backtop


Print 107 comment(s) - last by Trisped.. on May 15 at 6:15 PM


Sony's Ken Kutaragi
$499 and $599 is "probably too cheap"

Adding more fuel to the PlayStation 3 fire, Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. (SCEI) president Ken Kutaragi is not only defending the PS3's high price of entry, but he says that it's not expensive enough. The PS3 is priced at $499 for the basic version with a 20GB hard drive, no HDMI output, no WiFi and no media reader. The $599 version comes with a 60GB hard drive and all of the trimmings.

Kutaragi goes on to explain his position concerning the price of the PS3, "For instance, is it not nonsense to compare the charge for dinner at the company cafeteria with dinner at a fine restaurant? It's a question of what you can do with that game machine. If you can have an amazing experience, we believe price is not a problem."

If $499 and $599 is considered to be "too cheap," then it would be difficult to detemine what seems reasonable as XBOX 360 costs under $300 and the Nintendo Wii may retail for a mere $200.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Cheeky bugger
By Cunthor01 on 5/13/06, Rating: 0
RE: Cheeky bugger
By ChristopherO on 5/13/06, Rating: 0
RE: Cheeky bugger
By ChristopherO on 5/13/06, Rating: 0
RE: Cheeky bugger
By sxr7171 on 5/13/2006 1:16:30 PM , Rating: 1
Those people would do well to program nice creative games for the console that basically everyone wants to buy this time around for its low price and unique experience.

To me this is make or break for the console industry.

This is when we tell them whether we are stupid pawns who will pay anything for the same old shit rehashed again and again. Or whether are smart enough to want something that excites us and shows us something we haven't seen before.

This Playstation mentality has resulted in a stagnation of real creativity and progress in console gaming since everyone wanted to compete with it by trying to beat it at it's own game but failed.

This time one console has gone back to its roots and has had the courage to break free and go back to what we love about console games. Hopefully this will change the course console gaming to the point that no company will take gamers for granted as they have for a decade.


RE: Cheeky bugger
By caboosemoose on 5/13/2006 6:24:12 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with most of your points except the cost of a high end video chip. High end video chips are huge (typicaly much larger transistor counts than CPUs for example) and made in relatively small numbers. Obviously official numbers aren't released, but I think even at $499 or $599 ATI and NVIDIA may be losing money on them. They're halo products that exist purely to make the rest of the range look good and may well be loss leaders.

What's more - even if they do make some money on them (perhaps towards the end of the life cycle) they sell in such pitifully small numbers compared with the mass market low end cards....


RE: Cheeky bugger
By xsilver on 5/13/2006 10:56:37 AM , Rating: 2
i tend to disagree
if you're reffering only to the chip maker and not the board makers

yes the chip is larger in die size but it is still pennies compared to the wafer size /cost ratio.
the reason high end cards are $499/599 now is that people are STUPID enough to pay that much -- economics 101 -- supply/demand...
you know demand is low -- so only produce low supply; jack up the prices to compensate for lack of volume and keep going until demand starts to drop -- which it hasnt so that's why the prices keep rising.

granted, high end cards still dont make as much profits as mainstream cards purely due to volume and economical die sizes.


RE: Cheeky bugger
By ChristopherO on 5/13/2006 1:42:31 PM , Rating: 2
The chip for the Xbox 360 (which is strikingly similar to an X1900, but slightly more powerful due to the EDRAM and inclusion of memory controller and other chipset functions) costs (drum roll please) ~$141 (BOM tear-down estimates by iSupply).

Board manufacturing (and components of DRAM) are pretty much always cheaper than the chipset.

As a result, the manufacturing cost of a top end video card probably doesn't exceed the high $100s or at worst very low $200s. I can't be certain, but I'd be willing to bet a large lunch at a drive up window, that the newest and best video cards could be sold for $249 and still net the manufacturers a profit.


RE: Cheeky bugger
By ChristopherO on 5/13/2006 2:38:48 PM , Rating: 2
I forgot to say. They are not loss leaders. The profit margins are *huge*. Just read the annual statements from the respective companies. Both graphics companies freely admit a huge portion of their income comes from the limited number of high-end cards. The huge volume of low-end stuff doesn't equal the profit of the small number of high-end boards. I don't know if the price reflects a 100% markup, but they are making a killing.


RE: Cheeky bugger
By rocchioo on 5/13/2006 11:52:32 AM , Rating: 2
PS2 came out in 2000. DVD wasn't mainstream at that point. You have no idea what you are talking about.


RE: Cheeky bugger
By MrPickins on 5/13/2006 12:45:13 PM , Rating: 2
Good call.

IIRC when the PS2 came out, dvd players were still in the $250-300 range, and very few people I knew had them. Then came the Ps2 at a similar price point that not only played dvd's, but killer games too. Many pople I know (including myself) used the PS2 as their first dvd player.

Sure dvd playes had been around for years, but still they had little mainstream market penetration.


RE: Cheeky bugger
By ChristopherO on 5/13/06, Rating: 0
RE: Cheeky bugger
By sxr7171 on 5/13/2006 2:00:55 PM , Rating: 2
$999 if you ask me with the shortage they will have.


RE: Cheeky bugger
By sxr7171 on 5/13/2006 1:59:23 PM , Rating: 2
By the time PS2 shipped in any real quantities DVD players were $150-200 at the low end. So they were at least in the process of being assimilated. Here we an unknown quantity being pushed down people's throats.

DVD came out in 1997 and PS2 shipped in quantity in 2001. By that time DVD drives were a +80 option on computers.


RE: Cheeky bugger
By mxzrider2 on 5/14/2006 3:02:41 AM , Rating: 2
dvds were introduced in 94. but hte prices were in tha range in 2k


RE: Cheeky bugger
By ChristopherO on 5/14/2006 1:13:52 PM , Rating: 2
No they weren't. March of 1997 (November 96 in Japan). Toshiba released the first two players. They were the SD-2006 at $499 and SD-3006 at $799. The SD-2006 and 3006 were identical except the higher model added component out. Neither of the players included DTS or could do progressive output (480p). Those features came later.


RE: Cheeky bugger
By cbs9646 on 5/13/2006 1:55:33 AM , Rating: 2
I think you meant to say not expensive enough instead of "not cheap enough" Cunthor01.


True.
By Cunthor01 on 5/13/2006 2:42:31 AM , Rating: 2
My bad there.


RE: Cheeky bugger
By Kamus on 5/13/06, Rating: 0
RE: Cheeky bugger
By Burning Bridges on 5/13/2006 6:51:31 AM , Rating: 2
I see you are from the future and have played MGS4?

Cool, so, when can I buy flux capacitors from my local supermarket?

Seriously, it could be terrible, and if you are willing to spend that much money to just play one game, then you don't have any real idea of the amount of money you are spending.


RE: Cheeky bugger
By Spoonbender on 5/13/2006 6:53:01 AM , Rating: 2
So, one game for $600? It had better be the game to end all games. Are you going to play it every day, for the rest of your life?

And no, I don't think it's *that* amazing. Sure, it's a nice franchise, and the gameplay isn't *bad*, but I wouldn't say it's as unique as you make it. I'd just as soon play Halo 3 or a new Mario game.


RE: Cheeky bugger
By Lakku on 5/13/2006 11:53:35 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, it's called Splinter Cell Double Agent. It should be as pretty or close enough to the movies (no gameplay has been shown yet) of MGS4 to keep it competative in that aspect (graphics). But lets face it, MGS is lame unless you like carrying unlimited weapons and having an anime experience, of which there are better games for doing that. It has nothing on Splinter Cell unless you don't like the real world or the idea of conspiracies or things that, while very remote, COULD actually happen. Yeah, so, in the end, Splinter Cell is a much better game experience then MGS, SC actually has good voice acting, and Sam Fisher could destory snake in a heartbeat (pure opinion, but who do you take, a guy who sounds like a whiny girl (snake) or a deep, gruffy, dry humored bad ass?).


it's true
By BillyBatson on 5/13/2006 4:24:11 AM , Rating: 2
I don't care what anyone says, i believe that the PS3 is worth the $600 if not MUCH more!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Will it be or is it worth paying that much? probably NOT! I am going with a Wii myself. Think about it though a Blu-Ray dvd play with 1 HDMI 1080p player alone will most likelt debut at OVER $600!!!!!!! On top of that throw in the mobo, the expensive cpu, the expensive gpu, ram, wifi, card reader, controller, cables, HDD, and anything else the PS3 will come with and it is worth a LOT more. It is the right price, that price just happens to be too expensive for a console. If this was a PC everyone would be amazed at how cheap it is for all its specs.




RE: it's true
By Spinne on 5/13/2006 4:59:06 AM , Rating: 2
Console manufacturers don't expect the sale of the console itself to make them money, they count on the sales of games to make them the money, since you'd look pretty stupid if you had a nice shiny new console but no games to play on it.
I don't see why I need to spend $600 on a standalone BD player when I can spend the same $600 on a PC BD drive. Convergence is key!!!


RE: it's true
By BillyBatson on 5/13/2006 5:43:27 AM , Rating: 2
yes i am aware of this but how much money are they to lose on the console before you are willing to buy it? You should be glad the comapnies are willing to lose any money at all. Hell why not give away the consoles for free and hope you sell a lot more games? How many games would each person need to purchase then before Sony started getting back in the Black due to free console giveaways? Why not give them free and have everyoen sign a contract forcing you to buy a minimum amount of games a year would you be happy then? Why doesn't Dell sell their computers at a loss so software companies can make more money?
The fact is at $600 sony is sitll losing money on the PS3 in hopes to sell games, the product is worth more. It is a better console hardware wise and costs more to make than the Xbox360 therefor it costs more. You wouldn't sell a Lexus (ps3) at the Toyota (xbox360) price just to compete.


RE: it's true
By kelmon on 5/13/2006 6:54:33 AM , Rating: 3
Blimey! It comes to something when the 360 can be described as Toyota priced. One of the principal reasons why I didn't buy a 360 is because I consider it too expensive for what you get. Given this there is no way on this earth that I would pay the money for a PS3. I like new technology but I'm not going to pay early-adopter prices, particularly in this range, for something that really isn't much different to what I already have. The Wii is probably where my money will go this time around since its price looks to be much more affordable and it should be considerably different to what I already have.

When my requirements are simply to be able to play fun games in my living room I fail to see why I should need to spend the levels of money that Sony and, to a degree, Microsoft are asking for. As a consumer I don't think that Sony understands me and they are charging me for things that I don't want.


RE: it's true
By BillyBatson on 5/13/2006 7:08:07 AM , Rating: 2
Very intelligent response. While the xbox360 and PS3 are techniclaly different from what you have they do the same things that your current console does for what you will be doing with it where as the Wii is different enough to peak peoples interests enough to give it a try.
You are also correct in saying that Sony does not understand you or your needs. To simply play games in your living room. If they did away with the card reader, HDMI (and possivle HD output all together), and all the other extras including the BD drive?! you would have a MUCH cheaper console but just as powerful with the exact same graphics. However, just like Microsoft, they are banking on the idea that people will want more than just gaming in their living rooms they will want a Home Entertainment System and THAT is what the console is built for and THAT is why it costs so much. Still comes down to the fact that the console is worth the $600, but it is like being fored to buy a Dell XPS $8000 quad nvidia machine when all you need is a $1100 version with only 1 vidcard and nearly everything else the same.


RE: it's true
By MrPickins on 5/13/2006 1:08:20 PM , Rating: 2
Dropping HDTV resolutions would be the death of any of the new consoles. Belive it or not, HDTV's are becoming MUCH more prevalent, mainly due to lower prices on sets. The trend should do nothing but continue in the future.

And as far as the graphics being the same without HD res, try adjusting the resolution of your favorite game down to 640x480 (standard tv res). Looks crappy, huh? Now imagine that signal interlaced, so you effectively lose 1/2 the pixel data in any one frame.

Now try setting your resolution to 1280x720 or 1920x1080 (although the latter would be interlaced as well), and the difference will be large.

There is a reason that pc gamers are always trying to bump up the resolution, what I can't figure out is why you would want to drop it down. O.o


RE: it's true
By BillyBatson on 5/13/2006 7:51:12 PM , Rating: 2
I don't want to drop it down, i want to bump it up as mcuch as i can and that was my point, that the PS3 can do 1080p! while i heard (but not sure if it is true) at the xbox360 handled 720p but either doesn't support, or doesn't support well, 1080i. Even if this is not true, it still does nto support 1080p! Yet another reason why the PS2 SHOULD cost more, at least more than the xbox360.
I myself have a 42" Pioneer Plasma 1080i which i hope to swap out to a 50" 1080p Plasma by this time next year


RE: it's true
By sxr7171 on 5/13/2006 2:11:39 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah but by the time you can actually one for $600 which will be next April home BD players will be $300. Good luck getting a PS3 for less than $999 until then.


Sony is targeting early-adopters, not consumers.
By animedude on 5/13/2006 1:15:24 PM , Rating: 2
Sony is targeting early adopters and most of them are loyal fans . The fact is Sony sold 103 million PS2 (roughly 60 unique million owners). Sony is only targeting 7%-10% of these loyal fans and early adopters. These early adopters are mostly in Japan, and they are willing to pay $599--accept the truth, Japanese ain't cheapo like American. Japanese are willing to pay a premium for quality.

Conclusion: PS3 is going to be sold out. Sony's home base is Japan, not US. Ever heard of nationalism?




By viciouswar on 5/13/2006 1:20:46 PM , Rating: 2
word...


By CKDragon on 5/13/2006 2:53:09 PM , Rating: 2
Call me crazy, but the US is a bit of an important market.

Ask Nintendo how much they've enjoyed keeping their Japan market share high and losing ground in the US with their Gamecube and N64...

Judging by how it seems that Sony's whole company is dependant on Blu-ray/PS3's success, I can't imagine that they can afford to lose much ground in the US market.

CK


By animedude on 5/13/2006 9:56:07 PM , Rating: 2
I am not saying US is not important, in fact it is the most important market. I am just saying price is not a factor for initial release. If Sony can beat Nintendo at home base then Sony will have a very high chance of winning the console war. Anything sells in Japan will sell in the world. Japanese are the most picky consumers in the world. I know XBOX did not sell in Japan but in US, but you have to factor in the types of game XBOX is selling to the Japanese. Japanese gamers don't like to hold a gun and run around and shoot.


By peternelson on 5/13/2006 3:23:33 PM , Rating: 2

IF I buy a x360 and ALSO buy a X360 HD-DVD drive add on, I see little difference from the cost of a PS3.

Therefore what is the big deal, are you also saying Microsoft is overpriced?

I think at launch people will be willing to pay more than these prices (eg ebay) to get hands on this gear.

Also these consoles will actually PLAY HD disk content, whereas virtually all pc graphics cards to date have shipped without the necessary HDCP keys and thus will not show the content, even with Vista.


RE: People Not getting it
By ViperROhb34 on 5/13/2006 5:29:07 PM , Rating: 2
Sony invented Blu-ray

MS didn't invent HD-DVD.


At anytime MS can pay a lisc fee to have Blu-Ray Addon just as it has HD-DVD. Because MS is solely supporting Toshiba's HD-DVD format now doesn't mean much, compared to Sony who has MUCH more to lose if its format fails - P3 sales are slow - they affect one another. Sony almost needs P3 sales to be good to push Blu-ray.

MS doesnt need HD-DVD saes to be good to push its addon !!


By wuZheng on 5/13/2006 3:27:11 PM , Rating: 2
Of course the PS3 is going to be sold out, the components are are all custom (with the exception of the RSX, its just a G71 modded for PS3 circuit board). Those components are not found elsewhere and inherently will be expensive and difficult to mass produce and put together in a product for the global mass market. Your argument is spot on, but who cares if Sony only makes and sells a few million units world wide on the first day while the competition gets 10x more units out. Nuff said.


By animedude on 5/13/2006 9:47:44 PM , Rating: 2
Price will drop in 12 months to accommodate the consumers, but initial release is targeted at early adopters not consumers(first stage of the product cycle). If PS3 stands as its reputations then it will sell.

"Those components are not found elsewhere and inherently will be expensive and difficult to mass produce"

Only Blue-Ray and Cell are inhouse and they are contracted out. If Sony is crazy enough, they can contract the manufacturing of blue ray to the Chinese manufacturers and focus its resouces on manufacturing more Cell processors. It is all or nothing gamble for Sony. So I think Sony would do anything to hold the crown.

And the guy at the bottom is right, $600 is not a whole lot when you have a job and without a family.


Let the consumer decide
By bribud on 5/13/2006 9:08:07 AM , Rating: 2
The PS3 is too robust. I say let the consumer decide what capabilities they need. I think Microsoft made a good decision to include HD-DVD as a separate piece instead of including it with the main unit. This keeps costs down for the average joe if they simply want a pure gaming system. If the consumer wants HD-DVD functionality with their 360, then they can buy this separately to fill their need. This keeps the cost down so you won't be paying for something you may never use. I think Sony forcing the consumer blu-ray technology shows too much arrogance on their part. They are making some pretty bold decisions that may not pan out. Ever heard of betamax?




RE: Let the consumer decide
By sxr7171 on 5/13/2006 2:28:02 PM , Rating: 3
Ever heard of Compact Disc? Tell me when a format backed by Sony, Philips and Matsushita has ever failed. I hate Sony as much as anyone, but Blu-Ray is definitely superior to HD-DVD (unless you prefer overly compressed garbage video).


RE: Let the consumer decide
By ChristopherO on 5/13/2006 3:48:25 PM , Rating: 2
Hate to tell you this, but HD-DVD/Blu-Ray use roughly the same compression technology, they are encoded at the exactly same resolution (1080p), and HD-DVD has an easier to create interactive layer.

The primary difference is the size of each layer, and even that doesn't matter since you can put roughly 6 hours of HD video (and all the audio formats) on a dual layer HD-DVD and use the same compression/quality settings as the Blu-Ray disc.

Unfortunately, the first-gen HD-DVD players are little more than HTPCs rushed to market to beat Blu-Ray. The next wave will be better integrated and offer full 1080p, etc.

Also, another advantage... The licensing fees of HD-DVD are less than Blu-Ray. In other words, studios could sell the HD-DVD discs cheaper (if they were so inclined, but they have no motivation to do so).


RE: Let the consumer decide
By ChristopherO on 5/13/2006 3:50:33 PM , Rating: 2
PS on my last comment. Philips developed CD. Sony and Panasonic were two of the first companies to market their own player.

It's like Blu-Ray. Sony developed it, and Panasonic and others will come out with players, but they really had virtually nothing to do with the format other than some specification meetings to make sure they weren't backed into a corner.


RE: Let the consumer decide
By sxr7171 on 5/13/2006 11:29:07 PM , Rating: 2
Sony and Philips co-developed the Compact Disc and everyone was on board most importantly Matsushita.

Blu-Ray was also co-developed Sony and Philips and also had Matsushita on board and also very importantly today - Samsung.

What major consumer electronics company is making HD-DVD products other than Toshiba? Yeah NEC and Sanyo. Who cares about those two?

The rest of the comsumer electronics industry is behind Blu-Ray. It is that kind of backing that made CD so successful. ..and don't tell me they are scared of Microsoft and Intel who make no players of at all.

As for compression, I don't think you know that compression ratios are variable and higher bit-rates supported by Blu-Ray yield better video. If you want to see terrible pixelated, artifacted HD video, just look at what comes out of HD cable boxes - terrible.

Blu-Ray players will be capable of 72 Mbits/sec which HD-DVD is not capable of. You need that for minimal video compression and playback of multi-channel lossless audio. HD-DVD will not be capable of those sorts of experiences. So why go so half-assed about upgrading DVD with HD-DVD? We'll have to live with whatever we choose for 7 years at a minimum.


RE: Let the consumer decide
By ChristopherO on 5/14/2006 3:28:05 AM , Rating: 2
I know about compression. In fact, most studios will be using identical video material for both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray (studio discretion of course and could vary movie to movie as they "tinker"). Perhaps there is a theoretical advantage to Blu-Ray, but those bit rates will more than likely never be used. I'd go so far to say that no one will be able to tell the difference between HD-DVD and Blu-Ray once both camps have comparable 1080p hardware available.

The downside of Blu-Ray is that managed copy is not mandatory (HD media servers/libraries are more feasible on HD-DVD), and the interactive layer is Java based, which isn't as easy to work with as the HD-DVD camp's interactive solution. Additionally Sony charges higher royalties, which in the end means less money for American studios and/or higher priced movies for the end-user (if consumers have to spend the money, I'd rater it end up in Southern California than overseas -- they feel that way about video games, only fair for me to feel that way about our production facilities). As far as I can tell, the only upside is that they could stick more episodes on Blu-Ray TV compilations.

As for CD, the work began at Philips circa 1970, and the prototype was ready in 1979. Sony "partnered" with Philips in 1979 and that partnership lasted until 1981. The vast majority of the work was already accomplished by Philips. The standard development was still in Philips' hands. Sony suggested a few changes (120mm disc, 16-bit, RS error correction), which Philips accepted, but they also declined others (different sample rates). I wouldn't go so far as to say "co-development". Perhaps that's the marketing term they used to explain Sony's defraying development costs in exchange for discounted licensing.


RE: Let the consumer decide
By peternelson on 5/13/2006 3:15:54 PM , Rating: 2
"Let consumer decide what capabilities they need"

No, consumers make irrational choices.

Sony are absolutely right to ship a HARD DRIVE with every PS3.

By shipping without HD, microsoft have ensured games writers can't assume it is available and thus will be used less. That will mean optical drives will suffer more access than if content were on HD.

IMO that will lead to reduced lifetime/more returns of x360 optical drive versus PS3 problems. Right move Sony.

As for blu-ray, well if your games are shipping on bluray media they may be harder to pirate than a dvd based format for the 360, so it may be in Sony's interest to use it. Also the bluray will have more room for having proper full video-based cutscenes in games which could benefit from that. eg murder mystery game etc.

By making these features standard on every console, it means they can be used without fear of not running on a low spec machine. This is one reason I think I may enjoy the content more even though I pay more to obtain the platform.


Analysis
By Spinne on 5/13/2006 4:53:49 AM , Rating: 3
Lets do a very quick and dirty cost benefit analysis for owning a high end PC v/s a console. The end objective is to enjoy the best possible gaming experience per dollar. The analysis is for us Anandtech readers who aren't terrribly nervous about folling around inside their PCs. Lets look at rough useful lifetime figures (based on my experience) for computer components.
Case+PSU = 4 years
CPU+Mobo = ~ 2.5 years
RAM = 2.5 years
GPU = 2 years
APU = 3.5 years
HDDs = 4.5 years
Monitor = 4 years
I think I've covered all the most expensive and critical components here. So the conclusion is that a new PC is mandatory after roughly 4 years, with a CPU+Mobo+GPU+RAM change comming in at roughly 2 years to stay in the high end segment. A console on the other hand has a projected lifetime of 4-5 years as well. However - and this is the important part - the console gaming experience is supersceded roughly 6 months to a year into it's lifetime!!! My 1900XT GPU is roughly equivalent to the XBox 360 GPU, judging by NFS: MW screens. It may be a little worse or a little better, but the difference is too small to tell by a cursory glance. The next generation of DX10 GPUs will make the XBox360 GPU obsolete, judging by past performance trends wherein we see a rough 1.75X - 2X performance jump between GPU generations. Factor in the cost of buying a HDTV and $50-$60 per game and the console looks very unattractive since if you can afford a good HDTV and console and games, you can afford a high end PC every two years or maybe even every year (I'm on the bottom of the pay rung as a Physics grad student, but I still think it's possible for me to upgrade a GPU or CPU every year easily). The only thing a console has going for it IMO, is that you can sit around the TV with your friends and play your games while getting progressively more drunk, which is not as much fun as getting drunk alone while gaming online.




RE: Analysis
By some1whoknows on 5/13/2006 5:01:28 AM , Rating: 2
I can see that the PS3 is worth quite a lot of cash in sheer component value and I'm sure it's very fast. A lot faster than a $600 PC for sure but the reason a lot of people are complaining about the price here I think is great. It shows they have crossed a line that all but the rich and fan boys will not cross. This of course will reflect in their sales and if they want to compete with the 360 and make money on games and BD software then they will have to lower it.

I know they lost a lot of money on making the PS3 but it doesn't look like they are preparing to make as much of a loss as MS did with the 360. I think the biggest mistake Sony have made is to think the average person or parent buying for their kids is going to shell out $600 (or in the case of Europe even more) for a console easily. Does the PS3 look better than the 360?... Yes but not much in the game department so what's left? The BD drive and 1080p, HDMI etc. Ok that interests me but I don't think that will swing it with the rest of the 10 million consumers they'll need to quash the 360

I do hope that BD will force HD-DVD out though and the PS3 (if the price comes DOWN!!) could do that. As consumers we need faith in a format to invest which means 1 must win and quickly. I don't like Sony and thier policy on bringing out their own formats and I'm sorry HD-DVD but you just don't look as good as BD does so please go away.


RE: Analysis
By Spoonbender on 5/13/2006 6:58:04 AM , Rating: 2
You mean except for the fact that the PS3 is actually priced like most PC's? Not everyone buys $1500 PC's with the latest and greatest SLI graphics.
The PS3 is fast, yes, in specialized areas. if you want to do DSP, encode movies or *maybe* play games. If you want to run Word, Firefox or any other regular program, it might, with luck, be as fast as a mid-range P3. In other words, a $600 PC would be faster at these things.

And I hope Blu-Ray fails miserably. I don't want a format that does nothing more than stuff copy protection down my throat. I don't want a format where Sony is in charge of what I can watch, and how many times.

As for HD-DVD? Why doesn't it look as good? Lower storage capacity? Who cares? Both have plenty of space for HD movies or at least a dozen games. On top of that, it's cheaper, and *slightly* less DRM-infected.


RE: Analysis
By some1whoknows on 5/13/2006 10:40:39 AM , Rating: 2
Uncompressed HD video is huge so on large next gen HDTVs the less compression you use the better, think of superbit DVDs. The Uncompressed Dolby soundtracks, extras and multiple tracks will also add up so no I don't think 15GB per layer is enough. BDs 25GB per layer (up to 8 layers) is much more apealing. On top of that BD is already getting much better backing regauardless of being more expensive to process and that can't be because it's no good. I think the studios are planning ahead for once and taking the better option

HD-DVD forces the same DRM (HDCP) down the consumers throats as Blue-Ray does so I don't know what your point is there. I also don't know why you're comparing it to a PC. Why would the PS3 be less powerful than a $600 PC? and what has the lack of people buying $1500 SLI PCs got to do with the PS3?


RE: Analysis
By stephenbrooks on 5/13/2006 4:40:39 PM , Rating: 2
--[The only thing a console has going for it IMO, is that you can sit around the TV with your friends and play your games while getting progressively more drunk, which is not as much fun as getting drunk alone while gaming online.]--

...which makes me wonder why one can't grab a few USB gamepads and connect your PC to a larger screen (e.g. your TV) and get the same effect for less $. I'm not sure if modern games are designed to support multiple gamepad inputs (the old-style multiplayer as opposed to network play) but otherwise it should work.

In fact I guess that means that anyone here who has a "gaming"-level PC shouldn't really be interested in consoles at all, theoretically at least. Which means consoles must be aimed at a cheaper segment who might not have good PCs... so I don't know where something costing $600 would fit in.


RE: Analysis
By Spinne on 5/14/2006 4:09:19 AM , Rating: 2
I ment that it is a helluva lot more fun getting drunk with friends, not the other way around. We really do need an edit button.


By Snuffalufagus on 5/13/2006 6:05:07 AM , Rating: 2
I don't condone Ebayers who take advantage of certain situations, and there may not be a shortage, but there are some slimy Ebayers out there and there are some pretty dedicated sony fans out there so I'm wondering what the breaking point might be.
I bet $1200 no problem. Hell, I think we'll see bundles at retailers higher than this, full accessory pack, FFantasy current release, X-Men3 (if out by then) on Blue Ray, and a few random titles peppered in will go higher than $1000. $1800 for a few on ebay, a few might be breaking $2,000, I wonder if it'll get much more higher than that.




By Snuffalufagus on 5/13/2006 6:10:11 AM , Rating: 2
Argh that's embarrasing. PRICE.


By BillyBatson on 5/13/2006 7:19:35 AM , Rating: 2
i think it will go much higher. Xbox360 first 2 weeks of launch was going for $1600 for the $500 version WITHOUT a bundle. $1800-2000 with, and seeing as sony's console is more expensive starting out and despite the negative press of late will command far more $$$. Only question is availability and stock at launch that will determine how high prices will go


By CKDragon on 5/13/2006 2:45:33 PM , Rating: 3
There was no $500 version of the Xbox 360. At launch, the premium edition was $400 and the core was $300. Of course, the bundles caused everything to go haywire.

I'm not speaking of you in particular, but I think there are some Sony revisionists trying to run around and yell about the false $500 number. I remember the other day that troll SunAngel was one of them.

CK


RE: SO what will be the highest 'buy it now' rice?
By Griswold on 5/13/2006 9:53:39 AM , Rating: 2
Whats wrong with ripping off those who want to be the first kid on the block to have a PS3? I say, more power to them! Milk them like a fat cow.

Sony fan or not, common sense should keep the upper hand here and if it doesnt, prepare to fork over the $$$.


By sxr7171 on 5/13/2006 2:19:12 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. This is why live in a capitalistic society.


Bad Sony! Down
By Aisengard on 5/13/2006 1:24:36 AM , Rating: 3
Bwahaha

Here begins the downfall of Sony and their arrogance.

I already know the cost for an amazing experience. It's $200. Better step up Sony, because you're looking a lot like that overpriced cafeteria meal.




RE: Bad Sony! Down
By Duwelon on 5/13/2006 6:53:12 AM , Rating: 3
Ah the over demanding consumer. If you'd care to notice, the graphics chip alone is probably worth a $300-400 video card in a PC. I agree with the Sony man, the hardware is definately worth more than $600. That's not to say that I'm excited that consoles cost $500+ these days...


RE: Bad Sony! Down
By AnnihilatorX on 5/13/2006 7:36:03 AM , Rating: 2
As I mentioned before I ain't worry about the price of the console. It's 1 time investment. Game prices are the thing that hurts


RE: Bad Sony! Down
By Aisengard on 5/13/06, Rating: 0
RE: Bad Sony! Down
By OvErHeAtInG on 5/13/2006 12:58:31 PM , Rating: 2
What would be a better alternative? To sell the system for $299/399 like the Xbox360, loose millions probably billions? The system costs over 600 to produce (Blu-ray & Cell are most expensive components, then the graphics chip BTW). There are rich people who will pay this price, I'm not one of them, but this system is intended to have a far longer product cycle than the XB360. Like the poster above said, whawt really turns me off is the $60 price of games, which is the same for XB360.


RE: Bad Sony! Down
By joust on 5/14/06, Rating: 0
RE: Bad Sony! Down
By sxr7171 on 5/13/06, Rating: 0
Sony stuck with Blu-ray, Xbox360 either format
By ViperROhb34 on 5/13/06, Rating: 0
By UsernameX on 5/15/2006 11:34:13 AM , Rating: 2
Ok, so the PS3 is really made for and HD experience, but isn't the system capable of being played on a non-hd TV? Aside from it being a blu-ray machine for the most part, it does serve as a standard dvd player as well so you can still play all of your movies for the time being. If blu-ray does fail, which the way it is shaping up I highly doubt it will, isn't sonys machine capable of having an external hd-dvd player installed on it too?

Although concerning price tags, Sony president really did make a valid comment. Realisticly the system could probably sell upwards of a $1000. $600 dollars is a high tag, sure, but they aren't ripping us off either. Games, well we can all bash about their high price tag too, but A LOT of work goes into these things. Props to the programmers for there long nights and tireless efforts to bring us such a market. A lot of people here rant and complain about spending $60 dollars for something that you can potentialy get much more back from entertainment value.


Sony has become emo.
By wuZheng on 5/13/06, Rating: 0
RE: Sony has become emo.
By killerroach on 5/13/2006 2:39:42 AM , Rating: 2
First off, the rootkit wasn't Sony's, it was made by a British firm (First4Internet) and then put on the album by Sony's BMG division (which is German-based). I think it's just more coincidence that so many disparate divisions are cracking up all at once than anything conspiratorial.

But, as I've said prior, making fun of Sony has replaced making fun of EA in the minds of many gamers. But they'll still probably shell out the money for Sony's products anyways. As for me, I'm probably going to stick with PC gaming for quite some time to come, but don't see how the PS3 is a flawed console because of its price any more than how one could claim the Wii is a flawed console because of its seeming overreliance on that remote control thingy that exudes equal parts "freaking cool" and "freaking weird"...


RE: Sony has become emo.
By Nekrik on 5/13/2006 2:57:23 AM , Rating: 2
Your right about the rootkit info you state, but Sony was well aware it was there and installing on peoples systems without their consent, so ahh, I say screw em :).


RE: Sony has become emo.
By Nekrik on 5/13/2006 3:02:34 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, and their attempt to remove the rootkit made I nice nasty hole for attackers, that was pretty sweet too.


RE: Sony has become emo.
By akugami on 5/13/2006 2:58:05 AM , Rating: 2
Not to jump on the anti Sony bandwagon but I've been disenchanted with them since the PS2. They killed Everquest. EQ2 sucks and aside from the pretty graphics is actually overall a worse experience than EQ1 IMHO.

I've always hated Sony's insistence on proprietary hardware for propiety's sake. I mean, how many Sony formats do we need? UMD, Beta, Atrac, Memory Stick, the list goes on. And out of all those, the only success is the Memory Stick due to Sony's insistence on integrating it with every single piece of hardware they sell. And consumers being consumers, they buy the big name brands cause name brands mean quality. Just don't tell that to the two PS1's I had to return, or the PS2 I had to return which later broke just as the warranty expired.

This is on top of such gems as the DRM fiasco. But don't worry about DRM F'ing up your system because most consumers don't even know what a rootkit is. And the DRM [b]is[/b] Sony's problem even if it's Sony BMG. I believe the video games and software department is under Sony Computer Entertainment or some such but people lump it as Sony anyways. Just like you have to lump Microsoft's entertainment division in with Microsoft as a whole even though the games division has almost zero to do with some of MS's other products such as Office.

But it's not all bad. I think Sony's professional camera recorders are very good. So are it's high end HDTV's, though their lower range of TV's are no better than something from Samsung and others. I also think Sony Ericsson makes great phones. But outside of that...Sony is a company that has been running on past reputation for the last 5+ years. Incidently, their marketing department shovels out a lot of BS on a daily basis.

The quality of their consumer products have really slid downhill and sliding further. Judging by the hubrus of management, and especially the CEO, it doesn't look like they will get back to their former glory any time soon.


RE: Sony has become emo.
By abhaxus on 5/13/2006 4:17:28 AM , Rating: 2
Before you pounce on beta, remember that it was in fact a better format than VHS... quality was higher in beta than VHS ever reached. And eventually beta copied VHS by adding different recording times to be able to record a full 2:30 movie. Personally, after seeing HD-DVD in action, I don't see how blu-ray will be superior. Perhaps the first generation players will be more refined but otherwise I don't see how the quality can improve. The HD-DVDs that I've seen (I work for a local/regional electronics retailer) can look any worse than a bluray movie.

The PS2 is credited with one of the reasons DVD really began to take off, but I think this is overall overestimated. I think PS3 is one of the main factors in BD even having a chance in the modern era... and so much riding on a $600 console is ridiculous. People like me may buy the PS3 purely for the cheap BD player, but 4 million gamers are not going to pay an average of $550 for a console, they didn't do it for the xbox 360 and they won't do it for PS3. There simply aren't enough HDTVs out there yet. At least, there aren't enough high quality HDTVs out there yet.


RE: Sony has become emo.
By pepsimax2k on 5/13/2006 7:38:36 AM , Rating: 2
...minidisc...

*and*, the fact mine broke (refusing to read discs) after only a couple years, bought from new.

has anyone mentioned their shafting of artists on itunes royalties yet?


PS 3 is more like a PC than you think
By mforce on 5/13/2006 5:22:16 AM , Rating: 2
From what I hear the PS 3 will be running Linux . If that's the case it will be more of a PC than you would think . There are many things you can do in Linux and that includes all of the basic things . You've got OpenOffice , Firefox , audio and video players and even a media center program like MythTV. Sure Linux is not Windows and some will say it's not that easy to use but once it's installed and you get used to it it's not that hard . There are even games in Linux you can probably play besides the ones you have on the PS 3 and some are even free .
You'll still need a PC if you're a pro and use special programs like Photoshop and stuff but other than that the PS 3 should do so it's not that expensive if it can replace a PC .




RE: PS 3 is more like a PC than you think
By Burning Bridges on 5/13/2006 7:04:19 AM , Rating: 2
You know what Sony does to the homebrew segment for its PSP?

It tries to lock them out, trying to stop people writing their own games/Linux versions/whatever for it, what makes you think they will be any more reasonable with the PS3?


By peternelson on 5/13/2006 3:00:25 PM , Rating: 2

I ALSO heard that they would be offering linux on the PS/3 (was quoted by a sony games ceo maybe this guy). They did that with PS/2, so why not?

I am disappointed only one GE port and one HDMI, but maybe you can play 2 screens by linking 2 PS3 consoles and drive a screen from each. That kind of game would be cool.

The price is quite reasonable in view of the components. If they were much cheaper there would be little flexibility to drop the price later.

What I would like is either build in a SECOND cell processor from day 1 OR make some interconnect where an extra cell upgrade can be added later (for $$$) when prices come down. This would give an upgrade path, and take the upgraded dual-cell console performance well above the x360.

Anyway the highend box is the one to go for at the moment.

If they can offer linux on it then I will definitely be buying one as a "Cell" development platform to play with that chip architecture (IBM already ported all tools needed). Maybe build a cluster of them. As a bonus it ALSO plays games ;-)

If PS3 is as successful as PS2 then they will sell more games discs. Therefore in my opinion there is scope to price the games UNDER the x360 game price. The cheaper price per game would make it worth gamers paying extra for their console.


By sxr7171 on 5/13/2006 2:17:26 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I really want to type up papers on a PS3...so badly.


grown up, not grown out of
By WileCoyote on 5/13/2006 8:17:19 PM , Rating: 2
Before/during/right after college $600 would have been way too much money for me. Now that I'm 26 and making money it's definitely affordable. I think that Sony feels their market has grown up, gotten jobs, and can fairly easily afford a more expensive product. For what you get it almost seems like a good deal. Maybe the rest of you are a lot younger but at my age it's starting to look different.




RE: grown up, not grown out of
By PBDragon on 5/14/2006 1:58:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Before/during/right after college $600 would have been way too much money for me. Now that I'm 26 and making money it's definitely affordable.


That means you have grown up. At least not Sony IMO.

I'm also 26 & I can also afford to buy a PS3 since I have stable income, but I tend not to agree with you that we pay for more just because we got jobs.

Your statement make me feel like if there is a stock market disaster like what happen in 2000 Sony will lower the price of PS3 just because people have no $$$ and many out of jobs.

IMO, it's up to Sony to price PS3 at $600, and it's also up to us whether we think it's worth purchasing PS3 when it's selling for that price. For me, even I can afford it, I still see PS3 (including XB360) are expensive toys.

I have to agree when I was in college $600 is huge $$$ to me, but I would definitely find ways to earn some cash in order to get one. Now I have to pay for my living, I'm more interest spending the same $$$ to have a better living rather than getting a toy like PS3 & XB360.

I would say I have grown up, not Sony.

PBDragon


By theapparition on 5/15/2006 8:26:43 AM , Rating: 2
I'm grown up and out of college, too.
I think I'll spend 200 on the Revolution..........the other 400 I'll buy a table saw.
When you really grow up and get a house, you'll learn what's really important.

Family


Sony's Numbers Only Get Uglier...
By Dijonaise on 5/14/2006 10:13:51 AM , Rating: 2
$599 US works out to well over $1000 Australian Dollars at my home at current rates, and nearly $1500 New Zealand Dollars for our neighbours (Source: European Central Bank Exchange).

I often overhear folks grumbling in the malls, and articles in the paper go something like, "the 360 is an awesome console but really, $600 is a bit steep".

How palatable do you think Sony's plate will be?




RE: Sony's Numbers Only Get Uglier...
By animedude on 5/15/2006 2:43:31 AM , Rating: 2
By ChristopherO on 5/15/2006 12:00:19 PM , Rating: 2
They typically don't sell consoles for the same price overseas. The US is the cheapest, whereas the EU and everyone else pays a premium when compared to our exchange rates. Plus you're forgetting that most of the world pays VAT instead of sales tax (not sure about AUS), and that usually runs 12-20%. You need to remember the USA has the lowest taxes (by a huge margin) in the developed world (not to mention their income taxes are higher, so they have less to spend on things like PS3s).


New Kings- MS and Nintendo
By Rampage on 5/13/2006 1:59:08 AM , Rating: 3
This marks the beginning of the end for Sony.. officially.

Its a great point in history that we will be able to say, "that is where the ultimate unraveling of Sony began".

Sony is riding on bluray.. and this console is too ambitious with WAY too many output ports ect.. lots of extra junk when they needed a 360-style setup where the money was poured into the important parts of the console.

Because of this, the 360 is going to be just as capable as the PS3.. just wont have all the extra junk.
Plus a more solid online platform, and no ugly ass controller with a halfassed gyro trying to steal Nintendos thunder.




By Burning Bridges on 5/13/2006 6:58:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
don't see how the PS3 is a flawed console because of its price any more than how one could claim the Wii is a flawed console because of its seeming overreliance on that remote control thingy

So, errr, what do you mean by "overreliance" ? I mean, isn't any games console going to be a little reliant on it's controller? I would like to see you play games without one...


We all saw this coming
By Anemone on 5/13/2006 12:10:33 PM , Rating: 3
For years nearly everyone here has read the commentary that if consoles got too expensive they'd have issues. Well here you go. The cost is getting dangerously close to the cost of an entire pc, and that is what will be the issue. It's not that the pc doesn't cost more to get the kind of eye candy you get in the ps3, but rather that the cost difference has gotten too small.

What would have fixed this? If they'd found a way to offer a bluray disk inside that cost it would have worked. But we all knew a year ago that bluray was too expensive to fit into the price envelope. So that point was gone.

They tried to create a gem in a market where the very reason you are buying a console is to get a great experience cheap. Yes it will run fast, but is that what this market point wants? I think console buyers are a serious "bang for your buck" crowd, and they want great experiences, but with enough money saved so they can buy the NEXT console in 2 years. If Sony believes that you can buy a ps3 and be happy 3 or 4 years from now, I think they've misthought their target audience.

Perhaps, so you don't think they are entirely unsmart, they were aiming for something that was expected to get cheaper by the time it got to production. Meaning it was to cost one price in development, but a year or year and half down the line they expected the basic stuff to get cheaper enough to offer a premium product at the right price. If that failed then they simply guessed badly.

But the basic point remains. If your entire target audience goes "WHAT the *******" when you say what the price is, you have a problem. You can market that however you please, but at your core, you have a pricing issue. If, worse than that, your competitor is able to sell 80-90% of your performance for almost half the price, then you have a gigantic problem.

Sony, you have a gigantic problem.




Wait-and-see attitude
By Blackraven on 5/13/2006 1:48:12 PM , Rating: 2
I think I'd rather wait at least after November and December 2006 to see if the PS3 will make or break.

Judging from a point where the console is not even out yet is eomething that I don't wanna make comments yet. Heck, their dev kit/SKUs are not the 100% final yet so I'll wait further after launch to see for myself.

But, I do hope that they would release the other colors (greyish silver and white) as well, aside from the black-colored one. Releasing only one color when you've originally shown all three is a turn-off.



By Weaselsmasher on 5/13/2006 3:00:57 PM , Rating: 3
The real problem is this: Sony is insisting that there is a market for a $600+ console system, and that simply may not be true. Sony's marketing people may have made a serious error here.

What Sony is doing is insisting that the competition for the PS3 is other consoles, and that Sony is the best of the breed (and costs accordingly). Sony is defining its competition as the Wii and the XBox360, yet it costs half again as much. However, at the Sony's price point, you're competing not with consoles, but PCs.

$600 can buy you a pretty nice PC, and that PC can do much more than a console can (where's TurboTax for the PS3? OpenOffice? Photoshop? IM? Skype?). Additionally, the PC is upgradable when necessary, while a console is not. A PC has a huge established base of game and non-game software. Even the most inexpensive PC video cards these days has component-video output (and running at a resolution that component video supports, even a modest video card like a 7600GT or 1600XL can work wonders).

So. What could possibly entice consumers to prefer a console over a PC, given the same price point?

1. Software available ONLY on the console.
2. A consistent "learn it once" user interface, both within the games and for managing games (loading games, getting updates, saving games and settings, etc.)
3. A good input device not available to the PC
4. With a PC comes the headache of security.

To which the answers are:

1. There is a game library available to PCs that dwarfs even the PS2, and the PS3's game library will be much smaller even than the PS2. To those who say "But you can play PS2 games on a PS3!" I say "You can play PS2 games on a PS2, now, for well under 200 dollars." So where are the games so compelling that I would believe Sony and abandon a whole platform, a whole world of software?
2. This is one area that Sony can better the PC. However, those who are willing to commit 600 dollars to a gaming platform are probably willing to commit some time to learning the PC interface. If you're hardcore, you learn. And what devoted gamer doesn't already have knowledge of how to run a PC?
3. If Sony can rip off the Wii controller, so can Logitech. And there are game-controller style input devices available to the PC platform right now.
4. Completely true. However, if the PS3 is exposed to the Internet, sooner or later people are going to hack it up. The PS3 may be in the same boat with the Mac in this regard: inherently much more secure than any PC (though for different reasons), but not completely immune.

The PS3 may well be the proverbial "silver saddle on a jackass". And while it is true that there are people out ther who will spend 600 dollars on a console, I do not believe that 1/3 or more of the people who buy consoles at 200 dollars will buy a console at 600 dollars. Ferraris may cost ten times what a Subaru does, but I guarantee you that Subaru sells many more than 10 times as many units.

Ah well. Back to World of Warcraft... which, by the way is not and will not be available for the PS3 or any console.




By animedude on 5/13/2006 10:04:35 PM , Rating: 2
LMAO, you are comparing apple with orange! A PC to a console.

"3. If Sony can rip off the Wii controller, so can Logitech. And there are game-controller style input devices available to the PC platform right now."

Please do more research before saying SONY ripped off the Wii controller.


"What Sony is doing is insisting that the competition for the PS3 is other consoles, and that Sony is the best of the breed (and costs accordingly). Sony is defining its competition as the Wii and the XBox360, yet it costs half again as much. However, at the Sony's price point, you're competing not with consoles, but PCs. "

So are you planning to buy a Geforce 7900 and then buy a Sempron to play game because thats $600 there. PS3's cpu is optimized for gaming, so don't compare it with a general cpu. If you want a computer with a graphic card that beats PS3 in graphic, then the price is above $1200.


Poor SONY employees
By lemonadesoda on 5/13/2006 8:44:43 AM , Rating: 4
SONY. Shocking labor conditions.

quote:
dinner at the company cafeteria not a very nice experience?


1./ What on earth are SONY employees doing having dinner at the office. Obviously working them too hard.

2./ Food not so good eh? Feeding them tasteless junk. Any restaurant would be better. Poor chaps.

Perhaps their dreadful dinner is in some proprietary format that no one can digest. LOL




hmmmmm
By Cosmic_Horror on 5/13/2006 9:18:05 AM , Rating: 2
Why do you all expect companies to sell a product at a loss?

If the console costs $X to make why do u expect to pay less than that? You want state of the art hardware compnents but don't want to pay for them?

That really is very childish....





RE: hmmmmm
By Griswold on 5/13/2006 9:57:33 AM , Rating: 2
Sony will still sell it at a loss with the projected price. So whats your point? They have to, otherwise only the purists will buy it and that would mean a whole lot of bad quarter revenue figures for sony.


Problem
By CoreGamer on 5/13/2006 12:00:30 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is not that its too much FOR the equipment...Its that the equipment isnt really helping. You say the E3 impressions...NOBODY thought that the PS3 was more fun to play than the Wii. Isnt that what Video Gaming is for in the 1st place? Fun? If I can get a Better Playing expierience for 400$ less...Im in




RE: Problem
By sxr7171 on 5/13/2006 2:36:17 PM , Rating: 2
Precisely. People don't seem to understand that after years of Sony brainwashing.


In other news...
By Spartan Niner on 5/13/2006 1:54:48 AM , Rating: 3
The RIAA has decided that it doesn't make enough money off of each CD because of a surge in "piracy". They now claim that a 15% rate increase is in order so that an "unparalleled audio experience" is ensured with each CD purchased by the unwitting consumer.

Groups representing artists refused to comment when asked what they thought of the rate hike, instead referring to a mysterious "goatse".

/sarcasm




By theprodigalrebel on 5/13/2006 8:26:43 AM , Rating: 2
I myself don't have any personal experience with hi-end DVD players (the kind Denon,Integra,Pioneer Elite etc.) sell for $1000-$2000 upwards but according to all the A/V enthusiaist magazines, you get what you pay for in features and video quality (3:2, color fidelity and all that fancy jazz)...Audioholics.com is as reputed/respected as AT in terms of audio/video gear and I take their word pretty seriously.

Bottomline is, you could spend $50-$1500 on a DVD player and get what you pay for (according to videophile publications)...most certainly, the PS2's DVD output doesn't compete with even a $200 standalone DVD player.

So who's to say the PS3's blu-ray video quality/feature-set would be in the same league as the $1200 standalone players? Maybe you really aren't getting a bargain?




By sxr7171 on 5/13/2006 2:24:30 PM , Rating: 1
Very true. The PS2 is a putrid DVD player.

However, I will admit that once you start using digital outputs and a format that carries the full resolution non-interlaced video information on the disk the difference becomes smaller. With analog outputs and a stupid interlaced format like DVD I can say for sure that a nice $1200-2000 DVD player will ruin a cheap player any day.

Any self-respecting videophile will buy a REAL Blu-Ray player and not play movies out of a Foreman grill.


Supplier problems?
By lemonadesoda on 5/13/2006 8:41:51 AM , Rating: 3
Is this an indication that SONY is expecting supply issues with primary PS3 components... or that recent marketing analysis has suggested demand levels too high that there will be supply shortages?

Keep the price high... raise the price even... and not only do you keep the PS3 exclusive... but you keep the volumes down. (Not necessarily profits, since the margin is a lot greater even through there may be less sales).

CONSPIRACY THEORY would suggest that SONY is expecting lots of technical issues/faults/need to replace parts etc. and they can limit the financial damage if there are fewer v1.0 (or beta 0.9) PS3's out there... and a high margin to pay for repair costs.




Good link to start with....PS3 FAQ
By viciouswar on 5/13/2006 10:56:32 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php...

People sure jump to conclusions quickly...

$.02
...Lets just say (and hope, because competition is good for us all) that PS3 doesn't follow the Dreamcast route... Make it simple for the DEV's otherwise it will take too long to create a game and Sony could loose more ground... Hardware would mean nothing if you can't have Games shipped out quick (100% complete) enough...

I’d buy a PS3 if there were a Bundle package where you’d get the 60gb system with 2 controllers, 2 games and a 45”-50” HDTV (that supports 1080P) for $2500.00… That’s a dam good deal. Wouldn’t you agree?
/$.02




By sxr7171 on 5/13/2006 2:34:49 PM , Rating: 1
Where do you think you'll find a 45" HDTV that supports 1080p for $2500? You might as well say that a PS3 + Bentley Arnage + 2 games + 2 controllers for $150,000 is a good deal. See if you'll get it.

Also, yeah 7 cores sounds like real fun to program for.


E3 in Review
By vanka on 5/13/2006 2:44:51 AM , Rating: 2
Seems to me that E3 2006 will be remembered as the Exposition of Sony's Stupidity. First they had people checking their glasses and hearing aids when they announced the price of the PS3. Then, once everyone's blood pressure started to return to normal, they announce that the PS3 is too cheap. Excuse me?! For that price I could assemble a decent HTPC that will do a lot more than the PS3 could even dream of doing. True, my HTPC won't play Blue-Ray disks (I'm leaning toward HD-DVD anyway), but in a year I'll pick up a drive that won the format war for probably around $150.




Food for thought...
By jamesbond007 on 5/13/2006 8:46:12 AM , Rating: 2
If Ken thinks he's going to lay the restaurant thing down on us...well, how about he compare the number of orders McDonald's corporation does in a day versus those high-end restaurants. =)




Start Saving Your Pennies
By Sceptor on 5/13/2006 8:53:53 AM , Rating: 2
At this rate...the generation after this one will top $1000.00. Soon you will have to finance your gaming console ;)

Thanks Sony, you truly set a new standard...in pricing.





PS3 price
By lazyassbum on 5/13/2006 10:56:30 AM , Rating: 2
If it's too much money, do not buy it.

I will not buy it yet. it's too much money.

Maybe a year or two or three, when they slash prices.




traditional neo-sony
By rika13 on 5/13/2006 11:59:17 AM , Rating: 2
the sony we all know and remember with love is dead

sony does NOT produce electronics, they are just another evil RIAA/MPAA fertilizer factory; any electronic devices they manufacture are to support the media companies (ps 1/2/3; cd/dvd players, securom and rootkits [not made by sony, but FOR sony explicitly], etc.)




Nintendo will dominate
By AppaYipYip on 5/13/2006 2:57:24 PM , Rating: 2
Nintendo is the sleeping giant that will crush Microsloth and Sony. Nintendo cares about gamers, not just making a quick buck. I haven't bought a console since Gamecube because they have not interested me. The Wii is the first console I've been excited about in a long time.




A bit of a streatch....
By Trisped on 5/15/2006 6:15:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"For instance, is it not nonsense to compare the charge for dinner at the company cafeteria with dinner at a fine restaurant? It's a question of what you can do with that game machine. If you can have an amazing experience, we believe price is not a problem."
This isn't a comparison of eating at a dinner vs eating at a "fine restaurant." A dinner would be buying an old system like an XBox or a Game Cube (PS2 is a bit old for the comparison). This is the difference between eating at an unique and quirky bed and breakfast, eating at the Outback, or eating at the Rain Forest Cafe. The bed and breakfast will be low cost, but adventurous and new. Outback will be reasonably good, though a bit expensive. The Rain Forest Cafe will require you to wait at least an hour (even though they have had 20 tables open the whole time), will cost you a small fortune, and will have quality barely better then what you could have gotten at the Outback.

Personally I don't buy into the whole Rain Forest Cafe thing. It is more show then substance.




Sony isn't stupid
By 5150Joker on 5/13/06, Rating: -1
"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki