Ken Kutaragi says PS3 is 'Probably too CHEAP

[CappyCobra]

Pass whatever you are smoking here Kenny! :dunce:
WOW. Talk about delusional

SCEI president is confident of hitting shipment targets

SCEI president Ken Kutaragi has defended the PlayStation 3's high price tag once again, declaring that not only will consumers be prepared to pay the cost but that the console is "probably too cheap."

In an interview with Japanese website (http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=16971#) IT Media (http://www.itmedia.co.jp/), partially translated by IGN (http://www.ign.com/), Kutaragi said: "This is the PS3 price. Expensive, cheap - we don't want you to think of it in terms of game machines."

"For instance," Kutaragi continued, "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."

Kutaragi reiterated comments (http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=16963) he made earlier regarding the original PlayStation, which he says was also considered too expensive at launch.
"Same for the PlayStation 2," Kutaragi said.

"However, when released, both had sales (http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=16971#) that were unthinkable for previous game machines. This is because both offered experiences that could not be had on previous machines."

Like its predecessors, PS3 will also offer brand new experiences, he continued: "Things like next-generation graphics (http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=16971#) and various services via the network (http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=16971#). And, as with the PS and PS2, we believe people who like games will, without question, purchase it."

The PS3 is set for a global launch this November, priced at USD 499 / EURO 499 for the 20GB version and USD 599 / EURO 599 for the 60GB model. Kutaragi dismissed suggestions from the likes of Microsoft's (http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=16971#) Peter Moore (http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=16944) that Sony will be unable to meet its shipment targets in time - the company has said that it plans to deliver 2 million PS3 units by the end of the year, with a further 2 million arriving by April.

"Of course, this is a number that we announced having made sure we can definitely prepare it," Kutaragi said.

"There is the possibility of unexpected problems like earthquake or theft, so I won't say it's absolute. But if this type of trouble does not occur, there's no problem with this number." Link: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=16971

*EDIT: The koolaid is spreading

"I know what Peter was getting at with his price point issue but he's not comparing apples to oranges. He's not even comparing the same kind of food products at all. It's clearly a case that PlayStation 3's price is justified by PlayStation 3's value. That's what consumers base their purchasing decisions on -- value."
http://www.gamepro.com/news.cfm?article_id=55089

[jer7583]

"we believe people who like games will, without question, purchase it."

The arrogance completely and totally... doesn't surprise me.

I can't wait to see how kutaragi defends the lackluster sales of this thing.

[thingsfallnapart]

The price of the playstation 3 is more then fair considering a few things.

A) The sega saturn launched for 500 dollars where i lived and you couldnt find one.

B) The us dollar has devalued quite a lot since then.

c) when you put factors from a and c together, the price value your getting for the ps 3 is far superior to the sega saturn back then. So why complain.

Just because we are cheap ass gamers, does not mean the public will share our view.

[jimbodan]

The price of the playstation 3 is more then fair considering a few things.

A) The sega saturn launched for 500 dollars where i lived and you couldnt find one.

B) The us dollar has devalued quite a lot since then.

c) when you put factors from a and c together, the price value your getting for the ps 3 is far superior to the sega saturn back then. So why complain.

Just because we are cheap ass gamers, does not mean the public will share our view.


Good points, because you know, the Saturn did soooo well..... :roll:

[gaelan]

The price of the playstation 3 is more then fair considering a few things.

A) The sega saturn launched for 500 dollars where i lived and you couldnt find one.

B) The us dollar has devalued quite a lot since then.

c) when you put factors from a and c together, the price value your getting for the ps 3 is far superior to the sega saturn back then. So why complain.

Just because we are cheap ass gamers, does not mean the public will share our view.

don't forget teh linux and blu ray.

[thingsfallnapart]

Good points, because you know, the Saturn did soooo well..... :roll:

i didnt say if did soooooo well. I had just mentioned you couldnt find one, that they were all sold out on laugh where i lived.

[Danimal]

Ken is absolutely right. For the thrill of "next generation graphics and various services via the network", six bills is a bargain. Sony is cutting us a break by not pricing it at something more reasonable, like $800 or $1,000. Maybe the PS4 will be sufficiently amazing that "people who like games will, without question purchase it" at those prices. :roll:

[YoshiFan1]

I think because PS1 and PS2 were so successful Sony is so full of themselves that they are way too overconfident.

[jimbodan]

i didnt say if did soooooo well. I had just mentioned you couldnt find one, that they were all sold out on laugh where i lived.


The high cost of the system is one of the reasons blamed for the Saturn's lackluster showing in the states, the playstation launched around 100$ cheaper and it hurt Saturn sales immensely

[Grave_Addiction]

The price of the playstation 3 is more then fair considering a few things.

A) The sega saturn launched for 500 dollars where i lived and you couldnt find one.

B) The us dollar has devalued quite a lot since then.

c) when you put factors from a and c together, the price value your getting for the ps 3 is far superior to the sega saturn back then. So why complain.

Just because we are cheap ass gamers, does not mean the public will share our view.

Dude, WTF?

So, you're justifying the PS3's price by comparing it to one of the biggest hardware flops in gaming history? The Saturn was so absurdly overpriced to begin with and was a major factor in its failure.

The only relevance between the Saturn price tag and Sony's, is they are both overpriced. The Saturn just happened to be a lesser system, but that absolutely has nothing to do with someone being upset about the PS3's price.

Sony is gambling with the PS3 and Blu-Ray. And it's an expensive one at that.

[thingsfallnapart]

Dude, WTF?

So, you're justifying the PS3's price by comparing it to one of the biggest hardware flops in gaming history? The Saturn was so absurdly overpriced to begin with and was a major factor in its failure.

The only relevance between the Saturn price tag and Sony's, is they are both overpriced. The Saturn just happened to be a lesser system, but that absolutely has nothing to do with someone being upset about the PS3's price.

Sony is gambling with the PS3 and Blu-Ray. And it's an expensive one at that.

i dont get what is so wrong with this comparison im making.

Im saying that the sega saturn, while inferior, still sold out where i live. So why shouldnt the playstation 3 with more features, better hardware, and hype?

[jimbodan]

i dont get what is so wrong with this comparison im making.

Im saying that the sega saturn, while inferior, still sold out where i live. So why shouldnt the playstation 3 with more features, better hardware, and hype?


I think the problem is that you are comparing it with a system that completely flopped for similar reasons (price)

I don't think the big question here is whether or not it will sell out at launch (I'd be shocked if it didn't) but whether after the early adopters get their PS3s will it continue to sell well at that price point?

[RedvsBlue]

:rofl:

Ken's a crazy bitch.

[SpottedNigel]

Sure, the Saturn sold out where you lived...but in the rest of the world, things didnt go so well.

[raregamergirl]

$500/ $600 really is not that much, think of it as $200 more than an XBOX 360. While I agree that comparing it to the Saturn is absurd, it does not change the fact that the PS3 will almost certainly be successful. The only reason why, though, is because of the name that Sony has in the video game world. Will the other two systems probably be at least as good, if not better based on gameplay etc? Almost certainly. However, the PS3 is something that appeals to more than just the average gamer. EVERYONE and their mother owns a PS2, its crazy. Why will it be any different with the PS2? The price is really not that much different. As sony has stated, it will be a luxury item. While I do not agree at all that it is underpriced, it is not overpriced for what it is either. Every console launch, the price factor is thrown out there and people complain it is overpriced, yet it does well. Sony owns the US market (and the world market for that matter) and PS3 sales will probably not change that. The PS3 will sell out for its first 6 months or so (similar to the 360) at least, then sales will somewhat slow down. I personally think bluray is idiotic, but if Sony does win that war, it gives even more people a reason to buy a PS3 for its price tag. People pay for nice computers, nice TV's etc, why not for a video game system? Its not like sony is making a profit off the console itself. I personally am looking forward to the Wiii the most, for the record as I am somewhat tired of the graphics war, I want innovative and new gameplay.

[Vegan]

This has been, without a doubt, the funniest E3 ever; but to be fair, it IS this guy's job to put a spin on the situation. I'll laugh along with you, but you can't blame the guy for trying (feebly).

[CappyCobra]

... While I agree that comparing it to the Saturn is absurd, it does not change the fact that the PS3 will almost certainly be successful. The only reason why, though, is because of the name that Sony has in the video game world...
Someone else was in a similar situation over 20 years ago. That company was Atari. Now look where they are. They live on only by name.

Name alone will not win the hearts and wallets of people. Price is a HUGE factor in adoption rate. The higher the inital price, the longer it takes to drop. The longer it takes to drop, the slower the adoption rate. The slower the adoption rate, the less momentum in market penetration will come into play. The less systems you have out there, the less likely people will develop for your system. The less people developing for your system, the less of a potential market for your wares.

So Yes, I think just price alone has a HUGE strike against them.

[alongx]

$500/ $600 really is not that much, think of it as $200 more than an XBOX 360.

Think of it as 50% more than an Xbox 360. $200 doesn't sound like a lot, until you realize that you're now paying one and a half times the price of the next most expensive competitor.

$200 difference will probably be enough to get a Wii. That's two consoles for the price of one. $600 is a lot.


Here's where I think Sony's problem is: Blu-Ray isn't half as important now as DVD was 6 years ago. When PS2 came out, DVD was already established. Was it popular? No, because stand alone players were way over priced. But there were already hundreds of disks of media and support was getting stronger every month.

Plus, PS2 cost as much as either a good game machine or a good stand alone DVD player. PS2 launched at the same price that the PS1 did, and later the Xbox did. It was not obsurd, and it included a nice extra. Similarly, if you wanted a decent DVD player, it had the added bonus of being a good gaming machine. I actually know people who bought PS2s to use solely as a DVD player, because it looked nice and the price was what they were looking to pay.

Now, the PS3 isn't reasonably priced UNLESS you consider it for a HD movie player as well. And, even then, both competing HD video players AND competing game machines are less money than it. Until the PS3 meets its competition in price - whether that be blu-ray, HD-DVD, or other game machines - it will be tough to justify. Also, there's the fact that not only is the media not established but it's battling a competing format.

The PS3 has potential, but I don't think we'll see that realized for a while. MGS4 I want to play, but I didn't see anything else that would be worth a $600 up front investment. I'll own one eventually - that goes without saying - but I don't expect it to be until the console is $300 or less, which could take quite some time, given the price it's starting from.

[gaelan]

it still boggles my mind that they push physical media when digital distribution make so much more sense for the future. what sounds more futuristic, a plastic cd that costs x amount to produce, ship and package or digital bits to homes via broadband or hopefully fiber optic networks.

[Moxio]

Sony+Kutaragi are punks.

[Dr Mario Kart]

not EVERYONE has their broadband up to par, and most people dont even like the idea of complete digital distribution. They want to OWN something.

[depascal22]

The Sega Genesis was immensely successful and Sega still dropped the ball with the Saturn. One little slip up is all that it takes to lose all ground in this industry. It would be hilarious if PS3s just showed up in stores in August or September.

[dcfox]

not EVERYONE has their broadband up to par, and most people dont even like the idea of complete digital distribution. They want to OWN something.
That and the fact that if today's games are filling up a 9gb DVD, a 60gb hard drive isn't going to last me very long. I don't relish the thought of having only six games available to me at a time. You could increase the size of the hard drive but then you would be stuck with more expensive consoles while games wouldn't necessarily be any cheaper through digital distribution.

[gaelan]

not EVERYONE has their broadband up to par, and most people dont even like the idea of complete digital distribution. They want to OWN something.

i'm talking about the future...not now

why force a new format that is only going to last 5 years or so.

[raregamergirl]

So you guys really think it wont sell at $500/ $600? Honestly? Also, you cant compare atari to sony, not even the same ballpark. The atari died because the gaming world was changing and they refused to change. Sony is not doing that, they are changing things, at least how powerful the console is. The PS3 will sell out at launch and people will be selling them for double retail at launch. People will pay $1000/ $1200 but not $500/ $600? The PS3 will do just fine. There are plenty of sony fanboys out there who of course will buy one, and on that alone they will survive. No-one is denying it will be the most powerful console, hence the price. While blue ray is not as important as DVD right now, how can you say for certain it wont be in say a year? The PS3 comes out in about 6 months, and it will be sold out for at least the first 6 months easily. After that 6 month period, it will need other things to carry it, and blue ray could be that. Agreed, right now blue ray is somewhat irrelevant, but in a year? With sony pushing so hard, they could win the format war. For people who dont want to spend as much, they are offering a $500 package, which is $100 more than the 360 premium and is a lot more powerful and it does have blue ray just in case. They do have big names to back up console sales, such as Metal Gear Solid 4, the virtua fighter series, square-enix etc etc etc. Most of america doesnt care about the 360 as much as a sony console it is (for now at least) targeted more as a PC type of console. They care, but not as much as a sony console (microsoft will get there soon enough). The wiii will be successful, but it will probably be considered a secondary system to most people. When people are faced with sony or microsoft, most people will buy the sony system. If you look at the power the console has, and the potential, it really does justify the price. $200 is not a lot, no matter how you look it. The gamecube is soon to be about half the retail price of the PS2/ XBOX, yet the PS2 and xbox will still outsell it. People do care about price, but they also want the best and most people these days associate sony with the best in the gaming world. Is that opinion wrong? Depends who you ask (in my opinion, it is). People will pay for the best. This system is not targetted at people who will buy it for one or two games total- sony would lose money if they targetted it that way. Most people who wont spend the money on the system probably wont spend the money on games either, so sony knows they can sell the system for fair market value for what the specs are and if it sells, great. If it doesnt sell, they will lower the price eventually years down the road to where it will sell to someone and maybe they will purchase some games. Yes, the price is expensive, but its not that crazy if you look at it from a neutral standpoint. Sony is already losing big bucks on each system they sell. People want the best, and sony think they can offer it to those people at a price, a price that people will pay.

[Darkside Hazuki]

Paragraphs are your friends. And ours.

[depascal22]

wow, that was a ridiculously long paragraph.

[jngx80]

A lot of you guys sound bitter and spoiled. For example like saying the reason why the price is so high is because Sony is over confident, rather than pointing to the new technology of blu-ray or the cell processor.

I don't get why everyone is so angry?

[CappyCobra]

First off: :)
http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/paragraph

Second:
I never said that it wouldn't sell at such a high price, just that the high price will put off alot of parents/GF's buying a system for thier child/BF. The PS1 did not sell all of 100+ Million units at the full launch MSRP, that would be crazy. It hit critical mass when the price dropped to $149 and people were more willing to part with 150 dollars vs 300 dollars and a more established and diverse library was at thier disposal to boot.

Rabid fans of Sony or the cutting-edge tech junkies will pay the $1000 premium but that will only last so long. You'll be hard-pressed to find someone who will now pay that much for a 360 since you can acquire one fairly easily at a local store.

The PS3's potential trump card/achilles heel is the BluRay Drive. If BluRay flops, they are stuck with a non-dominant format that will not generate the level of royalties to recoop the R&D taken to develop it. If BluRay triumphs, then the reverse is true. Either way, its a gamble that must pay off. For failure will doom Sony as a whole as thier other divisions are not nearly as profitable.

With PS2, DVD was already the established standard for 3 years prior. With the PS3, BluRay technology has yet to be proven so it runs greater risk of abandonment. As technically superior a format can be, it does not make it the dominant format. BetaMax was technically superior to VHS but it lost the format war. Why? Because VHS was substancially cheaper to produce and licencing fees were lower.

So you guys really think it wont sell at $500/ $600? Honestly? Also, you cant compare atari to sony, not even the same ballpark. The atari died because the gaming world was changing and they refused to change. Sony is not doing that, they are changing things, at least how powerful the console is. The PS3 will sell out at launch and people will be selling them for double retail at launch. People will pay $1000/ $1200 but not $500/ $600? The PS3 will do just fine. There are plenty of sony fanboys out there who of course will buy one, and on that alone they will survive. No-one is denying it will be the most powerful console, hence the price. While blue ray is not as important as DVD right now, how can you say for certain it wont be in say a year? The PS3 comes out in about 6 months, and it will be sold out for at least the first 6 months easily. After that 6 month period, it will need other things to carry it, and blue ray could be that. Agreed, right now blue ray is somewhat irrelevant, but in a year? With sony pushing so hard, they could win the format war. For people who dont want to spend as much, they are offering a $500 package, which is $100 more than the 360 premium and is a lot more powerful and it does have blue ray just in case. They do have big names to back up console sales, such as Metal Gear Solid 4, the virtua fighter series, square-enix etc etc etc. Most of america doesnt care about the 360 as much as a sony console it is (for now at least) targeted more as a PC type of console. They care, but not as much as a sony console (microsoft will get there soon enough). The wiii will be successful, but it will probably be considered a secondary system to most people. When people are faced with sony or microsoft, most people will buy the sony system. If you look at the power the console has, and the potential, it really does justify the price. $200 is not a lot, no matter how you look it. The gamecube is soon to be about half the retail price of the PS2/ XBOX, yet the PS2 and xbox will still outsell it. People do care about price, but they also want the best and most people these days associate sony with the best in the gaming world. Is that opinion wrong? Depends who you ask (in my opinion, it is). People will pay for the best. This system is not targetted at people who will buy it for one or two games total- sony would lose money if they targetted it that way. Most people who wont spend the money on the system probably wont spend the money on games either, so sony knows they can sell the system for fair market value for what the specs are and if it sells, great. If it doesnt sell, they will lower the price eventually years down the road to where it will sell to someone and maybe they will purchase some games. Yes, the price is expensive, but its not that crazy if you look at it from a neutral standpoint. Sony is already losing big bucks on each system they sell. People want the best, and sony think they can offer it to those people at a price, a price that people will pay.

[Dr Mario Kart]

Right, its not that people cant afford it or even that they wont pay for it.

But this holiday season, there are going to be 2 cheaper alternatives. Its all about value.

[Reality's Fringe]

I don't normally do this; I agree with ol' Ken. I mean, it costs a ton of cash to make them, so in relation to its production cost, it's too cheap.

That being said, this guy says about as much whack-ass stupid crap as Nintendo's old president.

[sonderiaom]

First, I have to point out that I found the price WAY too high for what I need it for. I only need it for video gaming. However, coming from the point of view of the creators, there is no reason why it shouldn't be more.

1. It is half the price of the next lowest media player of the Blu-Ray. Blu-Ray to them is THE next format of the generation; everyone needs one, everyone will want one, everyone will buy two and give one to their friends.

2. It has the Cell processor which will run games that much better than the current gaming systems, 360 not included.

3. It will have strong backing of many series of games that people are interested such as Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy, Grand Theft Auto, Ratchet and Clank, Katamari, and several other integral RPG series.



However, as a 'casual gamer' I find most of these rediculous. The first point means nothing to me, I see no reason to switch up to the next generation when I have no HDTV and I'd have to buy the $600 version and a new formats of my movies to enjoy it. The second point is moot; I like graphics as much as the next man but to me the STORY is what will hold my attention throughout the game. The third point is moot as well as we're seeing many of those series being ported to other systems and when those other companies see how little the PS3 is being backed, they'll switch over onto the other systems.

Anyway, just my two pence.

[raregamergirl]

I didnt feel the need to seperate my 19 line post into paragraphs as they were all around the same central point. Anyways, since when is this english class? People in america want the best- regardless of cost. Yes, some random person is not going to buy some kid a ps3, but they wont buy them a 360 either.

if a kid wants a PS3, the parent will buy it if they can justify it. They will justify it by saying, well is it the best? this is a system for adults too, not just kids. If blue ray does win the console war, then expect the PS3 to win the system war as well. If it does not, it still wont effect much. It will still get all the third party support necessary and thrive. Its a powerful machine and looking at the specs, it is the best. The PS1 may have done better once it lowered in price, but you think it didnt do well at launch or in its first couple years as well? The PS3 is not going to be any sort of exception.

Also, for the record, I never said that anyone would pay that much for a 360 now, I am saying they did at launch and they will for the PS3 launch. My point is people will go balls out for at least the first 6 months for the PS3. After that 6 months is up, it will need something to carry it (keep in mind, that means about one year exactly from now is when sales will slow down, but still do well, the 360 is still doing well today just not sold out everywhere).

Blue ray COULD carry it after that point, that is one year for Sony to try to win the format war, it could happen, especially if Sony pushes it to the extent we expect them to.

$500 is a fair price for what you get, whether you want blue ray or not, you are still getting a blue ray player in the PS3. That alone is worth $500 or so (could be less by the time the PS3 is released). Who cares if you think its worth that or what I think that is worth, that will be fair market value for a blue ray player. the PS3 will be that and obviously a LOT more. Does that not automatically justify a $500 price tag?

As for value, again, the PS3 will be an entertainment package, which sounds like value to me. Even if average joe does not know what blue ray is, he will see hey these cost this much, and I get this with it? Thats a good deal! Dont use the word value as they 360 or the Wiii are not more value than the PS3, they are just less expensive. There is a huge difference. Technically the Wiii will probably be the most bang for your buck out of the box (pending the virtual console and launch titles), but the average consumer will probably not see it that way.

Going back to my original statement, people want the best, and if Sony makes them think the PS3 is the best, then they will want the PS3 regardless of price. Be it as a purchase for the family, or someone spending their own money or a kid begging his parents to heck and back to get it.

Also, want to state that my comment is not directed at user who posted above me (I actually wrote that before I read his post, I am now editting this to state that). It is just directed as a point that you are getting a blue ray player and while I dont think it is worth it, it alone justified the price tag. Also, I will not be buying a PS3 at launch and I sure as heck dont care about the PS3 at launch. I am looking forward to the Wiii the most, and hoping microsoft will evolve the 360 into an all around gamer system so that they too can become a major worldwide contendor in the console war. Competition is great for gamers.

[itspaidgasterblaster]

I think that even if the PS3 sells the first 4 million units in the first 6 months, that would probably be 4 million blue ray players, can anyone make that assumption about HD-DVD's. I have my 360 and I would not pay 200 for a HD-DVD add on. There are very few people with HD tv's so Sony would probably have the largest marketshare just because not only are they selling the best hardware for gaming but also a blue ray player. In the PS2, xbox generation, I would buy the x box game if it was multi platform, but for the most part PS2 was getting most of my money in games. You couldn't get Jak and Daxter, Final Fantasy X, X-2, Shadow Hearts, God of War, Onimusha 3, Wilf Arms, Katamary Damacy, Dragon Quest VIII, Guitar Hero, Devil May Cry, Disgea, shin Megami tensei series, Zone of the enders, rez, guitarro man, and many other games on the x box.

[mackaikai]

if HD-DVD addon is 200 dollars, I rather spend that money on a new PS3. but if that addon is only 99 (we can only wish), then maybe i'll save 100 and watch my HD-quality movies on HD-DVD

so, are you listening microsoft? be smart!

[newscientist2000]

Nobody here thinks that the PS3 will not sell out its initial Shipment at a $500-$600 price, it will, at a price of $700 it would sell out.

However...... the high price may make some people buy a Wii or a 360 instead. This fact may not be apparent immediately as the PS3 will sell out, however after Christmas Microsoft and Nintendo may be in a better position than they could have dreamed.

Particularly at the low end of the market Microsoft and Nintendo could capitalise, as people trade in there old consoles and games and walk away with a competitors console at Ebgames or GameStop.

If I was Sony I would have a different price for the Console before and after New Year, to avoid people returning consoles add 30 days....so say the PS3 would cost $700 before Feb 1st 2007, but on Feb 1st 2007 it would drop to say $550 or $450. That way the people who really want the PS3 can buy it at an inflated price, and everyone else would get one cheaper later on.

[itspaidgasterblaster]

360 core edition - 300
20 gig hard drive - 100
hd dvd add on - 200


ps3 premium

60 gig hard drive - included
blue ray player - included

Now you tell me how does that sound as far as value. Also the 360 while it has bad ass graphics the PS3 is superior this time.

[SMMM]

I think what a lot of you don't realize is that half of the PS2 owners bought it only for stuff like Madden and GTA(both of which will be available to the X360). I mentioned the price to a lot of my co-workers, casual gamers that love their PS2. ALL of them said there's no way in hell they're paying $600 for a game console when they only use their PS2 maybe once a month to play Madden with their friends. Not to mention a lot of the core fan base being poor-as-dirt college students. Which leaves the working man and the children. Like I said, the average working man would see the price tag, say it's a rip-off, and continue with their PS2 or buy a 360/Wii for all their Madden needs, not to mention the HALO. Now, know how a lot of you are saying "people spend thousands on nice TVs and iPods". Most people watch TV every single fricken day, and movies maybe once or twice a week, so it's somewhat worth it. Most people also love music and love to have it around them all day in the most convenient way. There are cheaper MP3 players, yes, but none have the name recognition of the iPod. Most people don't say "I want an MP3 player", they say "I want an iPod". Most people, outside the hardcore, don't play video games every day and mostly do so when they're bored or have friends over. Sony is going to lose a lot of its fanbase due to this.

As for the children, I'm thinking the Wii would be quite enticing to them compared to the others. I tried to get my 5 year old niece to play a platformer, but she couldn't understand the concept of jumping and moving forward at the same time(she was mainly, get this, flailing the controller around trying to get it to move), so I just gave her a blank controller and played it myself while complimenting her as she did nothing(humoring her while I was the one playing, basically). NOW, things would be different ith the Wii. She could actually participate due to the simplicity of some of the games, like the sports or music. And I think they would get a real kick out of that. Thus, Nintendo's goal of reaching everyone is achieved that way. I explained it my mother(Age 60, stopped after SNES), and she was very intrigued. Now, of course, Nintendo will also have games for the more experienced, like Zelda and SSB, and that again, helps the theory of reaching everyone.

Personally, I think the PS3's only audience are the hardcore gamers and the rich teens that have their parents get them the latest iteration of the iPod, and the "new Razor". And even the latter audience could be lost to the X360. We shall see...

[dobiewan]

People in america want the best- regardless of cost.

Who says the PS3 is the best? They offer a lot of different things in one package... but that could just mean the console does NONE of them well. Give me a game console that plays games perfectly, and if it happens to play movies, great. What I see with Sony is they looked at Nintendo, then they looked at Microsoft... and then said "we can do that too!" Without any sort of substance behind their fluff. Sony is like that kid in school who always has to one-up everybody's stories... but everyone knows the kid is full of shit.

If you want to talk bang for your buck, which sounds better to you? One bloated machine that does everything a little bit like what you've already seen others do better, and is making you pay for a player (Blu-ray) which may be the next betamax, has an output (1080p) that only a handful of TVs even support--or two DIFFERENT machines that will provide you with two wholly separate gaming experiences, running actual software instead of CG movies and empty promises? And for the same amount of money? I know what I'm getting in line for on launch day, and its not for a PS-yawn.

[raregamergirl]

I dont think this is an arguement over what you will buy or why you will buy it (I sure as heck am not buying a PS3 at launch), it is an arguement for whether the PS3 is overpriced for what it is or not, and the PS3 is clearly not overpriced.

Also note I said that the PS3 will probably NOT be the best to me or to most gamers but it will be to most people because it is a Sony entertainment package, pleast read my entire post before commenting on one line. I clearly state I think the Wiii will be the best of the three, but average joe will probably not agree. Sony is king, and has been king for their last two consoles and average joe consumer sees that and will see that as a clear sign that the PS3 is the best. I DO NOT THINK IT WILL BE THE BEST THOUGH.

[gaelan]

i think everyone is making some pretty big fucking posts that i won't read...here is a short one. $600 for a game machine is too much...hell $400 is too much. you can argue about its next gen movie playing ability when the media is on the shelf, until then the cost is too much.

[salmonaxxx]

If Sony had shown some amazing games alongside the price announcement, they could have mollified some of the hate the high price is generating. But of all the playable games I saw vids of, only Heavenly Sword looked really impressive. MGS4 and FFXIII will probably be awesome, but they're still a long ways from being done. Sony needs great games at launch to help sell people on the high price tag.

[mmn]

360 core edition - 300
20 gig hard drive - 100
hd dvd add on - 200


ps3 premium

60 gig hard drive - included
blue ray player - included

Now you tell me how does that sound as far as value. Also the 360 while it has bad ass graphics the PS3 is superior this time.

Your logic makes sense - if you're a hard drive and premium DVD fan. But as a GAMER, who should only be interested in GAMES, your logic is flawed. You can play 360 games without a hard drive or the HD DVD add on. Can't play PS3 games without a Blu-Ray player or the hard drive.

Maybe you like that Sony is FORCING these things on you, I dunno.

[jkam]

Man its such a great thing that Sony created Blu-Ray...I was just sitting here aimlessly trying to figure out how to spend my hard earned money. Sony made the choice of what console to buy easy (anything but a PS3).

[Lord Draconus777]

Sony's poor idealism of the PS3 just makes me yearn ever more for Nintendo to reroll itself as the dominant name in video games. Nintendo has promised what sounds like the best launch in gaming history with the Wii, an affordable price, and does not require an expensive premium upgrade to enjoy (though a "premium" with more controller shells/games is possible).

I don't get how Sony just thinks they can launch a console at $600 and expect to get a lot of buyers. Did they not do their homework and find out that ridiculously expensive = total failure? 3D0 and Sega could tell Sony a good deal about this, but I think Sega is laughing to hard to bother.

Even the Xbox360 seems like a tempting offer now, and that's saying alot.

[jer7583]

If i had photoshop on this computer or the library was open, I'd create some witty graphic showing kutaragi as a modern day Yamauchi. Tryannical japanese businessmen have a tendency to destroy videogame market leaders...

The bottom line is $600 is a lot of money. And thats before you even have anything to play on the thing. $600 is a major expenditure for the vast majority of their core demographic. (16-24 yr olds) $600 is a major expenditure for the vast majority of ANY demographic, when you see it is on a recreation/entertainment purchase.

People have to and WILL draw the line somewhere, and $500-600 is way past that line.

[gaelan]

But of all the playable games I saw vids of, only Heavenly Sword looked really impressive.

unfortunately, that game is getting some questionable gameplay reports from people who played it at e3. graphics good...gameplay ???

[alongx]

Sorry about the length, but a few people's comments needed response...

For example like saying the reason why the price is so high is because Sony is over confident, rather than pointing to the new technology of blu-ray or the cell processor.

The fact that they are using two unproven technologies that cost them, and in turn us, an arm and a leg sort of proves their overconfidence. Also, the fact that they keep saying it's not overpriced, when clearly, for what it does, it is to the average consumer.

As to your point about people being "angry" about the price...I think the word you were looking for is "disappointed". I was disappointed that Sony priced to so high. Most, myself included, figured Sony would do anything it had to in order to meet $399 for launch.

$500 is a fair price for what you get, whether you want blue ray or not, you are still getting a blue ray player in the PS3.

For $500, you really aren't getting a blu-ray player, in that, when studios turn on the copy protection, you won't be able to watch HD movies. HDMI is a must for Blu-Ray, and for $500 you do not get it.

Even if average joe does not know what blue ray is, he will see hey these cost this much, and I get this with it? Thats a good deal! Dont use the word value as they 360 or the Wiii are not more value than the PS3, they are just less expensive.

To average Joe Consumer, value === price, typically speaking. To average Joe Consumer, they say "What I want to do is play games [and watch movies]." All three consoles can do that, technically speaking. Sure, PS3 is the only HD movie player, but are there even signs that consumers want this? [Industry analysts indicate a resounding "NO"] If the person wants a graphical powerhouse, they won't get that much more from PS3 than they would from the 360. Keep in mind that even Kojima has said "I could probably do MGS4 on the Xbox 360", and MGS4 is, hands down, the greatest looking game for the PS3 so far.

You couldn't get Jak and Daxter, Final Fantasy X, X-2, Shadow Hearts, God of War, Onimusha 3, Wilf Arms, Katamary Damacy, Dragon Quest VIII, Guitar Hero, Devil May Cry, Disgea, shin Megami tensei series, Zone of the enders, rez, guitarro man, and many other games on the x box.

Jak and God of War aside, third parties flock to where they can make the most money. Right now, it seems like most third party hedged all bets by planning things for 360, PS3, and Wii. In the future, don't be surprised if some of these studios jump ship if PS3 is not clearly ahead in the console war.

[argyle]

a) The $600 model will be the model-of-choice for early adopters, but after that I expect the $500 model to become a bigger seller. First, the "no blue-ray movies without hdmi" is not set in stone, it's up to the studios. It would be a really stupid move for them to implement this & cut their own throats, but really it is speculation until blue-ray players & movies are on the market. We'll know in a month or two. So that means that most of the extras you get for $600 are unneccessary for most people, and the $500 mode is directly comperable feature-wise to the 360. If you're planning on siging up for Live service (which MS touts as its big selling point), add another $50 to the 360's price. So a $50 difference is going to break the PS3? Please.

b) Everyone is completely ignoring what was the PS2's trump card & what will be the PS3's trump card again - Japanese support. The 360 has about the same amount of Japanese support as the Xbox did...which is to say, next to none. A lot of what they had early on was just because they were the first next-gen system out (Square has effectively dropped them, and a Capcom dev was quoted as saying they made the 2 games they have coming out for the 360 because 'they got their dev kits first').

This will be THE system to own in Japan. The 360 has been selling worse over there than the Xbox did, and that's saying something. Games like FFXIII and the next true Dragon Quest sequel (which it's pretty much a given will go to the PS3) will sell systems like there's no tomorrow - not to mention all the other JRPGs that the 360 will never see. And the Wii? It will get support, sure, but not games like I just mentioned - because it couldn't possibly handle them.

So what do we care what the Japanese buy? Because the more the system sells in Japan, that just means even MORE Japanese support. Since many would argue (myself included) that the best games come from Japan, this will create a domino effect. The US gamer will start seeing tons of Japanese games available only on the PS3. I don't know about anyone else, but a system that's $100 - $200 cheaper isn't a bargain if it doesn't play the games I want to play.

c) There are more games coming out at launch for the PS3 that interest me than are either released or have been announced for the 360. It is, once again, getting predominantly shooters and pc-esque titles - or in some case, pc ports. How well the graphics stack up are pointless if the games don't even interest me in the first place.

d) The PS3 will sell out at launch, and it will be in very short supply well into next year. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves. By the time the systems start becoming easier to find in stores, we'll have MGS4 and FFXIII, along with others, getting very close to release. And a price drop around the fall of next year is probably a safe bet. Everyone I've talked to - casual gamers, friends, people I've just run into in game stores, etc - has far more interest in a PS3 than a 360. I understand we're CAG's around here, but the price difference is NOT that big - when you're looking at dropping $400+ on a console anyway. The people that bite at the $200 & under prices weren't going to buy the system even if it launched for $400, so that's a moot point.

[Richlough]

$600.00 is way too much for a game system that plays better versions of movies that I probably already own .

I bought a '99 ZX2 , 5 months ago , for $300.00 !!!
http://www.braddockmotors.com/images/inventory/1998%20Ford%20ZX2%20Escort%20ZX2.jpg

[gaelan]

So you guys really think it wont sell at $500/ $600? Honestly?

i think it will sell no problem. americans are famous for living beyond their means. with all the financing options, i don't think anyone is going balk at it that really wants it. $600 isn't real money when all you are doing is swiping a plastic card...is it? as someone who watches his money carefully and does not believe is borrowing (other than a house), i am going to have a hard time turning loose of 6 or 7 bills of my hard earned money for a gaming console/dvd player. luckily for sony, i am the minority in this obese and debt ridden country that offers its taxpayers the option of using a cc to pay taxes to "help" families.

[DarkNessBear]

"we believe people who like games will, without question, purchase it."

The arrogance completely and totally... doesn't surprise me.

I can't wait to see how kutaragi defends the lackluster sales of this thing.

Hehe, you think it wont sell well?

Hehe...

[jer7583]

Everyone said the same thing about the PSP.. how the DS had no chance, how it was so superior, despite the price. The PSP has shown that the sony name isn't invicible, and people can buy the alternative.

At $600, the alternatives look REAL good. Especially with the Wiimote being so positively recieved almost universally.

[Morpheus]

Here's the straight up minimium to get my game on with any of the consoles not including games price and accessories price:

PS3 Gimp Pack: $499.99 +tax

XBOX 360 Tard Pack + 64mb Memory Card: $299.99 + $29.99 = $329.98 +tax

Wii: Supposedly this is the current price range speculation $149.99-$249.99

Just looking at the differenence between the Tard and Gimp packs, I can say that with that extra $170.01 I could buy 2 games and a extra wireless controller for the tard pack. Or a ton of games and accessories for the Wii.

Now, after initial launches which do you think the casuals will buy?

Just remember to factor in that its not just a mere $499.99 +tax to get gaming on, its the price of games and whatever else you want on top of that base price (same goes for the rest of the consoles, but PS3 pushes the price even higher).

The only way the PS3 price looks good is if you want it as an HD player, but as a games machine it is obscenely expensive.

[suffah]

Remember how a huge percentage of the initial 360 units ended up on ebay? Of course the same thing will happen with the PS3, probably even more people will be buying them at launch to re-sell on ebay, why not turn a quick $500+ profit for camping out one night?

However, it would be AWESOME if people didn't want to pay obscene money for the system on ebay and units actually sold for less than retail. I know this scenario is impossible given the simple fact that all stores will be sold out, but it'd be AWESOME nonetheless.

[slimpip]

I'm just going to copy and paste what I posted elsewhere. To paraphrase: this is a good business strategy by Sony and it all depends on Blu-Ray. If it works, they along with Toshiba are insanely insanely rich as proprieters of BluRay. If BluRay flops they could take big enough hits to crumple either company (down the road, not immediately). But their current strategy is priming them for the former, not the latter. Explained:

First off let me say that I am just as disappointed as you guys at the asking price for PS3. But, I'm not angry, Sony wants to max their profits as much as possible, and their current plan is a very good one.

Ok, let me sum up Sony's strategy for you guys. The consumer who is looking for a high-def player/media center is going to look at this thing and say: "Damn only $500-$600! A stand-alone Blu-Ray player is $600-$1000!! Plus I get a video game system!!". And yes, that is a good deal. If any of you think MS's HD-DVD addon is going to be a penny under $199 you're mistaken (therefore bringing a premium 360 plus HD-DVD addon to ~$600, unless an unlikely price drop has occured). The problem with this is with the PS3: you HAVE to have the Blu-Ray tech, whereas you don't with the 360 or Wii. So the financially challenged GAMERS (aka us) are more likely to lean toward a 360 or Wii.

Now, while Sony may have aliented some hardcore gamers with their asking price, they've also adopted a new consumer, those who want a next gen dvd player and media hub. "Well why not buy a 360 and HD-DVD addon?" For approximately the same price my bet is that the majority of Hi Def consumers (IMO 90%) will want in all in one machine. Out of the "hardcore" gamers Sony will alienate, most likely 50% of them will buy one after a price drop or if Blu-Ray wins the software war (assuming Blu-Ray doesn't flop).

So, you have the people who were going to buy the system regardless of price + the new consumer they have reeled in with Blu-Ray for low price + the small amount of hardcore gamers who will find a way to buy the system (at launch or after drop) minus a small (compared to the overall user base)amount of gamers who won't buy the system at all. If you analyze this with the numbers and go the whole nine yards, you'll realize that Sony's plan is to add to their already huge user base (or to cancel out the consumers they lose with brand new HiDef consumers), which will likely happen. Now you have more consumers available to buy the SOFTWARE you're pushing, since that's where most of the money comes from.

This is Sony's plan. $600 is enough to scare off some gamers, but just inexpensive enough to lure the new Hi-Def consumer, mainstream gamer, and some others. Will I buy at launch? It depends. I always told myself that I wouldn't buy the PS3 or an HD DVD player until a clear winner had been announced. But, if the "shortage" problems just so happen to occur and I can get my hands on 2-3 of these, I'll keep one and sell the other(s). That is the only way I see myself having one of these at launch, it's also a good way to make some extra change.

For now though, Viva la Wii and Jump In with the 360.

[Morpheus]

I'm just going to copy and paste what I posted elsewhere. To paraphrase: this is a good business strategy by Sony and it all depends on Blu-Ray. If it works, they along with Toshiba are insanely insanely rich as proprieters of BluRay. If BluRay flops they could take big enough hits to crumple either company (down the road, not immediately). But their current strategy is priming them for the former, not the latter. Explained:

First off let me say that I am just as disappointed as you guys at the asking price for PS3. But, I'm not angry, Sony wants to max their profits as much as possible, and their current plan is a very good one.

Ok, let me sum up Sony's strategy for you guys. The consumer who is looking for a high-def player/media center is going to look at this thing and say: "Damn only $500-$600! A stand-alone Blu-Ray player is $600-$1000!! Plus I get a video game system!!". And yes, that is a good deal. If any of you think MS's HD-DVD addon is going to be a penny under $199 you're mistaken (therefore bringing a premium 360 plus HD-DVD addon to ~$600, unless an unlikely price drop has occured). The problem with this is with the PS3: you HAVE to have the Blu-Ray tech, whereas you don't with the 360 or Wii. So the financially challenged GAMERS (aka us) are more likely to lean toward a 360 or Wii.

Now, while Sony may have aliented some hardcore gamers with their asking price, they've also adopted a new consumer, those who want a next gen dvd player and media hub. "Well why not buy a 360 and HD-DVD addon?" For approximately the same price my bet is that the majority of Hi Def consumers (IMO 90%) will want in all in one machine. Out of the "hardcore" gamers Sony will alienate, most likely 50% of them will buy one after a price drop or if Blu-Ray wins the software war (assuming Blu-Ray doesn't flop).

So, you have the people who were going to buy the system regardless of price + the new consumer they have reeled in with Blu-Ray for low price + the small amount of hardcore gamers who will find a way to buy the system (at launch or after drop) minus a small (compared to the overall user base)amount of gamers who won't buy the system at all. If you analyze this with the numbers and go the whole nine yards, you'll realize that Sony's plan is to add to their already huge user base (or to cancel out the consumers they lose with brand new HiDef consumers), which will likely happen. Now you have more consumers available to buy the SOFTWARE you're pushing, since that's where most of the money comes from.

This is Sony's plan. $600 is enough to scare off some gamers, but just inexpensive enough to lure the new Hi-Def consumer, mainstream gamer, and some others. Will I buy at launch? It depends. I always told myself that I wouldn't buy the PS3 or an HD DVD player until a clear winner had been announced. But, if the "shortage" problems just so happen to occur and I can get my hands on 2-3 of these, I'll keep one and sell the other(s). That is the only way I see myself having one of these at launch, it's also a good way to make some extra change.

For now though, Viva la Wii and Jump In with the 360.

One problem with your whole idea. HDTVs market penetration is still small. Meaning those supposed HD consumers are not as huge as you make them out to be. I'm willing to bet that they will lose more people because of the price than the people they gain from HD.

AfterEdit: Just like to make it clear that I believe PS3 will sell out at launch. Its after launch that is a huge question mark.

[slimpip]

One problem with your whole idea. HDTVs market penetration is still small. Meaning those supposed HD consumers are not as huge as you make them out to be. I'm willing to bet that they will lose more people because of the price than the people they gain from HD.

I'm not making them out to be huge by any means. My bet is that they will even out or gain more consumers with this move. Your bet it is that they'll lose more than they gain. Just a difference of opinion and who we think makes up the mass gaming market. I will agree that HDTV penetration is still small, but again that's probably something Sony has looked at and after analyzing felt safe enough to proceed with their plan.

I'm not rooting either way for Sony. I just don't agree with the much publicized opinion that they're arrogant, mean, hate gamers blah blah. They just want some money :)

[Morpheus]

Out of the "hardcore" gamers Sony will alienate, most likely 50% of them will buy one after a price drop or if Blu-Ray wins the software war (assuming Blu-Ray doesn't flop).


That sounds huge to me.

It is a difference of opinion, but we can also discuss and speculate about it until these consoles are out.

Just remember what happened to all other expensive consoles in the past. Don't underestimate price.

[slimpip]

That sounds huge to me.

It is a difference of opinion, but we can also discuss and speculate about it until these consoles are out.

Just remember what happened to all other expensive consoles in the past. Don't underestimate price.

Until you said it, I had never thought about expensive consoles in the past (probably because I wasn't buying things for myself in the 90's hehe). That is one factor that should have played into Sony's strategy, "How much is too much?". If the 360 can go without next gen media storage this gen, then so can the PS3 (at least one model).

But, they need BluRay to succeed now, and what better way do they have than to put it into one of their most universally popular items. Sony is digging a hole for themselves (with a lot of unknowns and only speculation about the market) going into their launch, but if they're able to get out of it, it'll be money mayhem.

Edit: It also never occurred to me that Sony needs BluRay to win outright. They can't have a battle with HD-DVD that lasts until a new format arrives. So, that makes 2 potentially hazardous situations, and 1 potentially momentous celebration. I'll revise my "good business strategy" line with, "good business strategy, if it works".

[stubept]

Wow... I think a lot of people have lost touch with reality, and that reality is of who the "average gamer" is.

The average gamer couldn't give two craps about cell processors or blu-ray. They couldn't give two craps about how many polygons Solid Snake is pushing or that Jax has self-shadowing.

And the average gamer isn't going to spend more on a system that looks pretty much like its $200 cheaper competitor. The average gamer, you see, doesn't have an endless supply of disposable income.

The average gamer wants Madden. They want Grand Theft Auto. They want Splinter Cell. And they can get those three games - plus the Xbox360 - for less than the PS3.

All of those defending the PS3 are NOT average gamers, no matter what you tell yourself. You are the hardcore gamer. You are, in fact, Sony's target. Congratulations. They've got you. But they don't have me.

Where Sony fails is realizing how few hardcore gamers there are. I own all three current generation systems, and love them all for different reasons. Xbox for Xbox Live, PS2 for rhythm games like DDR and Guitar Hero, and Gamecube for straight-up having the most fun games. But I am not a hardcore gamer.

There is no way I'm buying a PS3. First off, my wife would kill me. And see, that's part of being an average gamer. We have spouses. We have kids. We have a mortgage. When we look at something for entertainment purposes, we're going to go with the most bang for our buck.

(And since the Wii looks like a friggin' blast - and it's going to be inexpensive - we're probably going to get one of those first.)

And that's how it's going to be for the average gamer. Post 20-somethings like myself will get either a Wii or 360. If I'm looking for something that my wife might enjoy and she won't have a spaz about the price, I'm going to get a Wii. If I feel like getting something with a little more horsepower, I'm going to get a 360 because it's $200 cheaper. Parents who are taking their kids to EB are going to do they same. Adolescent and teenage gamers don't need blu-ray players. They don't have HDTVs in their room.

The average gamer purchased PS2s to the tune of millions. Why? Because they were inexpensive. Because it had Madden and Grand Theft Auto, and N64 did not. Not because the PS2 had the most horsepower (because clearly it did not). Not because they had great first party offerings. But because it was accessible - from the single guy living in an apartment with disposible income to burn, to the kid who had to mow lawns all summer to save up enough money.

The PS3 is the furthest thing from being accessible to the "average gamer". And the price point is the number reason why.

Will Sony sell out their initial 2 million systems? No doubt. But by then, Xbox will have sold 6 to 10 million systems, have great-looking second-generation games coming out (like Madden and *gasp* Grand Theft Auto), and Nintendo will have the much-talked about (and much cheaper) Wii out at the same time.

Unlike when the PS2 first came out, the average gamer has a choice this time around. And I can guarentee you, the average gamer is not going to get the PS3.

[dracula]

if sony is selling these at $600, they are undoubtedly taking a huge hit on every system sold. they are selling them at a loss just to get them out to the public.

I, of course will wait for it to be $150 for the premium edition, and lots of $20 games.

Of course, I will probably buy like 10 of the sysems at launch and sell them on ebay for $1500 each heh

[Morpheus]

Until you said it, I had never thought about expensive consoles in the past (probably because I wasn't buying things for myself in the 90's hehe). That is one factor that should have played into Sony's strategy, "How much is too much?". If the 360 can go without next gen media storage this gen, then so can the PS3 (at least one model).

But, they need BluRay to succeed now, and what better way do they have than to put it into one of their most universally popular items. Sony is digging a hole for themselves (with a lot of unknowns and only speculation about the market) going into their launch, but if they're able to get out of it, it'll be money mayhem.

Edit: It also never occurred to me that Sony needs BluRay to win outright. They can't have a battle with HD-DVD that lasts until a new format arrives. So, that makes 2 potentially hazardous situations, and 1 potentially momentous celebration. I'll revise my "good business strategy" line with, "good business strategy, if it works".

I agree with some of what you say. There are so many ways this can go, Sony could win on Blu-ray front (Sony isn't the only one pushing blu-ray) and lose on videogame front. Sony could win on videogame front and lose on blu-ray front (least likely of scenarios). Sony could either win/lose both the blu-ray front and videogame front. Sony is taking a huge risk with the PS3. If they succeed more power to them.

[RaPtOrsIII]

the launch ps2 was manufactured in japan

will the ps3 be manufactured in china?

cuts cost to sony

[Wlogan31]

Wow... I think a lot of people have lost touch with reality, and that reality is of who the "average gamer" is.

The average gamer couldn't give two craps about cell processors or blu-ray. They couldn't give two craps about how many polygons Solid Snake is pushing or that Jax has self-shadowing.

And the average gamer isn't going to spend more on a system that looks pretty much like its $200 cheaper competitor. The average gamer, you see, doesn't have an endless supply of disposable income.

The average gamer wants Madden. They want Grand Theft Auto. They want Splinter Cell. And they can get those three games - plus the Xbox360 - for less than the PS3.

All of those defending the PS3 are NOT average gamers, no matter what you tell yourself. You are the hardcore gamer. You are, in fact, Sony's target. Congratulations. They've got you. But they don't have me.

Where Sony fails is realizing how few hardcore gamers there are. I own all three current generation systems, and love them all for different reasons. Xbox for Xbox Live, PS2 for rhythm games like DDR and Guitar Hero, and Gamecube for straight-up having the most fun games. But I am not a hardcore gamer.

There is no way I'm buying a PS3. First off, my wife would kill me. And see, that's part of being an average gamer. We have spouses. We have kids. We have a mortgage. When we look at something for entertainment purposes, we're going to go with the most bang for our buck.

(And since the Wii looks like a friggin' blast - and it's going to be inexpensive - we're probably going to get one of those first.)

And that's how it's going to be for the average gamer. Post 20-somethings like myself will get either a Wii or 360. If I'm looking for something that my wife might enjoy and she won't have a spaz about the price, I'm going to get a Wii. If I feel like getting something with a little more horsepower, I'm going to get a 360 because it's $200 cheaper. Parents who are taking their kids to EB are going to do they same. Adolescent and teenage gamers don't need blu-ray players. They don't have HDTVs in their room.

The average gamer purchased PS2s to the tune of millions. Why? Because they were inexpensive. Because it had Madden and Grand Theft Auto, and N64 did not. Not because the PS2 had the most horsepower (because clearly it did not). Not because they had great first party offerings. But because it was accessible - from the single guy living in an apartment with disposible income to burn, to the kid who had to mow lawns all summer to save up enough money.

The PS3 is the furthest thing from being accessible to the "average gamer". And the price point is the number reason why.

Will Sony sell out their initial 2 million systems? No doubt. But by then, Xbox will have sold 6 to 10 million systems, have great-looking second-generation games coming out (like Madden and *gasp* Grand Theft Auto), and Nintendo will have the much-talked about (and much cheaper) Wii out at the same time.

Unlike when the PS2 first came out, the average gamer has a choice this time around. And I can guarentee you, the average gamer is not going to get the PS3.

:applause: :applause: :applause:

I think you hit most of the nails on the head, sir.

[Ender]

Wow... I think a lot of people have lost touch with reality, and that reality is of who the "average gamer" is.

The average gamer couldn't give two craps about cell processors or blu-ray. They couldn't give two craps about how many polygons Solid Snake is pushing or that Jax has self-shadowing.

And the average gamer isn't going to spend more on a system that looks pretty much like its $200 cheaper competitor. The average gamer, you see, doesn't have an endless supply of disposable income.

The average gamer wants Madden. They want Grand Theft Auto. They want Splinter Cell. And they can get those three games - plus the Xbox360 - for less than the PS3.

All of those defending the PS3 are NOT average gamers, no matter what you tell yourself. You are the hardcore gamer. You are, in fact, Sony's target. Congratulations. They've got you. But they don't have me.

Where Sony fails is realizing how few hardcore gamers there are. I own all three current generation systems, and love them all for different reasons. Xbox for Xbox Live, PS2 for rhythm games like DDR and Guitar Hero, and Gamecube for straight-up having the most fun games. But I am not a hardcore gamer.

There is no way I'm buying a PS3. First off, my wife would kill me. And see, that's part of being an average gamer. We have spouses. We have kids. We have a mortgage. When we look at something for entertainment purposes, we're going to go with the most bang for our buck.

(And since the Wii looks like a friggin' blast - and it's going to be inexpensive - we're probably going to get one of those first.)

And that's how it's going to be for the average gamer. Post 20-somethings like myself will get either a Wii or 360. If I'm looking for something that my wife might enjoy and she won't have a spaz about the price, I'm going to get a Wii. If I feel like getting something with a little more horsepower, I'm going to get a 360 because it's $200 cheaper. Parents who are taking their kids to EB are going to do they same. Adolescent and teenage gamers don't need blu-ray players. They don't have HDTVs in their room.

The average gamer purchased PS2s to the tune of millions. Why? Because they were inexpensive. Because it had Madden and Grand Theft Auto, and N64 did not. Not because the PS2 had the most horsepower (because clearly it did not). Not because they had great first party offerings. But because it was accessible - from the single guy living in an apartment with disposible income to burn, to the kid who had to mow lawns all summer to save up enough money.

The PS3 is the furthest thing from being accessible to the "average gamer". And the price point is the number reason why.

Will Sony sell out their initial 2 million systems? No doubt. But by then, Xbox will have sold 6 to 10 million systems, have great-looking second-generation games coming out (like Madden and *gasp* Grand Theft Auto), and Nintendo will have the much-talked about (and much cheaper) Wii out at the same time.

Unlike when the PS2 first came out, the average gamer has a choice this time around. And I can guarentee you, the average gamer is not going to get the PS3.

Amen. :applause:

"Post of the Year" nominee right there.

[depascal22]

I agree with that being the post of the year except for the fact that there were still choices for gamers when the PS2 came out. The Dreamcast was a superior machine that was around the same price and still flopped when Sony released the PS2.

The PS3 has become the luxury car of the consoles. Everyone really wants one but they might never be able to purchase one.

[m0dem]

Wow... I think a lot of people have lost touch with reality, and that reality is of who the "average gamer" is.

The average gamer couldn't give two craps about cell processors or blu-ray. They couldn't give two craps about how many polygons Solid Snake is pushing or that Jax has self-shadowing.

And the average gamer isn't going to spend more on a system that looks pretty much like its $200 cheaper competitor. The average gamer, you see, doesn't have an endless supply of disposable income.

The average gamer wants Madden. They want Grand Theft Auto. They want Splinter Cell. And they can get those three games - plus the Xbox360 - for less than the PS3.

All of those defending the PS3 are NOT average gamers, no matter what you tell yourself. You are the hardcore gamer. You are, in fact, Sony's target. Congratulations. They've got you. But they don't have me.

Where Sony fails is realizing how few hardcore gamers there are. I own all three current generation systems, and love them all for different reasons. Xbox for Xbox Live, PS2 for rhythm games like DDR and Guitar Hero, and Gamecube for straight-up having the most fun games. But I am not a hardcore gamer.

There is no way I'm buying a PS3. First off, my wife would kill me. And see, that's part of being an average gamer. We have spouses. We have kids. We have a mortgage. When we look at something for entertainment purposes, we're going to go with the most bang for our buck.

(And since the Wii looks like a friggin' blast - and it's going to be inexpensive - we're probably going to get one of those first.)

And that's how it's going to be for the average gamer. Post 20-somethings like myself will get either a Wii or 360. If I'm looking for something that my wife might enjoy and she won't have a spaz about the price, I'm going to get a Wii. If I feel like getting something with a little more horsepower, I'm going to get a 360 because it's $200 cheaper. Parents who are taking their kids to EB are going to do they same. Adolescent and teenage gamers don't need blu-ray players. They don't have HDTVs in their room.

The average gamer purchased PS2s to the tune of millions. Why? Because they were inexpensive. Because it had Madden and Grand Theft Auto, and N64 did not. Not because the PS2 had the most horsepower (because clearly it did not). Not because they had great first party offerings. But because it was accessible - from the single guy living in an apartment with disposible income to burn, to the kid who had to mow lawns all summer to save up enough money.

The PS3 is the furthest thing from being accessible to the "average gamer". And the price point is the number reason why.

Will Sony sell out their initial 2 million systems? No doubt. But by then, Xbox will have sold 6 to 10 million systems, have great-looking second-generation games coming out (like Madden and *gasp* Grand Theft Auto), and Nintendo will have the much-talked about (and much cheaper) Wii out at the same time.

Unlike when the PS2 first came out, the average gamer has a choice this time around. And I can guarentee you, the average gamer is not going to get the PS3.

You say you are not a hardcore gamer but you bought each system? When you could have gotten madden, splinter cell, gta on xbox or ps2?

[Scobie]

Thanks to Sony's break-through motion-controlled gaming with six-way-power-funk, I predict the PS3 will be the biggest hit since the Neo Geo!!1

Seriously, guys, don't any of you who are arguing in support of the PS3 have to pay rent? $600 for entry into the next generation is absurd on so many levels.

This is a text book example of a company losing the plot. First and foremost, we should be thinking as gamers. So, as a gamer, do you really give a toss about playing movies on your game console? Do you also like being pushed into buying an expensive HDTV just to play new games? Are you honestly happy about companies jacking up the console price for features that get away from the core idea of gaming?

I'm sure the PS3 will come close to selling out in the launch window; there's a sucker born every minute. I'm also sure that YouTube will be filled with videos of chumps with more dollars than sense racing out on launch day to get a PS3. The videos will also probably feature bad techno music and store parking lot shots of their ain't-I-clever ricers with the spoilers and the decals.

But as for me, I'll be staying home with unspent hundreds of dollars earning interest towards my retirement, playing enjoyable games on the systems I have and maybe even on the Wii, if the price is right. Save a little cash now and then... you might need it some day.

[RedvsBlue]

Thanks to Sony's break-through motion-controlled gaming with six-way-power-funk, I predict the PS3 will be the biggest hit since the Neo Geo!!1

Seriously, guys, don't any of you who are arguing in support of the PS3 have to pay rent? $600 for entry into the next generation is absurd on so many levels.


My rent is $75 cheaper than the PS3.

[depascal22]

You say you are not a hardcore gamer but you bought each system? When you could have gotten madden, splinter cell, gta on xbox or ps2?

You don't have to be truly hardcore to own all 3 systems.

[Vegan]

I'd say you do. You have a major vested interest in video games if you own 3 video game consoles.

[SMMM]

I'd say you do. You have a major vested interest in video games if you own 3 video game consoles.

It's quite easy to get all 3 systems for under $300, half of the PS3.

[Vegan]

Well hardcore gaming isn't about cost, it's about interest. This site alone proves that! lol

[Purkeynator]

My rent is $75 cheaper than the PS3.

So Ken would say, go homeless for a month and you will be (almost) be able to afford a PS3.

[suffah]

I don't consider myself a hardcore gamer yet own all 3 consoles as well. I'm lucky to play 30 minutes a day (most likely 3 times a week). Why do I own all these damn consoles? They had something I wanted to play and they were CHEAP.

I didn't buy any of them at launch. Gamecube cost me $60. PS2 was a b-day gift. XBOX cost me $120 used.

Sure, I'll get a PS3 some day. But I can guarantee you I will get a Wii and 360 first. I'll probably get a 360 this holiday season, maybe a Wii for my gf. Who knows how many years until I get a PS3? The average gamer will not pay $600 for a console. I'd rather put that money towards a HDTV.

[doubledown]

Well, it's cheap when you consider that a stand-alone Blu-Ray player costs $1000. It's not so cheap in the gaming world though.

[m0dem]

You don't have to be truly hardcore to own all 3 systems.

Then whats the point of owning all three if your not a hardcore gamer? Why do you need all three consoles if your a mild gamer?

[itspaidgasterblaster]

For one we already know the price of PS3 and while its true most people don't earn $40000 a year it doesn't mean its out of your reach. I already have $140.00 saved for my PS3 and i already figured that if i save 20 bucks a week I should have about $640. If they would have said a month before the ps3 came out there is no way i'd pay that much money, but since they are giving us a few months then i'll have no problem paying that much money. $20 a week means i'll just stop eating for lunch at subway and make lunch the day before at my house. I could just stop buying CD's for a while. I love deals don't get me wrong but the way i see it a one time payment for $600.00 is not much IMO. I will definetly will not pay $60 a game except for a few exceptions. On the day I got my 360 the only reason I got call of duty 2 was because my brother paid for it. I was patient and waited for the buy2 used get 1 free, and it paid off I got Elder Scrolls, Gun, and Condemmed at $92.50. I got Dynasty Warriors 5 for $30 and Amped for $30.00.

[zewone]

Now, after initial launches which do you think the casuals will buy?

Playstation 3, so they can play Madden 2007 with a DualShock 3.

[vinhjdao]

For one we already know the price of PS3 and while its true most people don't earn $40000 a year it doesn't mean its out of your reach. I already have $140.00 saved for my PS3 and i already figured that if i save 20 bucks a week I should have about $640. If they would have said a month before the ps3 came out there is no way i'd pay that much money, but since they are giving us a few months then i'll have no problem paying that much money. $20 a week means i'll just stop eating for lunch at subway and make lunch the day before at my house. I could just stop buying CD's for a while.

$40k a year and have enough disposable income to slap down $650+ for a game console and a game? Maybe if they were single, living in an apartment with no debt to pay off.

Saving $20 a week with your current savings would take 30 straight weeks, or until the last week of November. If you want accessories like another controller, well, that's two more weeks of saving after that. Another game? Three more weeks. That's a good long while to be holding off on CDs and Subway.

[depascal22]

Then whats the point of owning all three if your not a hardcore gamer? Why do you need all three consoles if your a mild gamer?

Please refer to the post right above yours about the mild gamer with all 3 consoles. I received all my consoles as gifts. You can also be a hardcore gamer and only have one system. Listen to some of the fanboys in some of these forums. Some of these guys would rather go condomless with a toothless hooker than play a game on a different console.

[Vegan]

Are you a casual gamer if friends and family thought that a videogame console would make a great gift? On multiple occassions? I think it's more than a matter of finances, but of interest.

Of course, I don't think ANYONE here is a casual gamer. Here we are on a videogame messageboard.

[nosuchsoul]

Please refer to the post right above yours about the mild gamer with all 3 consoles. I received all my consoles as gifts. You can also be a hardcore gamer and only have one system. Listen to some of the fanboys in some of these forums. Some of these guys would rather go condomless with a toothless hooker than play a game on a different console.


Yeah, but those people are idiots. They are an insignificant portion of the videogame world, they only think they are important because they have 30,000 posts on the Gamespot forums.

[nosuchsoul]

One more thing, I work as a store manager of a Gamestop. . We get a lot of kids with parents, and when I tell these parents that the PS3 is going to be $600, they cringe. No way are they buying that system for little Timmy.

I do not waste their time by telling them about the $500 dumbass model, since that is exactly what it is. When I tell them the 360 will most likely have a price drop down into the $300 range and that the Wii will be around $200 by christmas, I can instantly see what they are leaning to.

Sorry Sony, but you sold 100 million by becoming the system of the casuals, and they became the system of the casuals by having a low price and the rapid increase of games due the ever increasing base of customers by selling cheap PS2's.

[stubept]

How can I be a casual gamer and own all three systems?

I first got the GameCube at launch because Nintendo makes the most fun games. Ever. It was the only system I had for a while.

Then Xbox Live launched and the Xbox's price dropped. I went and got the Xbox about 1.5 years after launch. I pretty much used it exclusively for Live games. I still have never played the original Halo (though I play Halo 2 to death).

I purchased my used PS2 on eBay after I decided I wanted to get DDR for exercise purposes (I started getting into fitness and alternated my weigh lifting days with cardio days, so I used DDR for that). With the exception of Shadow of the Colossus, ICO, and God of War, all of the games I have for PS2 are musical/rhythm games (DDR, Karaoke Revolution, Guitar Hero, etc.)

Then I got married. And I still don't have a 360 because of that single aspect of my life. If we have an extra $20 a week, it's going towards a much need vacation, OSU Buckeye tickets, or to pay off our wedding.

Our next system will no doubt be the Wii.

[depascal22]

It'll be impossible to convince guys on here that a casual gamer can own all 3 systems. It'll be a few more posts before these guys start flaming for real.

*Goes and finds some cover*

[m0dem]

How can I be a casual gamer and own all three systems?

I first got the GameCube at launch because Nintendo makes the most fun games. Ever. It was the only system I had for a while.

Then Xbox Live launched and the Xbox's price dropped. I went and got the Xbox about 1.5 years after launch. I pretty much used it exclusively for Live games. I still have never played the original Halo (though I play Halo 2 to death).

I purchased my used PS2 on eBay after I decided I wanted to get DDR for exercise purposes (I started getting into fitness and alternated my weigh lifting days with cardio days, so I used DDR for that). With the exception of Shadow of the Colossus, ICO, and God of War, all of the games I have for PS2 are musical/rhythm games (DDR, Karaoke Revolution, Guitar Hero, etc.)

Then I got married. And I still don't have a 360 because of that single aspect of my life. If we have an extra $20 a week, it's going towards a much need vacation, OSU Buckeye tickets, or to pay off our wedding.

Our next system will no doubt be the Wii.

What you said just prove your not a casual gamer. You bought xbox for the live games. I dont think a casual gamer would buy a whole new system just to play online. Then you say you bought a ps2 for all the musical/rhythm games well all of the ones you listed with the exception of guitar hero can be found on xbox.

[MarioColbert]

Honestly: I have, am, and will be hating on Sony for a long time to come. Not forever, because they will eventually have games that are going to be amazing, but for a while for sure. At least while the price remains what the announcement has been.

But to be serious: the price is justified. Not just that, it's a bargain IF you are interested in BlueRay HD system. From what I've gathered, a BlueRay DVD player costs $1,000 at the moment. PS3 will give you a $400 discount AND lets you play games. I see nothing pompous in Sony telling you that the price is fair, because it is.

However, I don't see very many people being excited about this new HD stuff. In fact, on this very forum I'm reading people who somehow remain decent amidst long posts mentioning Giant Crabs and whatnot. All those people said, to summarize: Exclusive Titles. Fuck off.

If Sony can now market BlueRay and create at least some demand for that (among gamers and tech-loving Perl coders) it is rather likely that $600 won't come accross nearly as shocking as it does right now. No wonder, it's 2.5 times what we had to pay for the last generation.

[Metal Boss]

Come to your senses then MarioColbert? :lol:


I agree that it is cheap for what is included, hell they even had to take some things out of the console to make it at that price, which, in turn caused further doubt on sony. I understand the cutbacks that they made on the console, I wouldn't call it lying, just over-estimating what is in their capacity to manufacture.

PS3 will be getting the kind of games I'll want to play, and I'm dead certain the quality of games will get incredible, judging by the PS2's run, the games at the peak of the PS2's lifespan were simply amazing, the way they pushed the limits of the hardware on the PS2, imagine how they could push the PS3, if the games look this good now... XBOX, hmm I can play all the games I want for that on my pc, and in better quality, the WII still seems gimmicky to me, even moreso after seeing people playing red steel at E3, it's definitely got me interested enough to check it out though. I'd have to place my opinion on it after I've experienced it.

[MarioColbert]

Come to your senses then MarioColbert?

Yes, as in: I will not be spending $600 for a PS3. Those senses are perfectly legitimate. The price is legitimate for a BlueRay HD player. I'm not interested in one, and without one, the system is "crippled" at best.

[Metal Boss]

Crippled?! It's a gaming console, and you're saying without functionality to play HD movies it's crippled? I won't be watching HD-dvds/ blu-ray, what have you since I have a well established DVD collection, and no HD tv to utilize the capabilities with even. I am getting the PS3 for the games, I wouldn't call it crippled for serving its purpose as a gaming machine...

[CappyCobra]

...XBOX, hmm I can play all the games I want for that on my pc, and in better quality...

$1500 for a gaming PC or $300 for a console with comparable graphics and the same titles? I don't have to patch my game for it to work? Hmmm, let me think that one over. </sarcasm>

[MarioColbert]

Crippled?! It's a gaming console, and you're saying without functionality to play HD movies it's crippled? I won't be watching HD-dvds/ blu-ray, what have you since I have a well established DVD collection, and no HD tv to utilize the capabilities with even. I am getting the PS3 for the games, I wouldn't call it crippled for serving its purpose as a gaming machine...

The selling point of PS3 eye candy is that it runs at a higher resolution than anything else in the market. PS3 that costs $499 does not feature HDMI output. (http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/release/pdf/060509ae.pdf) So, you're getting an "HD system that does all the HD but outputs it differently." Without an HDMI port, the system is crippled, yes, because it's advertised as an HD system. What good is their eye-candy if you don't have a monitor with enough resolution to see the detail they are putting in? The full $599 version is definitely worth having to play games. Except for that catch that says you must pay $599 + tax to own it.

If you are telling me that PS3 brings on the "next generation" and you're not even planning to experience the eye candy that it offers with an HD display, perhaps you are better off waiting until the games that you want come out. Because, really, Sony have you in their pocket, to make you buy shit that you just said you don't need.



Yep. This proves it. Sony will sell over 5 Millions Units. When kids with no interest in HD want a machine whose only feature is HD... Wii can go fuck itself.

[gaelan]

Crippled?! It's a gaming console, and you're saying without functionality to play HD movies it's crippled? I won't be watching HD-dvds/ blu-ray, what have you since I have a well established DVD collection, and no HD tv to utilize the capabilities with even. I am getting the PS3 for the games, I wouldn't call it crippled for serving its purpose as a gaming machine...

...so you're getting the $499 version?

[Metal Boss]

$1500 for a gaming PC or $300 for a console with comparable graphics and the same titles? I don't have to patch my game for it to work? Hmmm, let me think that one over. </sarcasm>

Actually, I built and configured my PC for alot less than that...


But saying that you play xbox because you don't have to patch your games is pretty silly when talking about crossover ports, so you want to be stuck with a buggy game for the rest of your days? I don't even have to think that one over...

The selling point of PS3 eye candy is that it runs at a higher resolution than anything else in the market. PS3 that costs $499 does not feature HDMI output. (http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/release/pdf/060509ae.pdf) So, you're getting an "HD system that does all the HD but outputs it differently." Without an HDMI port, the system is crippled, yes, because it's advertised as an HD system. What good is their eye-candy if you don't have a monitor with enough resolution to see the detail they are putting in? The full $599 version is definitely worth having to play games. Except for that catch that says you must pay $599 + tax to own it.

If you are telling me that PS3 brings on the "next generation" and you're not even planning to experience the eye candy that it offers with an HD display, perhaps you are better off waiting until the games that you want come out. Because, really, Sony have you in their pocket, to make you buy shit that you just said you don't need.



Yep. This proves it. Sony will sell over 5 Millions Units. When kids with no interest in HD want a machine whose only feature is HD... Wii can go fuck itself.


$599 without tax, I live in oregon, and I had planned on getting an HD-TV eventually so I could experience the PS3's capabilites, and Hi def movies, but quite honestly I am still content with dvds, although that gran turismo HD demo was drop dead gorgeous, i'm sure the games won't look that hot on my tv for the time I use it to play them, but then again I won't be that discontent with that, right now I am content with my current set up, and I think the PS3 will have a pretty lengthy lifespan, like the ps2, so I will be able to enjoy all of that in due time. By the way, I never said I was going to get the PS3 at launch, nor did I "DIS" the WII in any way as your last little shit-bit alluded to, I always wait for the consoles to break the ice first, although I bought my dreamcast on launch day, and I still play that sucker.

[CappyCobra]

Actually, I built and configured my PC for alot less than that...

But saying that you play xbox because you don't have to patch your games is pretty silly when talking about crossover ports, so you want to be stuck with a buggy game for the rest of your days? I don't even have to think that one over... I'm not talking about a PC that plays today's games. It's about building one that plays tomorrows. You don't buy 3-4 iterations of the PS2 with slighty upgraded processor and RAM do you? No, you have one standard and you have to stick with it. Hence why system prices come down with time as they become cheaper to produce. If you build a kick ass PC (SLI video cards, Dual Core CPU, 2GB of DDR2, RAIDed 10000RPM Raptors,600W powersupply, Case, DVD/CD burner, and a GOOD DFI motherboard ) is not going to run you under $1000; It's going to cost you $3000
https://secure.newegg.com/NewVersion/Wishlist/PublicWishDetail.asp?WishListNumber=3293868&WishListTitle=Cappys+List
Granted it's excessive NOW but it will be baseline in 4-5 years. But the thing about it is that its still a viable gaming platform for that whole time.

So Yes, there is a difference. It about the size of the fucking Grand Canyon

[Metal Boss]

Seeing that pc games have always been pretty scalable, and, actually generally have to be massively scaled down for console ports (HL2 for xbox, Chaos Theory for XBOX, unreal tourny for PS2...etc) getting that level of equipment doesn't concern me and shouldn't for awhile. It's not like you can upgrade your XBOX 360, aside from tacky lil faceplates, granted games will be optimized for the specific hardware, but that just isn't very impressive to begin with. With games like Half Life 2 that still consider people with MX 440s part of the gaming community :) are making it alot easier on the consumer IMO. For next gen? Just look at games like UT 2007 are supposed to be incredibly scalable, the UT engine has always been incredibly well optimized. But not just on the UT engine, most games seem to be getting much better with their graphics scalability...

[CappyCobra]

Seeing that pc games have always been pretty scalable, and, actually generally have to be massively scaled down for console ports (HL2 for xbox, Chaos Theory for XBOX, unreal tourny for PS2...etc) getting that level of equipment doesn't concern me and shouldn't for awhile. It's not like you can upgrade your XBOX 360, aside from tacky lil faceplates, granted games will be optimized for the specific hardware, but that just isn't very impressive to begin with. With games like Half Life 2 that still consider people with MX 440s part of the gaming community :) are making it alot easier on the consumer IMO. For next gen? Just look at games like UT 2007 are supposed to be incredibly scalable, the UT engine has always been incredibly well optimized. But not just on the UT engine, most games seem to be getting much better with their graphics scalability...

Scaleable=sacrifice. If you okay with 'OK' Performance, 'OK' Graphics, 'OK' sound, then you don't need ANY next generation console. It sounds like you should be happy with what you have.

[Metal Boss]

Sure I would be, I play my PS2 still all the time though, I am happy with my current computer, but why does that mean I wouldn't be even more happy with a PS3?!?!


I hear where your coming from, by the way your wish list does have some damn fine components 8-)

[CappyCobra]

...by the way your wish list does have some damn fine components 8-) And it's STILL at least $1000 cheaper than the cheapest Alienware PC :-P

[MarioColbert]

By the way, I never said I was going to get the PS3 at launch, nor did I "DIS" the WII in any way as your last little shit-bit alluded to, I always wait for the consoles to break the ice first, although I bought my dreamcast on launch day, and I still play that sucker.
My "shit-bit" alluded to your hilarious attempt at stopping "Sony bashing" in a Nintendo forum, with your strategy of choice being "saying some words." I really could not care less about whether or not you want to bash Wii, Xbox, PS3, Nintendo, my mother, or your head against a wall. Concerning Wii, I really wish that someone clever enough would point out anything about Wii that is can be funny, because I too am tired of referecens to Giant Enemy Crabs and Ridge Racer. At this point, though, Nintendo is pretty hard to hate on, at least until their E3 glows wears out.

The only reason why my "shit-bits" praise Sony is because I've always liked rooting for the losing team. By "the losing team" I mean:


"I really must stress to online PlayStation 3 partisans the extent to which they were not at E3. Those of you playing "the home game" might have seen a trailer or two and come away with the idea that with grace and pride your grey altar stood high over conquered foes. Ain't the case."
QED.

[MarioColbert]

Scaleable=sacrifice. If you okay with 'OK' Performance, 'OK' Graphics, 'OK' sound, then you don't need ANY next generation console. It sounds like you should be happy with what you have.

Everyone can be perfectly happy with what they have, except for the developers who get paid to make titles that equal excitement, which causes people to invest in the next generation of consoles. The reason that Metroid Prime 3 and Twighlight Princess were made the the GameCube are prime examples of obvious porting over of exclusive titles to ensure a good launch of Wii. Ditto for Microsoft's and Sony's strategy with Halo / Megal Gear Solid franchises respectively...