed up by a 6 year old drunk on teletubbies.

That being said, as 'fun' as the Wii might turn out to be, I still wouldn't be satisfied without my fill of games like...Halo, or Gears of War ;). And of course, I've no intention of playing racing games with a damned laser pointer. If I could only buy, or only afford one console, it would still be the x360.

As a side note, MS hasn't discounted the possibility of the HD-DVD drive being compatible with PCs (and even if they do, I'm betting the tech community won't need long to fix that). They've also announced a device that will allow wireless x360 controllers to function on the PC. Stuff like that makes me feel all warm & fuzzy inside :D

[l Maximus l]

I'm also one of the 30 year olds here...and I truly don't believe that people my age are doing backflips just to have "Blu-Ray". I mean, hell, when I was in college, I didn't even have the internet and I was sporting a 4K modem on my cadillac of PCs :rolleyes:

Now, I'm a big fan of new technology; however, I believe Sony has been taking a dangerous path. Even the Sony Vaio laptop computer only has a slot for Sony's exclusive "Memory Stick" and no availability for an SD Card slot without having to manually hook up your digital camera or use a separate card reader hooked in via USB.

I love electronics more than any technology...and I always find it baffling when I hook up components to a Sony DLP or LCD set than I cannot get it to work without going into a special settings function. Literally every other TV operates like it's supposed to when hooking up components (like a DVD player, Digital Cable box, etc). Even Sony's Surround Sound Systems don't operate properly without having to go into a special settings menu...it's annoying. Sony's equipment works best with other Sony devices which irritates me.

One thing, though, they do make solid equipment, there's no question. And I do admire Sony for taking risks...even the risk that failed when they came out with Mini Discs...but, that's another ball of wax....

Now, the price point? Honestly, being my age and having a great job makes me easily afford the PS3; however, the price point that Sony has the PS3 will certainly deter a huge populous of gamers even if the average gamer is near my age of 30 years old. In my personal opinion, Microsoft and Nintendo are probably cracking open the champaign with Sony's PS3 price point announcement...but, time will truly tell.

Sure, Blue Ray is innovative; however, the few Sony exclusive titles that we be found on the PS3 may be tough to justify the higher price point. Like Studio-Alex said, about 90% of the games will be multi-platform and will look identical on both the XBox 360 and the PS3.

Also, with Microsoft's impressive XBox Live on-line network, it's going to be pretty tough for Sony to maintain their #1 slot in the console war unless they come out with something similar...and I understand that they're working on it. The other problem is that Sony, for the first time, is following Microsoft's lead...first with the hard-drive and second with on-line gaming.

This is a very interesting console war...and it's great to have multiple consoles from different manufacturers battling it out. With competition like this, gamers are the ones that ultimately win.

[swivel]

Yet another thing to remember is that this price will drop, like they all do. If the majority of the price is the Blu-Ray player, then we will probably see a bigger drop, and sooner, than normal. New player tech has historically come out very expensive, and dropped by half in less than a year. This might let Sony take $100 off by next holiday season, maybe more.

Hopefully, Microsoft will see that the price is a major advantage for them, and drop prices to keep step with Sony. I know they've already talked about planned price drops, but I can't remember if they had a schedule for them or not. I would love to see the Wii come out so affordable, the XBox2 shed $100, and the PS3 to settle in where the XBox2 now resides.

Honestly, this generation of console releases is taking the early-adopter right out of me. I need to slowly work myself back until I'm a full year behind the releases, buy the great games for $20, and get online with the game after the crazy kids have already moved on and taken their trash-talking with them.

[EMX]

600 dollars is outrageous. I'd still like to buy 3 or so and make 10k off of them come Christmas.

[ll Mista GT ll]

600 dollars is outrageous. I'd still like to buy 3 or so and make 10k off of them come Christmas.


That is only if they have shortages though. I bet PS3 will be overflowing in stores.

[vman]

That is only if they have shortages though. I bet PS3 will be overflowing in stores.
a shortage will be hard to predict. but it is possible it can go either way. like the price could be so high that most just collect dust on store shelves or like Sony won't supply as much to the US at first creating a shortage merely because of poor supply.

[odpr]

well Xbox main prob is not the price , or hardware, it is always (and it always was..) the game prob.

now they are turning things s a bit , with GTA, but still most of XBX games are sports, driving, or FPS.. while most of the PS games are all of this and more .... Games like devil may cry,. And ninja games. takken style games Virtual fighters..

Xbox, always had that problem , true it get most of the games, but either late, or the real good ones from any Genre stay with PS..(Like tekken ,and more..)

[swivel]

Well, for all the praising I've been giving Nintendo, I just read that EGM has a launch price for the Wii, and it is $250. This is too much, in my opinion. Every Nintendo system has launced around $200, and I was expecting the same, especially with the lack of HDTV, and less horsepower.

At $250, you could spend $50 more, the cost of one game, and get the much more powerful XBox2. I really hope EGM is wrong about this, because I think the Wii needs to start off at $199, and move down to $149 as soon as possible.

And let's not bring "Inflation" into this discussion. Inflation is almost impossible to account for with technology. Innovation runs far faster than inflation, making tech-based consumer goods run every which way in comparison. Just look at PC hardware for an example.

Still, Balmer's point stands that you could buy a Wii and an XBox2 (core) instead of a single top-end PS3.

I wish that the PS3 would launch in Japan first, and come to the States several months later. That way, Sony could see that nobody is going to buy the crippled system, and release only one system here, in a reverse of what MS did in Japan. If they could release the top-end PS3 here in the states, at $499, they would be golden. And I have a feeling they might be setting up for this with these E3 announcements. I really doubt any of this is set in stone yet.

[mattgame]

That is too much. I won't be getting this one until it's 99 bucks.

[StudioAlex]

I don't have a problem with the 250$ price point as long as the games are good.

[pjh13]

I don't have a problem with the 250$ price point as long as the games are good.

yeah thats my thought too. plus 250 looks great next to 600

[FuNkY mOnK]

It's all about the games for me, I'll wait and see if Sony has anything other then goofy RPGs this time around. Never owned a ps2 for more then a few months and never went back. Bet it will be the same sh-it. Oh and Snake, pull that fcuking trigger already.

[Codefox]

$250 is too much for a system that won't support HD. Sorry but on an HDTV the graphics aren't going to look any better than the current Cube. $199 is better...but for what the Wii offers it should be cheaper.

[Whisper]

Anyone who thinks the 360 will be able to outsell the PS3 is kidding themselves. Not in this universe.

[l Maximus l]

Anyone who thinks the 360 will be able to outsell the PS3 is kidding themselves. Not in this universe.

Honestly, Whisper...sometimes you really confuse the hell out of me...

Would you mind including some arguements that support your blanket statement?

Personally, I think it's going to be an interesting race. While I believe XBox 360 has the advantage of coming out earlier, a better price-tag, a rapidly growing XBox Live user base, and the existence of their on-line gaming service (XBox Live) and all that it has to offer, I believe Sony better come up with something better than a $600 price tag to compete.

90+% of all games will be ported to each system...the exclusive games coupled with the price-tag of the system, will be, I believe, the victor in the console race.

Hell, even Nintendo has a good chance of becoming the #2 console in this next gen race...again, we'll see.

[ShadedNine]

Anyone who thinks the 360 will be able to outsell the PS3 is kidding themselves. Not in this universe.

Anyone who thinks this 'playstation' will be able to outsell the N64 is kidding themselves. Not in this universe.

[J3bus WTF]

Honestly, Whisper...sometimes you really confuse the hell out of me...

Would you mind including some arguements that support your blanket statement?

Personally, I think it's going to be an interesting race. While I believe XBox 360 has the advantage of coming out earlier, a better price-tag, a rapidly growing XBox Live user base, and the existence of their on-line gaming service (XBox Live) and all that it has to offer, I believe Sony better come up with something better than a $600 price tag to compete.

90+% of all games will be ported to each system...the exclusive games coupled with the price-tag of the system, will be, I believe, the victor in the console race.

Hell, even Nintendo has a good chance of becoming the #2 console in this next gen race...again, we'll see.
Yeah so far, the 360 and the Wii looks like they are gonna kick the **** out of the PS3. (Especially the 360, everything you said about the 360 pretty much proves that)

To be honest, I think the Wii could even take it all.:D

[CarGuy]

Things certainly arent looking good for the PS3, that's for sure. I think the XBox had a hell of a chance.

[killerscott]

Swivel did you say that $250 is too much for the wii? Are you mental? You were defending the pricetag on the PS3 for $600 but $250 is too much for the Wii? why does nintendo have to be cheap? You don't think the Wii is worth a little bit more then the gamecube was at launch? I believe the controller and sensor system bumps it up a bit. Take a gamecube from launch time and swap the regular controller with a motion sensored Wii one. I think that it would have gone from $200 to $250.

[swivel]

Swivel did you say that $250 is too much for the wii? Are you mental? You were defending the pricetag on the PS3 for $600 but $250 is too much for the Wii? why does nintendo have to be cheap? You don't think the Wii is worth a little bit more then the gamecube was at launch? I believe the controller and sensor system bumps it up a bit. Take a gamecube from launch time and swap the regular controller with a motion sensored Wii one. I think that it would have gone from $200 to $250.

Am I mental? No, I just have a different opinion as you.

Just because the technology has increased does not mean that the price should. The price should be a reflection of comparative technology. The SNES was much more advanced and powerful than the NES, but they cost the same at launch. That is the nature of tech, it gets cheaper and more powerful at the same time.

When I look at the technology in the XBox2 core system, with its three dual-core 3.2 Ghz procs and that wonderful video technology, with Hi-Def output. And those controllers are no slouches either. When I look at that system and compare it to the Wii, there is no way it is only $50 more advanced.

I'm a huge fan of where Nintendo is headed with their system, but $250 is a lot for a gyroscope, and a lot of experts and industry insiders share my view. So, if you are being funny, please use a smiley or something, otherwise, let's be able to disagree without being rude.

[Ainokeatoo]

I haven't read the thread thoroughly, but if what he says you are true that you are defending the price tag of the PS3 which is 600$ then attack the WII becaouse it went up a measly 50$ you are one of The most idiotic person I have ever met. The price of the PS3 went up 300$ and your worried about 50$ measley dollars? You have got to be kidding me.

[Ainokeatoo]

Anyone who thinks the 360 will be able to outsell the PS3 is kidding themselves. Not in this universe.

You know what I think? I think that the xbox alone would sell more than the PS3.

[swivel]

I haven't read the thread thoroughly, but if what he says you are true that you are defending the price tag of the PS3 which is 600$ then attack the WII becaouse it went up a measly 50$ you are one of The most idiotic person I have ever met. The price of the PS3 went up 300$ and your worried about 50$ measley dollars? You have got to be kidding me.

We haven't really met, have we? Encountered, perhaps?

And you bring up some wonderful points. Well-said. So clear and rational. You must be a really smart person. Attacking me instead of bringing anything new to the discussion.

At least you didn't double-post.

Oh. Oops.

Nevermind.

[ShadedNine]

I don't think $250 is unfair, but it better not get any higher than that unless it comes with a full scale launch title or something. For a console that's only slightly more powerful than an Xbox, which can be had for $200 with at least 1 game, I'd say it's a fair price.

I do have a feeling Nintendo isn't going to take the same kind of loss/console as the others. Using the PS3 as a comparison is more than a little ignorant. That's like whining that Alienware wants $3000 for a laptop when I can get an Acer for $1200.

[swivel]

Using the PS3 as a comparison is more than a little ignorant. That's like whining that Alienware wants $3000 for a laptop when I can get an Acer for $1200.

I don't think anyone in the thread has compared the price/power of the PS3 vs. the Wii. The nice guy above was putting words into my mouth by taking two seperate posts out of context and synthesizing the two, while at the same time admitting that he hasn't really read the thread thoroughly.

I'm with you... the PS3 and the Wii are apples and oranges. For that matter, the $600 PS3 can't even be compared with the $400 XBox2, yet that is what everyone seems to be doing when they talk about the $200 price delta. I only see a $100 price difference between the two systems, because the lower-end PS3 has similar features with the high-end XBox2. Add the ability to play Hi-Def movies, and the two are the same in every way, including price.

So, when people throw out the $600 vs. $250 comparison, my brain clicks off. Like you said, that is like comparing a Porsche with a Pugot. Although, with this analogy, there is a fair chance that the Pugot is going to be more fun to drive, even if it is slower.

[SPARTAN VI]

I honestly don't see what the big deal is. When I was 18 I bought my own car, I bought my $2000+ PC, I bought tons of junk. I'm not saying that $600 is cheap, that's almost half of my two week's pay! It's just.. $600 is close enough to the Xbox360, just throw in a HD-DVD player and you're even-steven.

Personally, I wouldn't mind a PS3.. I love games. Not consoles. Not Microsoft. Not Sony. But I do love my car.

[swivel]

I honestly don't see what the big deal is. When I was 18 I bought my own car, I bought my $2000+ PC, I bought tons of junk. I'm not saying that $600 is cheap, that's almost half of my two week's pay! It's just.. $600 is close enough to the Xbox360, just throw in a HD-DVD player and you're even-steven.

Personally, I wouldn't mind a PS3.. I love games. Not consoles. Not Microsoft. Not Sony. But I do love my car.

I've been saying from the beginning that I would never buy a PS3. Not because of the price, my two video cards each cost $500, but because I'm slightly anti-Sony ever since I bought into Minidisc and got burned. :bang:

However. I'm becoming an avid Guitar Hero junkie. Guitar Hero 2 is going to hold me off for a while, but I'm going wherever this franchise goes. If the XBox2 gets the game and has new songs coming via LIVE, I'm sold. If the PS3 gets it, then I'll buy one in a heartbeat.

I keep making the mistake of thinking that Microsoft of Sony will have anything to do with how well their systems sell. I look at hardware and price and forget that none of that really matters. The games are what makes or breaks a system. I just watched a video of Naughty Dog's next project, and it reminded me that developers like them, and Insomniac, are what make gaming great. And if they only code for the PS3, then I'll end up buying one, even if initially for just a few games.

The same thing happened last generation. I bought a GameCube to get my girlfriend into Animal Crossing, then ended up playing a dozen nice games on the system. I bought my XBox to play Halo, and found several games there that kept me entertained. I spent $2,000 upgrading my PC for Half-Life 2 and another $1,000 two years later for Oblivion.

There is probably no way of avoiding it. I am going to end up with all three consoles once again. I wish there was some way of simplifying my gaming lifestyle, but great exclusives keep gumming up the works.

[vman]

no offense Swivel, but your idea of great exclusives is a little sketch. A game from Insomniac being exclusive to a PS3 wouldn't even make me think twice about getting one. It's just not enought. Now if you argue that you would get a PS3 just to play MGS4, then that's undertandable.

[swivel]

no offense Swivel, but your idea of great exclusives is a little sketch. A game from Insomniac being exclusive to a PS3 wouldn't even make me think twice about getting one. It's just not enought. Now if you argue that you would get a PS3 just to play MGS4, then that's undertandable.

Yeah, I understand. I didn't mean to suggest that Insomniac or Naughty Dog would have the same effect on everyone. Like you suggest, it might be MGS, or Halo, or GTA. My only thought was that there are going to be games exclusive to one system that will force me to own all three eventually. The arguments over the consoles always end up focusing on the three manufacturers, the specs, the price, the online features... etc. But that ignores the fact that one game like Assassins, or another God of War, or a knockout game from Rare, or the best Zelda ever, could make one system look much better than the others.

[ShadedNine]

Well, saying that Microsoft and Sony have nothing to do with it isn't quite accurate, I think you mean to argue that their choices in hardware have nothing to do with it. The companies themselves have a big part to play in bringing the developers to their systems, from building the toolkits to buying out or paying off developers.

As for the 360 and PS3 comparison, it's a little more valid IMO, for the simple fact that the two will share a lot more common titles than the Wii (simply by virtue of the similar hardware specs and controller scheme). For this reason, someone on a tighter budget who can only afford one console has a tougher choice between these two, given that they'll see similar titles on each, which a smattering of exclusives that they may or may not favour on one system or the other. The Wii though, is a whole different beast, with a control setup that, arguably, is better for some titles or genres, but not others. It also offers a more unique game collection as opposed to pairing your 360 with a PS3 (or vice verse). Which explains why the Wii is so popular toted as a superior 'second choice' (though undoubtedly, it will become the first and possibly only choice of a great many people).

One thing's for sure, I'll be putting at least one pre-order down on the Wii, as I'm willing to bet it will become the big holiday item (and i'll probably want one for myself anyway).

[vman]

Yeah, I understand. I didn't mean to suggest that Insomniac or Naughty Dog would have the same effect on everyone. Like you suggest, it might be MGS, or Halo, or GTA. My only thought was that there are going to be games exclusive to one system that will force me to own all three eventually. The arguments over the consoles always end up focusing on the three manufacturers, the specs, the price, the online features... etc. But that ignores the fact that one game like Assassins, or another God of War, or a knockout game from Rare, or the best Zelda ever, could make one system look much better than the others.
ok, lol, you make much more sense now. :)

[swivel]

One thing's for sure, I'll be putting at least one pre-order down on the Wii, as I'm willing to bet it will become the big holiday item (and i'll probably want one for myself anyway).

I was in Target yesterday and there were DS Lites in the showcase. I know these aren't supposed to be out for another 10 days, so I asked the game employee for one, and they just reached in and handed it to me. So I got a couple games to go with it, wrapped it up, and gave it to my girlfriend last night. (It was our one-year anniversary in this house).

The system is unreal-cool. Like the iPod of gaming. She was having a blast with it last night. And it reinforced my feeling that the Wii is going to be a hit with people that don't normally game. The only other three games I have gotten her hooked on have been a DDR-Like dance game that did Hip-Hop instead of techno, Guitar Hero, and Animal Crossing. Two of these have been accessible because of the control device, the last one worked because it wasn't a game, it was a simple sandbox.

The Wii captures both of these ideas. And I see that genius in the DS. She didn't need a manual, and never touched any buttons. Just tapped and drew and blew and spoke into the thing. It was really neat to watch.

So... I agree with you on the Wii, the thing is going to be hot. But I still say that the PS3 pricing is fair and that the Wii needs to come out at $200. Both for much different reasons.

[ShadedNine]

I wouldn't suggest that the PS3's price is unfair, not at all. For the hardware you're getting, it's incredible value.
But I do think Sony is still alienating a sizeable portion of their audience, and this could, if they continue to manufacture PR disasters, cause a cascading effect that will result in lackluster early sales, which will kill developer interest, thus adding the last nail. Not that there's much chance that the console will completely and utterly fail as rapidly as, say, the Sega Saturn (though one of the primary reasons the Saturn failed to pick up any momentum was the price. Sure, it was a pain in the ass to work with, but developers will get through that if there's some promise of sales).

Only time will tell, but I'll wager there's a certain sweet spot in mainstream console pricing, and I think Sony's exceeded it. Turning it into a computer with Lunix isn't going to make it any better. Even if the home-grown game market turns out to be a success, it's not going to draw in any major developers. I also question how 'open' the system will really be...it's still a Sony product.

[swivel]

I hope they phase in the PS3 the same way they did the PS2. I hope it is seen as an upper-tier console, while the PS2 is still getting great games. So far, with big titles like God of War 2 and Guitar Hero 2 coming out for the PS2, it look like this might be the case.

That way, early adopters can spend the premium in money that it takes to jump on board early, and everyone else can continue enjoying their current system, making the transition when the price and game selection are more fair.

That is what happened with most people going from PS1 to PS2. I just hope Sony doesn't do what Microsoft did, and completley abandon the previous console and hope everyone jumps onboard the new one. With their claims of a 10-year life cycle, that doesn't seem to be the case... but it is also foolish to trust these companies when they are spouting rhetoric.

I would like to think that the Next-Gen systems can be expensive for a while without forgetting about the Current-Gen systems. Much like Hi-Def movies will move slowly while DVD's still remain dominant until the tech, standards, and prices mature.

[l Maximus l]

Personally, I believe Blu-Ray could turn out to be another Sony technology that may fail. While the technology is cutting edge, I don't believe that the broad society is going to be ready to adopt it.

I suppose I'm basing these thoughts on the flop that Sony almost swore that it would replace CDs known as the mini-disc.

We'll see. It's difficult to be one of the leaders in cutting edge technology, especially if it's exclusive to one company.

[swivel]

Personally, I believe Blu-Ray could turn out to be another Sony technology that may fail. While the technology is cutting edge, I don't believe that the broad society is going to be ready to adopt it.

I suppose I'm basing these thoughts on the flop that Sony almost swore that it would replace CDs known as the mini-disc.

We'll see. It's difficult to be one of the leaders in cutting edge technology, especially if it's exclusive to one company.

Don't forget that it was Sony (with one other company, I think) that created the CD standard in the first place.

I think Blu-Ray is going to succeed, but not because of the PS3. I think it will be the PC community that makes Blu-Ray a viable technology. There are 8-layer Blu-Ray discs in develpment that hold 200GB of data. When these drives are available for the PC in the $300 dollar range, they are going to take off as a backup and storage medium. Even if these discs are $30-$40 a pop, I will gladly buy them. I just lost 220 GB of data to a hard drive failure because even though I have a dual-layer DVD writer, backing up 8 GB at a time is a headache. We need a larger-capacity optical storage medium.

Already, of the two, it is Blu-Ray poised to make huge inroads in the PC market. It will be the laptops, Sony PC's, and Dell's that come with Blu-Rays built-in that will make this format work.

I think both formats will live side-by-side for a long while. The experts and pundits talked about the battle between DVD-R and DVD+R for a long time, wondering which one would "win out". Both did, as drives just came out that supported both formats. As the technology cheapens, it will make sense for manufacturers to make DVD players that play everything. DVD, SVCD, SACD, Blu-Ray, HD-DVD, DVD-R's, CD-R's, etc... This is what happened last generation. The front of my DVD players are covered with little acronyms like this.

I see the major competitor to Blu-Ray being DVD's, not HD-DVD's. Either both will take hold, or both will fail.

[thatdude222]

600 bucks? i thought the 360 was expensive.....
sorry sony, no games on it interest me enough to warrant spending even 500. WoW can entertain me just as much if not more for only 15 a month. 600/15=40 months. with the cost of ps3 games over 40 months, youre looking at 1000-2000 bucks. MMO's save you money!

[YGB_HaVok]

Ps3 jus got owned haha:watchout:

[SH4MR0CK]

I'm going to buy it, but im not going to use it. Im going to sell it on EBAY the next day. After 360 was released I saw a $400 package going for a grand. I see know reason why PS3 will be any diffrent.

[odpr]

At the beginning I thought that ps3 would kick the XBOX with all the presentation of Sony and so.,
Today I am almost sure that the ps three can say goodbye.

Looking at the graphics of the ps three, I can not see any big difference from the Xbox, I can tell you that I don't see any big difference at all from the old XBOX, but one thing is for sure the difference if exist doesn't worth the money.

I think that surprisingly Wii from Nintendo will win, and will be second after the Xbox, while ps will be last.

It will be interesting October November..

[swivel]

I think that surprisingly Wii from Nintendo will win, and will be second after the Xbox, while ps will be last.


That would be cool. I'm pulling for Nintendo, and I think they will have a huge initial push, because of the price and innovation... but over the next 5 years, the programming will advance, the prices will drop, and the latest and greatest games will be coming out on the PS3 and XBox2. So Nintendo will really need to shoot out of the gates to hold off the coming waves of advancing games.

I could definitely see the order you list shaping up in the States, but right now it looks like Japan will see a Wii / PS3 / XBox2 ordering. So it will depend on the strengths of those markets, and how the European and Australian markets go to determine the overall numbers leader.

Of course, that is the fanboy battle, the test of consoles sold. The real reason these companies do this is to make money. And right now, Nintendo is sweeping the floor with both Microsoft AND Sony. The graphical proweress that may one day be the advantage of their systems has required huge R&D costs and manufacturing outlay. Financially, Sony and MS will bludgeon each other to death, and Nintendo will continue making money. And this is the real battle, not the fanboy junk.

[othervoice1]

I dont think there will be a large difference if any between graphics on both systems- what you may run into is a final fantasy large game that you may need to use 4 disks to play on the 360 when you can use just one disk for the ps3 which to me is no big deal. To be honest to get a blu-ray player plus 60gb harddrive for 600.00 is a pretty good deal- i dont have that money but it is a good deal considering paying 400.00 for a 360 with just 20gb harddrive and just play regular dvds. the 500.00 deal with 20gb harddrive is stupid you might as well get the 600.00 package- kinda like with the 360's- kinda dumb to buy one without a hardrive for 300.00 when you can get the harrdrive and wireless controller ect for 400.00. I still think blu-ray will lose the battle against hd-dvd discs but who knows- im happy with my 360 and dont have any desire to play blu-ray discs so im sticking with what i got- that is if my every single sports game i buy will stop freezing on me even though im on my 2nd 360........

[DOOM]

Sony can Suck It!
;)

[Whisper]

Blu Ray is having so much trouble getting off the ground.. can this price stick.. and more imporantly.. can PS3 get out a perfect system by the time they want to?

[swivel]

Microsoft just announced that their HD-DVD player add-on will cost $200.

I know Sony-Bashers will never stop having fun with the price of the PS3, but if you put an XBox + High-Def player together, you will pay the same dough as a PS3 that has a larger HD, HDMI out, and free online service.

The PS3 might suck, and developers don't seem too keen on it so far. It might be expensive to develop for, the CPU might be slower than anticipated, the rumble is gone, many "exclusives" are now cross-platform games, and the Wii is getting more buzz. There is plenty wrong with the PS3 and Sony's future.

But I just don't see the price being one of them. If you buy the only XBox worth buying, and want to have the ability to upgrade to High-Def movies... you are paying $600 for a clunky two-piece solution that doesn't allow games to have the same 50GB capacity, rather than paying $600 for an all-in-one unit.

And people have been gobbling up iPods that cost over $300 for years now. And that is just a glorified walkman.

Let's make sure we bash Sony for their true problems, because price just isn't one of them.

[killerscott]

its a good price for somone looking for a Blueray player, but a bad price for a gamer. Xbox has em beat there because I think a gamer would rather be cheap now and upgrade later. (just like is happening with the xbox360). It's all about the options, and sony sucks.