What is more absurd? Wii for $250 or PS3 for $600?

[Grave_Addiction]

I was actually getting upset at the thought of paying $250 for the Wii and not somewhere closer to $200, which is more reasonable, in my opinion.

Now, we know Nintendo is using "ancient" hardware compared to Sony and Microsoft and the manufacturing costs should be significantly lower than they were for the Gamecube.

The PS3 is basically a high-end PC that has the newest form of disc-based media available.

With that in mind, if the Wii launched for $250 as a standalone system would it be more overpriced than the PS3.

[RedvsBlue]

If it was a barebones package for $250 I think it is getting into the realm of over priced. Like you mentioned it is using somewhat weaker hardware than the other 2. At $200 I'm pretty sure I'll get it, at $250 I'll wait for a price drop.

Then again if I do get it, it'll be my secondary system to my 360 so I'm obviously not willing to spend a whole lot on it. For some people it will be their primary system for the next gen so they might be willing to go a little higher than me.

[PenguinMaster]

I think they're both overpriced, but a Wii for $250 is more so. The specs have already stated that it's barely more powerful than an Xbox and doesn't have a harddrive. Therefore it shouldn't cost more than an Xbox, especially not $100 more.

EDIT: I think the controllers are probably more expensive to make and should cost more than other controllers, but the system shouldn't be any more expensive. There is no way I'm paying more than $150 for a Wii.

EDIT: Also the main reason PS3 is overpriced is just because it's not competitevely priced. The additional power and Blu-Ray drive make the system more expensive to make, but I don't think the system will be $200 better than a 360.

EDIT: Additionaly with both the PS3 and Wii one can subtract how much they can sell a PS2 or GC from the price (if they have one), unlike the 360 with it's crappy backwards compatibility.

[wbc1228]

Even if the Wii is $250, I still think it is cheap.

[SMMM]

Was this confirmed?

[SpottedNigel]

No, not confirmed.

For what it brings to the table, I think Wii is fine at $250 for the system alone. Anything added to the package or a lower price is just icing on the cake to me.

[Robobandit]

Was this confirmed?

Speculation from EGM.

I expect they will sell it for $199, but they know they'll come in cheaper than the other two regardless so they don't feel like they have to rush an announcement and will likely figure out how they can make the most money possible without people turning away from the machine based on its price.

[Ikohn4ever]

now when u say the Wii has ancient parts, you do realize the wii has to be at around a 3rd of the size of the Xbox, so I would not call them ancient at all. I would think a 200 price would be a better price point but 250 aint that bad

[Chris in Cali]

I voted for both overpriced, although I feel the PS3 at $500-600 is a much bigger rip-off. I feel that the Wii at $250 is almost crossing the line of being overpriced, but not quite there yet.

[crazytalkx]

Pleasseeeeeeeeee be $200, Nintendo can't miss this opportunity.

[PenguinMaster]

now when u say the Wii has ancient parts, you do realize the wii has to be at around a 3rd of the size of the Xbox, so I would not call them ancient at all. I would think a 200 price would be a better price point but 250 aint that bad

When the PS2 Slimline launched it was the same price as the original. By this time I'm sure the parts needed to make a system as powerful as an Xbox are much smaller than they were in 2001. Plus, the harddrive took up space in the XBOX.

[Vegan]

I think they're both overpriced, but a Wii for $250 is more so. The specs have already stated that it's barely more powerful than an Xbox and doesn't have a harddrive. Therefore it shouldn't cost more than an Xbox, especially not $100 more.

EDIT: I think the controllers are probably more expensive to make and should cost more than other controllers, but the system shouldn't be any more expensive. There is no way I'm paying more than $150 for a Wii.

EDIT: Also the main reason PS3 is overpriced is just because it's not competitevely priced. The additional power and Blu-Ray drive make the system more expensive to make, but I don't think the system will be $200 better than a 360.

EDIT: Additionaly with both the PS3 and Wii one can subtract how much they can sell a PS2 or GC from the price (if they have one), unlike the 360 with it's crappy backwards compatibility.

I think you're setting your sights too high. What console has EVER launched for $150? The Wii uses technology that's never previously existed. How in the world could it be $150? Nintendo is great but they're not magical.

[Foolman]

At least with the Wii I'll want everything thats in the box, unlike the PS3. I'm gonig to hate paying extra because it is also a Blu-Ray player. I don't ever plan on watching Blu-Ray movies.

The specs have already stated that it's barely more powerful than an Xbox and doesn't have a harddrive. Therefore it shouldn't cost more than an Xbox, especially not $100 more.


The GameCube was also very weak comapred to the PS2, but it can definitely output better graphics than a PS2. You just can't read the numbers.

[GuilewasNK]

Well, Nintendo doesn't have a history of selling consoles at a loss so if $250 gives them more money to make kickass game I'm all for it.

For $600 the PS3 better be able to cook my grits.

[PenguinMaster]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't every Nintendo console released for $200?

[PenguinMaster]

The GameCube was also very weak comapred to the PS2, but it can definitely output better graphics than a PS2. You just can't read the numbers.

That's just plain wrong, the Gamecube is more powerful than the PS2.

[GuilewasNK]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't every Nintendo console released for $200?

I believe you are right.

[Ikohn4ever]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't every Nintendo console released for $200?

yes

[Foolman]

That's just plain wrong, the Gamecube is more powerful than the PS2.
It is weaker on paper. But like I said, the Gamecube is more powerful than the PS2.

EDIT: Just realized I didn't type "on paper" in my first post, which made it look really confusing. Sorry.

[Robobandit]

Actually.. I think the PS3 for $500 is more absurd than the PS3 for $600.

the $500 model permanently removes functionality from the unit.

- It doesn't have memory stick slots
- No Wifi support
- no HDMI output

lack of HDMI output restricts blu-ray movie playback to 480p over component, so that renders it useless for people who want to watch HD movies on Ps3.

Imo, that is a bigger rip off than $100 more for the HDMI, memory stick slots, wifi support and a hdd that is 40gb larger.

Still, $600 is far more than I'd pay for a console.. I'll top out at $400 for a 360.

[PenguinMaster]

It is weaker on paper. But like I said, the Gamecube is more powerful than the PS2.


No it isn't weaker "on paper". The Gamecube has higher specs than the PS2, the only thing that is less is the disc space.

[shipwreck]

I voted for both overpriced, althouhg I feel the PS3 at $500-600 is a much bigger rip-off. I feel that the Wii at $250 is almost crossing the line of being overpriced, but not quite there yet.

Those are my thoughts exactly.

[Moxio]

The Wii SHOULD BE $200. All other consoles have released for $200, and since there's no real new revolutionary technology that would spike the price, I don't see why it shouldn't.

Come on, Nintendo. You've done almost everything right. Don't blow the biggest selling point.

[klingon666]

Hope the games are not $60 bucks a pop!!!!!!!! Unless of course it is a must have game.

[KingDox]

I hope nintendo puts it out for 200. They already are going to get alot of extra cash with the extras. I mean who isn't going to get at least one extra controller for 2 player action ? Plus the Virtual console controller is extra, plus the dvd player kit.

Do we have any idea that the nunchuck controller will be included with the system ? Or will nintendo make us buy that seperatly ?

[Blind the Thief]

Of course I want the Wii to be $200; I plan to buy it, and the lower the price the better.

With that said, if something simple to play (like Wii Sports or Duck Hunt) is included, $250 doesn't seem over priced at all. If it's $250 on it's own, that's stretching it a bit, but still not really over priced. I expect ot get a lot more out of it than either then 360 or PS3, and that's one factor that goes into a product's price: its value to consumers.

Edit: Really, the 360 seems overpriced to me, too, as I still have yet to see one "must-have" game. So far, there have only been decent games that don't really justify the purchase to me.

[Vinny]

I hope for $200 as well, but at the same time Nintendo's built up a ton of hype over E3... as far as I can see, the interest in the Wii is extremely high everywhere on the net (except Sony forums/sites).

If Nintendo does make the system priced at $200, then they're guaranteeing themselves a very comfortable spot during launch. Most people will probably buy a PS3 or 360, and consider the Wii as the third option because it's cheap. But $250 isn't too hard to imagine.

What scares me into thinking that they might price it at $250 is because they did not announce a price at E3 even though Sony did. Nintendo only said the system would be cheaper than $300... and they would probably consider $250 to be cheap.

[JSweeney]

People shouldn't be allowed to talk about specs until they know what the hell they are talking about.

Far too often people keep comparing apples to oranges. Giving these people specs to play with is like giving a monkey a sledgehammer.

[soonersfan60]

Nintendo should do 2 SKUs, but their only difference should be bare-bones console alone for $200 or Sports Wii pack-in and Free VC downloads for $250.

Dane.

[Blind the Thief]

Nintendo should do 2 SKUs, but their only difference should be bare-bones console alone for $200 or Sports Wii pack-in and Free VC downloads for $250.

Dane.

No offense, but fuck you, and fuck 2 SKUs.

[Xtreme331]

I'm VERY excited about the PS3, but I'm not even close to being ready to shell out $600 for that behemoth! I waited for the PS2 to drop below $300, I can wait for the PS3 to drop as well. I don't really care if it takes a few years, fortunately for me, Medical school is going to keep me way busy so I won't really have a lot of spare time anyway. Once I get out, then we'll talk Sony.

[TheBlueWizard]

Here's a thought. Maybe Nintendo will price Wii at some point so they can make a little money on the console itself. If that's $250, so be it. Sony shot themselves big time with the decision to go at $499 and $599. Nintendo had likely been ready to annouce a price at E3, but decided to wait after hearing the insanity of the PS3 price.

Historically, the consoles themselves have been sold at a loss. If Nintendo can hit a number significantly lower than the PS3 or 360 and make a profit, why wouldn't they? I don't see $250 as being too bad for the Wii. Besides, even though it is using older hardware, some of the applications are new for it. Engineers to develop this shit cost money and lots of it. If they need to do $250 to break even (or god forbid get a profit) on the box, so be it. Its still a hell of a lot better than $600 for the PS3.

TBW

[Ilovephysics]

IGN had an article when 360 came out about launch prices.. I didn't bother to read it (so don't kill me if it sucks), I just am posting because it had launch prices listed (and some other adjusted to today launch price value):

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/643/643170p1.html

[cochesecochese]

I goddamn hope it launches at $250 with just the 'chuck and sensor bar. Demand is high and it's going to sell at that price plus it gives Nintendo the option to knock $50 off within a year or build a badass holiday bundle for 2007 at $250.

[soonersfan60]

No offense, but fuck you, and fuck 2 SKUs.

How can I not be offended at that? I was actually half joking since both MS and Sony saw fit to go with 2 SKUs, but it wouldn't bother me if Nintendo did it as long as the only difference was an extra controller or two and some games in the higher priced SKU. (I wouldn't want different hardware in each, though. I think that is silly and confusing, but Nintendo could do it the sane way.)

Dane.

[zewone]

Wii for $250? Jesus...

Both of those prices are terrible.

[whoknows]

I said the Wii...at least Sony is losing some money on it, and the technology in it is worth more than the price Sony is charging...the Wii however, being barely more powerful than the Xbox is not worth $250 to me...$200 would be ok, but no way $250...

[Graystone]

I was actually getting upset at the thought of paying $250 for the Wii and not somewhere closer to $200, which is more reasonable, in my opinion.

Now, we know Nintendo is using "ancient" hardware compared to Sony and Microsoft and the manufacturing costs should be significantly lower than they were for the Gamecube.

The PS3 is basically a high-end PC that has the newest form of disc-based media available.

With that in mind, if the Wii launched for $250 as a standalone system would it be more overpriced than the PS3.

Your basing this purely on specs. Its not just the system that makes a console. I think the Wii at $250 is not expensive. I do think that a console really shouldn't cost more then $300.

[Michaellvortega]

Fuck the specs lets get back to the old days of two remotes AND a game packed in. AT LEAST A DEMO!

[yester]

I was actually getting upset at the thought of paying $250 for the Wii and not somewhere closer to $200, which is more reasonable, in my opinion.

Now, we know Nintendo is using "ancient" hardware compared to Sony and Microsoft and the manufacturing costs should be significantly lower than they were for the Gamecube.

The PS3 is basically a high-end PC that has the newest form of disc-based media available.

With that in mind, if the Wii launched for $250 as a standalone system would it be more overpriced than the PS3.

So far, no price was published for the Wii, but i would expect something in between 250-200$. That is just a Nintendo price.
More bizarre it is, to through 600-700$ for a console like PS3. Even knowing that it has perhaps current technolgie build in and (of course) a blue-ray drive.
The interessting part is, that Sony claims that it is needed for upcomming games. Well, we don't know that.

Anyway, i am not willing to pay that much for a console and i think, since it is a console it should not be more than 300-400$. But Sony and Microsoft proofed that consumers are willing to pay, whatever they asking for.
Scary.

[Grave_Addiction]

Your basing this purely on specs. Its not just the system that makes a console. I think the Wii at $250 is not expensive. I do think that a console really shouldn't cost more then $300.

What else do you base a console's price on other than the hardware that's put into it?

Sure, we all know that games will ultimately be the overall factor in any console's success, but that has absolutely no bearing on its price.

[epobirs]

$250 for thew Wii is entirely reasonable.

Consider a few things. Nintendo has held to a $200 launch price since the SNES. The primary acknowledgement of inflation and that those machines were closer to their launch eras' technological state of the art was to not bundle a game with the base hardware. Getting the N64 or GameCube at launch with a game efectively made those systems $250. And while we're at at don't forget the need to buy a memory card for the GameCube.

So $250 isn't a huge price jump on a historical basis. Inflation between 2001 and 2005 (it's too early to calculate 2006 dollars) makes for a buying power difference of $21.13, so the gap between a $200 GameCube and a $250 Wii isn't a great as it would seem at first glance. Nintendo insists it has never sold consoles at a loss and never will. If that holds true for the Wii, the price gap between it and the Xbox 360 Core System is $50 only because of Microsoft's strategy and not what the Xbox 360 genuinely costs to deliver. To be fair, one must tack on another $40 to the Xbox's price for a memory card, both for parity to the Wii package and to make the Xbox at all usable with most games. (We'll leave aside the wireless vs. wired controllers since that can be considered a luxury while saving game data is not.) Even then, the full promise of the 360 can only be achieved with the hard drive.

So a $250 Wii has a considerable cost gap between it and its closest next gen competitor.

Also, while the chipset may just be a direct die shrink upgrade of the GameCube chipset, there are other items adding cost. Built-in WiFi, 512 MB of flash storage, 2 SD card slots, another wireless transceiver for the controllers, etc. The controller itself is going to be significantly more expensive than the GameCube's, with the added cost of the sensor bar. We also don't know how many accesories will be bundled. does the base package include the nunchuk plug-in? The classic controller plug-in? Zapper shell? This stuff adds up.

There is also the R&D cost for the product to consider. While none of the actual technology is new, the implementation that makes it attractive takes considerable labor to make a reality.

Wii doesn't claim to push the bleeding edge of graphics technology but the price point for that has long started at a $300 launch price. The $250 may seem like a severe expense to existing GameCube owners but that isn't a terribly numerous group, is it? To achieve the kind of success Nintendo wants, the Wii will have to greatly outsell the GameCube. Appealing to those who already have an Xbox 360 or PS3 to get the Wii as well for its unique offerings is part of making that happen.

[epobirs]

What else do you base a console's price on other than the hardware that's put into it?

Sure, we all know that games will ultimately be the overall factor in any console's success, but that has absolutely no bearing on its price.

The hardware doesn't end at the chipset. There are several native features beyond what the GameCube offered, especially wireless in the form of both WiFi and the controllers.

Also, the controller technology doesn't represent a huge cost in of itself but it is significantly more expensive than a GameCube controller. Whatever plug-ins they bundle (nunchuk, classic, zapper shell) will only add to that. The R&D for the controller implementation is also a big cost factor. Early adopters always shoulder the cost of getting from concept to fully realized product.

[chargeup45]

I think itll go for $200, to maintain some room between the Wii's cost and the 360's. MS already said it was prepared for a price drop depending on how the PS3 was priced, and although that $600 tag may have delayed it, the 360 may be cheaper at this time next year. Although Nintendo isn't really competing with MS (supposedly), they should still keep an eye on that.

As for cost, there are too many factors that come into play. The DVD format may be cheaper, theres flash memory in the console, wi-fi, power not much stronger than GCN, etc. Its too much to make a judgment on how much it would cost vs. the GCN.

[epobirs]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't every Nintendo console released for $200?

Sure but consider the progression of real costs over the generations.

For $200, the SNES was fairly dated technology. All stuff that was in personal computers and arcade machines by the mid-80s. But still a nice technology package for a console of that era. This included two controllers (very inexpensive with simple binary on/off switches for everything) and a major game in the form of Super Mario World.

By the time of the N64, things were far more competitive and Nintendo responded with hardware far closer to the cutting edge of what could then be offered. For $200 you got the N64 and one controller, albeit a more sophicated unit than on the SNES, with an expansion slot for memory Paks that also became home to the Rumble Pak and the accessory that allowed access to data from GameBoy carts.

But no hit game. You had to spend another $50 for Super Mario 64.

So the effective price point for a Nintendo console already rose a fair bit ten years ago.

Then comes the GameCube. Not only does it lack a bundled hit game (nor is there anything comparable to Super Mario World or Mario 64 in the launch lineup), it also requires the purchase of a memory card to be used properly. So getting the GameCube at launch with a game and a memory card sets you back $270.

The Wii is at least including 512MB of flash memory for game saves and downloads, along with the most sophisticated controller yet. Plus it supports a substantial library of hit GameCube games at low prices.

The $250 may seem like a drag if you already ponied up for a Gamecube at launch price, as I did, but focus on what new things the Wii delivers rather than whats under the hood.

[Mr. Anderson]

$250 for thew Wii is entirely reasonable.

Consider a few things. Nintendo has held to a $200 launch price since the SNES. The primary acknowledgement of inflation and that those machines were closer to their launch eras' technological state of the art was to not bundle a game with the base hardware. Getting the N64 or GameCube at launch with a game efectively made those systems $250. And while we're at at don't forget the need to buy a memory card for the GameCube.

So $250 isn't a huge price jump on a historical basis. Inflation between 2001 and 2005 (it's too early to calculate 2006 dollars) makes for a buying power difference of $21.13, so the gap between a $200 GameCube and a $250 Wii isn't a great as it would seem at first glance. Nintendo insists it has never sold consoles at a loss and never will. If that holds true for the Wii, the price gap between it and the Xbox 360 Core System is $50 only because of Microsoft's strategy and not what the Xbox 360 genuinely costs to deliver. To be fair, one must tack on another $40 to the Xbox's price for a memory card, both for parity to the Wii package and to make the Xbox at all usable with most games. (We'll leave aside the wireless vs. wired controllers since that can be considered a luxury while saving game data is not.) Even then, the full promise of the 360 can only be achieved with the hard drive.

So a $250 Wii has a considerable cost gap between it and its closest next gen competitor.

Also, while the chipset may just be a direct die shrink upgrade of the GameCube chipset, there are other items adding cost. Built-in WiFi, 512 MB of flash storage, 2 SD card slots, another wireless transceiver for the controllers, etc. The controller itself is going to be significantly more expensive than the GameCube's, with the added cost of the sensor bar. We also don't know how many accesories will be bundled. does the base package include the nunchuk plug-in? The classic controller plug-in? Zapper shell? This stuff adds up.

There is also the R&D cost for the product to consider. While none of the actual technology is new, the implementation that makes it attractive takes considerable labor to make a reality.

Wii doesn't claim to push the bleeding edge of graphics technology but the price point for that has long started at a $300 launch price. The $250 may seem like a severe expense to existing GameCube owners but that isn't a terribly numerous group, is it? To achieve the kind of success Nintendo wants, the Wii will have to greatly outsell the GameCube. Appealing to those who already have an Xbox 360 or PS3 to get the Wii as well for its unique offerings is part of making that happen.

epobirs: the voice of reason in a world gone mad.

[epobirs]

epobirs: the voice of reason in a world gone mad.

I get a lot of time to think here in my room with the cushiony walls.

[Kaijufan]

As long as it has some packins, (Wii sports, extra wiimote, free VC downloads, etc) I don't mind paying $250 for a Wii.
There's no way I'm paying $600 for a PS3.

[sarausagi]

The Wii, by far. I find myself looking at the PS3 as a bargain. I am looking at paying at least $500 for a Blu-Ray or an HD-DVD player. The premium PS3 at $600 includes a blu-ray player, a huge hard drive, wireless networking built in, a memory card reader, media playback, plus PSOne/PStwo compatibility, and HDMI output...

Simply said, getting all that for $600 in one sleek package would be unthinkable right now. Setting up a PS2 with a hard drive would run me at least $100, doesn't even have a use, while the PS3 will most likely load games off it, use it for saves, run downloaable content on it, store media, and maybe even work as a DVR.

A Blu-Ray player right now, pre order, is $1000, twice as much as HD-DVD, and is simply not in my future at least until the PS3. If prices stay at that level for two years, a stand alone player won't be in my home until it's at least $200 or below. Mind you, the Blu Ray will add to gameplay just as DVD added to the PS2. Games like FFX, Xenosaga, Gran Turismo 4, Soul Calibur 3, etc, wouldn't be possible without the larger media.

I haven't gone online with any console I own simply because of how hard and expensive setting up wireless is. I'm not going to drill a hole or run a wire across my house so that I can play some PS2 games online. I know you can do wireless on PS2, but once again, I'm looking at another $50-$100.

As for memory card reader for use with my TV? Lots of DVD players have it, both of mine don't, I'm not going to buy a $60 DVD player to read memory cards when I already have two good players: it's an added bonus to a system I'm alrfeady going to want.

So total it up

$500 Hi Def DVD player
$150 Hard Drive Based Media Player/Storage Solution
$50 Wireless Networking, console wireless adapters
$50 DVD player with memory card slots
$200 Wii or equivalent console
-
$950, roughly what a PS3 and an XBOX 360 would cost me, or what a PS3 with several games and some Blu Ray movies would clost me. For anyone who loves movies, technology, home theatre, or just having the latest equipment, it's a steal. I'm not even counting the value of a two generation backwards compatible console which is posed to be a powerhouse of a console on the level of the 360, just with a tons more third party support and some solid first party titles.

Besides, a PS2 will at least get $70 then. It's a nice 10% chunk of the price. There's a rumor that the PS3 will be region free, like the PSP and DS, and more than likely PSP and PS3 will work hand in hand. Anyone who can't see $600 isn't absurd is just biaed. Compare $600 for what you're getting to $400 for a Saturn or $300 for a PSOne. Even inflation doesn't it factor in, PS3 is a steal.

[SMMM]

The Wii, by far. I find myself looking at the PS3 as a bargain. I am looking at paying at least $500 for a Blu-Ray or an HD-DVD player. The premium PS3 at $600 includes a blu-ray player, a huge hard drive, wireless networking built in, a memory card reader, media playback, plus PSOne/PStwo compatibility, and HDMI output...

Simply said, getting all that for $600 in one sleek package would be unthinkable right now. Setting up a PS2 with a hard drive would run me at least $100, doesn't even have a use, while the PS3 will most likely load games off it, use it for saves, run downloaable content on it, store media, and maybe even work as a DVR.

A Blu-Ray player right now, pre order, is $1000, twice as much as HD-DVD, and is simply not in my future at least until the PS3. If prices stay at that level for two years, a stand alone player won't be in my home until it's at least $200 or below. Mind you, the Blu Ray will add to gameplay just as DVD added to the PS2. Games like FFX, Xenosaga, Gran Turismo 4, Soul Calibur 3, etc, wouldn't be possible without the larger media.

I haven't gone online with any console I own simply because of how hard and expensive setting up wireless is. I'm not going to drill a hole or run a wire across my house so that I can play some PS2 games online. I know you can do wireless on PS2, but once again, I'm looking at another $50-$100.

As for memory card reader for use with my TV? Lots of DVD players have it, both of mine don't, I'm not going to buy a $60 DVD player to read memory cards when I already have two good players: it's an added bonus to a system I'm alrfeady going to want.

So total it up

$500 Hi Def DVD player
$150 Hard Drive Based Media Player/Storage Solution
$50 Wireless Networking, console wireless adapters
$50 DVD player with memory card slots
$200 Wii or equivalent console
-
$950, roughly what a PS3 and an XBOX 360 would cost me, or what a PS3 with several games and some Blu Ray movies would clost me. For anyone who loves movies, technology, home theatre, or just having the latest equipment, it's a steal. I'm not even counting the value of a two generation backwards compatible console which is posed to be a powerhouse of a console on the level of the 360, just with a tons more third party support and some solid first party titles.

Besides, a PS2 will at least get $70 then. It's a nice 10% chunk of the price. There's a rumor that the PS3 will be region free, like the PSP and DS, and more than likely PSP and PS3 will work hand in hand. Anyone who can't see $600 isn't absurd is just biaed. Compare $600 for what you're getting to $400 for a Saturn or $300 for a PSOne. Even inflation doesn't it factor in, PS3 is a steal.

But you see, I don't want any of that extra shit, sans maybe the BC. I want a fucking game system. And $600 is too much for a game system, regardless of what other bullshit features it has that I just don't need.

[sarausagi]

But you see, I don't want any of that extra shit, sans maybe the BC. I want a fucking game system.

Well, I can see it from that point, I really do want all those things though.

The problem is that Saturn and PSOne were just game systems! And they were $400, in the mid 90's. We've gotten used to cheap gaming, back then clearances like the ones at CC or TRU were impossible to find..

In fact, I remember my first clearance: $5 Saturn games at Wal-Mart when Sega gave up that gen and Dreamcast was coming out in a year

Maybe from the Sega camp it's different. I remember paying $150 for Sega CD, $75 for Nomad, $349 for Saturn. I remember lusting after a SEGA CDX [$300 for a genesis with sega CD and a battery]

I also remember my parents buying me Phantasy Star IV for $99 on release date, granted, they were -happy- because it kept me entertained for more than a year and I didn't even ask for another game for the longest time, but $99 can buy you a CONSOLE these days.

When I think of my old Saturn with NO GAMES, one control pad, and just a standard CD drive, for $349, the PS3 seems like a bargain. Especially considering I had to buy a back up ram cart [$20] and a game [$50 for Panzer Dragoon] and got sucked into buying Virtua Fighter [$30] Clockwork Knight [$20] and Daytona USA [$40] plus $20 for an extra gamepad.

[alongx]

I'm VERY excited about the PS3...fortunately for me, Medical school is going to keep me way busy...

Are you sure you're smart enough to be a doctor?

;)

[Kapwanil]

For me it boils down to the fact that the 360, the PS3, and the Wii are all video game systems.

Why don't I own a 360? Because, while I love Live, I don't see throwing $400 on a system that I only want for two or three titles to be worth it yet. The PS3? Same deal. Nothing I've seen so far, perhaps save for MGS4, has my eye. The Wii? Well, I can get Zelda on the GC if I really wanted, but I'm enticed by some of the other possibilities of the Wii and I'm excited about a handful of games already.

So in the end I think $250 for a Wii is pretty good. It especially fits within my budget. Paying for Grad School and whatnot is pretty rough but a Wii for $250 an two or three games (through the standard CAG means) for around $350 or so thrills me to no end. Yes, yes, it won't be as powerful as the 360 or PS3 and it'll be seriously outclassed but...eh, I play games for fun. That's just who I am.

I guess in the end the Wii can hit $250 and not bother me in the slightest. The 360 at $400 still keeps me away but it's not too far of a stretch. And while the PS3 is reasonable for $600 considering what it may offer, I just can't imagine throwing down that much money for it at the outset. Sony has taught me many times before that their hardware is not worth buying until at least a year after launch and I'm going to stick with that.

[varsitygamer]

But no hit game. You had to spend another $50 for Super Mario 64.


as an aside, i am certain i paid between 60$ and 70$ for Super Mario 64 when it was first released... in a wal-mart, no less.

[Strell]

The PS3 seems like a bargain until Bluray fails.

There's nothing saying Bluray will be successful OR a failure, except that the PS3 is a trojan horse for it.

In all actuality you can't say the system is a value unless you are ensured its video format becomes standard.

And Sony has had....no luck with that in their history? I know it's a different battleground these days, but still. You can't call it an advantage when it's not even allowed to be ennumerated as one. 5 years into the future and we'll know. Might as well throw that out in your bulleted lists, kids.

Point is, it will take me 300 or so at most to play the new Mario.
It will take me 700 to play MGS4.

That's outrageous in ways that are flamboyant and fabulous.

[jer7583]

A $250 Wii will provide me with years of fun.

I say $250 with two wiimotes and WiiSports on the system. That's a solid bundle.

I guess I just don't get the hype for BlueRay or HD DVD. It seems unnessecary, gluttonous, and extravagant. DVD works just fine, whats the big deal about needing a new format?

Oh, right. They need new, expensive shit to sell us because prices have dropped on the current generation media...

[epobirs]

as an aside, i am certain i paid between 60$ and 70$ for Super Mario 64 when it was first released... in a wal-mart, no less.

For third party games, that would be true. But Mario 64 was first party, which meant a $10 difference on N64 carts. It was also on the small side as N64 games went, even early on. Being just 64 megabits meant Nintendo could keep the price down. Some may also recall that Tetrisphere, which was only 32 Mb IIRC, had a bargain price (for an N64 game) of $39.

Game size played a much bigger role in pricing back then but 64 Mb was fairly inexpensive by that point. If the SNES had kept going as a major development target it would had a fair crop of games that big. The biggest we got in the US were 32 Mb but Japan had a 48 Mb game in Tales of Phantasia. The GBA remake finally brings it to the US after 11 years, where it is merely average size for the platform, especially compared to Kingdom Hearts.

[epobirs]

The Wii, by far. I find myself looking at the PS3 as a bargain. I am looking at paying at least $500 for a Blu-Ray or an HD-DVD player. The premium PS3 at $600 includes a blu-ray player, a huge hard drive, wireless networking built in, a memory card reader, media playback, plus PSOne/PStwo compatibility, and HDMI output...

Simply said, getting all that for $600 in one sleek package would be unthinkable right now. Setting up a PS2 with a hard drive would run me at least $100, doesn't even have a use, while the PS3 will most likely load games off it, use it for saves, run downloaable content on it, store media, and maybe even work as a DVR.

A Blu-Ray player right now, pre order, is $1000, twice as much as HD-DVD, and is simply not in my future at least until the PS3. If prices stay at that level for two years, a stand alone player won't be in my home until it's at least $200 or below. Mind you, the Blu Ray will add to gameplay just as DVD added to the PS2. Games like FFX, Xenosaga, Gran Turismo 4, Soul Calibur 3, etc, wouldn't be possible without the larger media.

I haven't gone online with any console I own simply because of how hard and expensive setting up wireless is. I'm not going to drill a hole or run a wire across my house so that I can play some PS2 games online. I know you can do wireless on PS2, but once again, I'm looking at another $50-$100.

As for memory card reader for use with my TV? Lots of DVD players have it, both of mine don't, I'm not going to buy a $60 DVD player to read memory cards when I already have two good players: it's an added bonus to a system I'm alrfeady going to want.

So total it up

$500 Hi Def DVD player
$150 Hard Drive Based Media Player/Storage Solution
$50 Wireless Networking, console wireless adapters
$50 DVD player with memory card slots
$200 Wii or equivalent console
-
$950, roughly what a PS3 and an XBOX 360 would cost me, or what a PS3 with several games and some Blu Ray movies would clost me. For anyone who loves movies, technology, home theatre, or just having the latest equipment, it's a steal. I'm not even counting the value of a two generation backwards compatible console which is posed to be a powerhouse of a console on the level of the 360, just with a tons more third party support and some solid first party titles.

Besides, a PS2 will at least get $70 then. It's a nice 10% chunk of the price. There's a rumor that the PS3 will be region free, like the PSP and DS, and more than likely PSP and PS3 will work hand in hand. Anyone who can't see $600 isn't absurd is just biaed. Compare $600 for what you're getting to $400 for a Saturn or $300 for a PSOne. Even inflation doesn't it factor in, PS3 is a steal.

It really depends how deeply driven you are to get into HDTV movie playback sooner than later. I already owned a DVD player when the PS2 launched in th US but only for about a year. Some more financially able friends jumped on the $1,000 Sony unit that long served as the DVD reference platform at launch but I just couldn't find the justification when the library was still wanting and the price points for older titles still high. I waited until a really well rated player was offered at a bargain price and went for that. At the time $350 was a great deal.

The PS2 was the first DVD player for many, especially in Japan, but that feature was reinforced by a lack of format competition issues and the price was in line with the previous generation of Playstation. (The ability to use an existing TV also simplified things.) People weren't going out on a limb, either in format commitment or price, to be early adopters. Barring sudden wealth, Sony is simply asking too much for me to make a PS3 purchase any time in the next couple of years. I'm far more likely to pick up a Xbox 360 and a HDTV display to go with it before making any commitments to a specific disc format. If HD-DVD appears viable the add-on drive for the Xbox will make for the lowest cost of entry until players of greater quality become very inexpensive. The PS3 will remain the low cost of entry champion on the Blu-ray side and by then will also see some discounting of the game library.

At $250 or less, the Wii price would be more of a whim to be indulged if I'm feeling ahead of my bills.

I got many consoles at launch because I could usually swing a major discount through nefarious means and/or often could get paid to write an article about the new toy. But I've become buried in so many yet to be played games acquired for nearly nothing, thanks to this site, that I find it very hard to get interested in launches anymore unless someone is paying me to do it.

At $400 to $600, not to mention the need for a new screen purchase, I'm probably going to hold off on both the Xbox 360 and the PS3 until each has some Platinum Hits and Greatest Hits respectively. This will come sooner for the 360 of course but waiting for the right bargain on a display to come along could still hold me back. I'm burned out on launches. The DS and PSP will probably be my last such purchases for a long time.

Now, the Xbox 360 and PS3 can both be used with an existing NTSC display but I'd have a very hard time getting excited about either if I imposed that limitation on them. It would be like using a B&W display with previous consoles. The Wii is an easier indulgence in part thanks to not needing a display other than what most homes already have. It will be of a lesser graphic quality but that trade-off is understood going in.

As for cashing in your PS2, you may want to wait and see how well Sony does on the emulation. It may prove as troubled an effort as Microsoft's for the Xbox 360, leaving many of the titles you want to play out of reach.

[Zoglog]

the PS3 is not overpriced when you look at the components put into it. It's just that not all gamers are ready for blu ray. So just because a gamer feels the PS3 is overpriced does not make it so.... Otherwise you go into the realm of personal benefit skewing the value of a product which is exclusive to each individual. By analyzing the current market value benifits of each component you can come to an asessment that the PS3 is no less value than any other console.

But as usual it is typical for people to react before thinking about things from a larger perspective.

[epobirs]

the PS3 is not overpriced when you look at the components put into it. It's just that not all gamers are ready for blu ray. So just because a gamer feels the PS3 is overpriced does not make it so.... Otherwise you go into the realm of personal benefit skewing the value of a product which is exclusive to each individual. By analyzing the current market value benifits of each component you can come to an asessment that the PS3 is no less value than any other console.

But as usual it is typical for people to react before thinking about things from a larger perspective.

The queation of whether something is overpriced does not hinge on what it cost to make but on what the audience is willing to pay. Although there is no doubt that there is $600 worth of technology in that box, if a large portion of the required audience decides it's too much then Sony has a big problem.

It's a perspective issue. As I said in my long roundabout fashion above, it really depends how much the secondary features matter to your desires.

Feature overkill can be a problem. The PS2 price was perfect since it asked people to spend no more than they had previously (respective to the point in the machine's lifecycle) but still managed to add good secondary features on top of being a major jump in gaming platform. Those who didn't care about DVD playback weren't asked to spend more just to get the new gaming platform. Sony shouldered all of the added cost of the playback license and it worked out very well for the company and consumers alike. (At least those not troubled by defective units.) The PS3 is doubling the price, though.

Blu-ray is adding a lot of cost to this machine. Without Sony would almost certainly stuck with DVD and kept price parity with Microsoft. It would mean going to multiple discs for many FMV heavy games but that hardly slowed down PS1 support. If Blu-ray had already launched and the format war was passed, the cost aded to the PS3 would be more in line with its predecessor and there would be less for prospective buyers to ponder.

Given no economic concerns, pretty much everyone wants a nice big HDTV and a disc player to go with it. But in real life it isnt that easy. No matter how much the machine does, a price tag over a certain point is going to make us pause. If both HDTV content playback and high-end console gaming are already on the shopping list, then everything is OK. But Sony is testing new territory here. Even affluent shoppers can look at a product and find themselves wondering how anything in that product category could be worth that much. If they have to think about it too much (or think at all in some cases), you've lost them.

I think Sony itself is expecting a much slower adoption rate for the PS3 than for the PS2 and is depending on continuing sales of PS2 games to maintain cashflow. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. If, in the long run, the PS3 delivers victory for the Blu-ray format, the strategy will be entirely justified no matter how many gamers had to wait years before getting their own PS3.

[Mospeada_21]

Super Smash Bros. Brawl, not worth $250.

PS3, $600, yeah right, reality check Sony.

System Seller = Resident Evil 5. go fight it out!

nuff said.

[yester]

Super Smash Bros. Brawl, not worth $250.

PS3, $600, yeah right, reality check Sony.

System Seller = Resident Evil 5. go fight it out!

nuff said.

Super Smash Borthers. Yeah baby... with Snaaaaakeee....
its a must have...

[yester]

After watching the press conferencess, i have to say Nintendo made me really wow.
It was just an amazing presentation and the game experience is certainly unique and promising.
Even Sony adapts sensors to its controller. Nintendos way of gaming could be not so wrong after all.

Sony on the other hand made me think that i am sitting in bankers meeting. Besides all the new stuff the are bringing out, nothing really catched me.
In the sum Sony will push the enevolpe a little more, that a console will sell for much more than before.

I do like the Playstation, but i am not a consumer who will go for the hot cake for any price.

But then again, it is clear that we have here two fractions from eighter side.
Some are willing to pay the price and some won't.
It is unfortunate that Sony will sell it at a high price, excluding alot of folks who simply could not afford it.

To me, Nintendo is on the right track and simply will gain more people using their console, because of it inovative use and cheaper price.

[SpazX]

I picked PS3. Admittedly, for a blue-ray player the PS3 is reasonably priced, but for a game console it's a rip-off. Since I'm looking for a game console, $250 seems nice and the Wii seems worth it.

I don't appreciate Sony trying to get a userbase for their blue-ray bullshit by sticking it into their game console and therefore raising the price up to an ungodly high level. I had already lost respect for Sony for doing that and then they pulled their motion sensor crap and I just really don't respect Sony anymore. I actually have a lot more respect for Microsoft right now (until they pull some crazy shit to make their PC business more money).

I really don't mind if they add in extra shit other than games like streaming music or what have you, but if they add in something completely unnecessary that significantly raises prices just so they can make their company more money that pisses me off.

[WrestleCrap'sRD]

I know everyone keeps saying that th Blu-Ray stuff is a selling point, but does anyone remember how horrid the PS2 DVD controls are?

RD

[Abalistar]

I'm sticking with the PS3 as the overpriced one.

Yeah, I understand it's a steal for a game system AND a blu-ray player, but honestly... How many things are out on blu-ray? By the time there'd even be a library that could justify buying a blu-ray player, the price will drop. DVD is still going strong and I honestly don't see HD-DVD or Blu-Ray becoming the next standard for quite a few years.

It basically comes down to if you want to pay an enormous amount now to be "cutting edge" and take the risk, or if you want to play it safe.

Of course my answer would be different if the PS3 games at this point look "OMFG!!!" better than the Xbox 360, but they haven't so far(I know we haven't seen finished games, but I'm going by this moment).

[sarausagi]

I know everyone keeps saying that th Blu-Ray stuff is a selling point, but does anyone remember how horrid the PS2 DVD controls are?

RD


The DVD remote solves it all, $10 turns it into a much better DVD player than your average $50 model. Granted, anything above $50 and even Sony's cheap models blow it out of the water, but if someone with a small income had to have one player, I'd say they're better off with the PS2 than a Durabrand or Cyberhome Walmart player...

[ksuwild25]

Both are overpriced to me. I was interested in the Wii after reading alot of positive opinions, but then I watched some gameplay videos and it looks dumb and boring to me. There weren't any games that grabbed my attention, and I just don't see the hype for that system. I'll be waiting for another Nintendo bundle at $99 again if I do get one.

And PS3 has some interesting looking games, but I'm not about to fork over $600+ for a few other games and a Blu Ray dvd player when I'm content with the 360 and its future lineup and my current dvd player.

[KaneRobot]

This poll reeks of fanboy stink. The PS3, while obscenely expensive, is still accurately priced for a Blu-Ray player + next gen game machine. Problem is, it looks like not many people care to HAVE a Blu-Ray player + next gen game machine for that price.

$250 for a Revolution is really pushing it on several fronts.

[RedvsBlue]

This poll reeks of fanboy stink. The PS3, while obscenely expensive, is still accurately priced for a Blu-Ray player + next gen game machine. Problem is, it looks like not many people care to HAVE a Blu-Ray player + next gen game machine for that price.

$250 for a Revolution is really pushing it on several fronts.

Yep, there's no way its 142 compared to the teens for the rest of the responses. Someone either hacked it or got a bunch of other 'tendo fanboys to vote for it.

[vherub]

If the Wii is $250, but you get something like $100 virtual console credit, then it would be a great price. Bringing back the days of packin games with style, give a huge bump to the VC and make it seem like a much better value/better shoulder the burden of "repurchasing" old games.

Edit: I voted PS3 becaus bluray has 0 value to me, similarly if the ps3 could also make scrambled eggs, this feature would have 0 value since I do not care for scrambled eggs. I would like the movie hardware to be separate from the frontline of videogame technology. Useless features overprice a console when all I want is for it to play games.

[RedvsBlue]

If the Wii is $250, but you get something like $100 virtual console credit, then it would be a great price. Bringing back the days of packin games with style, give a huge bump to the VC and make it seem like a much better value/better shoulder the burden of "repurchasing" old games.

Personally, I don't think I'd want to be forced to drop $100 on old games, the majority of which I could play on the old systems I already own.

[botticus]

Yep, there's no way its 142 compared to the teens for the rest of the responses. Someone either hacked it or got a bunch of other 'tendo fanboys to vote for it.
:-s Did you miss the 1000 post thread for the PS3 conference mostly blasting the price?

The PS3 is overpriced because Sony has said the PS3 is overpriced for a game machine. If they want to price it and market it as a Blu-Ray player, then don't showcase games on it. Use E3 to show off its awesome DVD player capabilities. Oh, there are no BD movies yet...

The Wii at $250 would be overkill, but the $600 is "more absurd" to quote the thread topic.

[RedvsBlue]

:-s Did you miss the 1000 post thread for the PS3 conference mostly blasting the price?

The PS3 is overpriced because Sony has said the PS3 is overpriced for a game machine. If they want to price it and market it as a Blu-Ray player, then don't showcase games on it. Use E3 to show off its awesome DVD player capabilities. Oh, there are no BD movies yet...

The Wii at $250 would be overkill, but the $600 is "more absurd" to quote the thread topic.

Personally, I wouldn't spend $600 for a video game system. However, when you take into consideration everything that's packed into that thing, you really are getting a deal. When you consider that the Revolution is a souped-up Gamecube, charging $250 gets to be a little absurd.

I think this was a tough thread to begin with though because the knee-jerk reaction is going to be PS3 is too much. When you actually consider what you're getting for $250 for a Revolution then that begins to get ridiculous too.

This poll wasn't just, "which one is more expensive?" It was which one is the worse value. Now, think about it like this. "What is more absurd? A GBA SP for $175 or a PSP for $300?" Now the PSP would obviously be ridiculous at $300 but compared to a GBA for $175, its gonna look like a better bargain because of what you're getting.

[botticus]

You'd also have to interpret what "$250 for a Revolution" means. We know what the $600 PS3 gives us. We don't know what the Wii will include as far as games, accessories, etc. I don't even think we know what COULD be included at this point with all the "surprises" that have yet to be revealed. And that's why I think fewer people will say the Wii.

If I knew that a $250 Wii would be the console + one controller, I'd vote for both. If a $250 Wii gives you everything you need for 2-player gaming (game + 2 controllers), that's a steal.

[Dr Mario Kart]

Given the singular purpose of a gaming machine, part of a machines value should theoretically be connected to the game library of said machine.

For $200, the PSP would be a good value if you believe it has a lot of quality games. However, if you dont believe that, its not an expensive gaming machine, its an expensive paperweight.

A fair amount of technology goes into the Wii, more than just things than can be measured in clock cycles.

I would have no objection paying $300 for a Wii, because the value comes from the gaming experience.

When I'm thinking about whether something is expensive, I'm not even considering the technology that goes into it. When I consider a $600 PS3, I'm not thinking about clock cycles or Blue Ray. I just merely ask myself if the gaming experience is worth $600.

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/8282/vonkarma5992pa.gif

[itspaidgasterblaster]

If you don't owned a HD-TV, and a decent sorround sound then I would say the ps3 is overpriced and might as well get the wii, but for me its a steal.

I got a Panasonic 61 inch lcd hdtv. I got it for $2600 with 5 years of Warranty, I bought this one at Famsa. I went to best buy and they were asking for $4200 out the door with 4 years of warranty.

I got a brand new Panasonic Home theatre and it's a hell a lot better than my old Sony home theater (only because the sony one is about 3 years old.)

So a blue ray player that can play actual blue ray movies is a steal at $600.00. I just see it this way, all the money i saved on the tv will swallow the price of PS3 plus some games to go along with them. If you don't own at least those 2 things I would definitely say hell no to the PS3. My only concern for the Wii is will the graphics look ugly on my tv, but even then i could always put the wii on the tv for the bedroom and that would solve the problem. Wii at a $250 range would still be a steal for me cause of the savings I had on the tv and the fact that the sorround was a gift from my mother in law.

[RedvsBlue]

You'd also have to interpret what "$250 for a Revolution" means. We know what the $600 PS3 gives us. We don't know what the Wii will include as far as games, accessories, etc. I don't even think we know what COULD be included at this point with all the "surprises" that have yet to be revealed. And that's why I think fewer people will say the Wii.

If I knew that a $250 Wii would be the console + one controller, I'd vote for both. If a $250 Wii gives you everything you need for 2-player gaming (game + 2 controllers), that's a steal.

Yes, that is one thing about this poll that is flawed at this point because the package contents are not finalized so it could be a bit of a wild card.

[lordxixor101]

I tend to agree with Kane. For the whole package, the PS3 isn't overpriced. But, guess what, I don't care about the Blue-Ray player. Now, if I have it, I might use it. But, you can tell me it's worth $500 on its own. But, I wouldn't pay $100 for a Blue-Ray player right now, if I was forced to keep it for personal use. It doesn't have that value to me.

So, I see it as a nice extra, if I'm getting it for free. But, I'm not. So, I'm forced to pay $600 for the gaming machine, not worth it to me. So, it's overpriced for me.

Now, the Wii. Even if it's $279, I won't say it's overpriced. No matter what it has (or doesn't), it'll still be the cheapest next-gen system, so I don't see how it would be out of line. But, I won't buy one right away for that price.

But, my prediction is for the system to come as a packaged deal, possibly at $250. My rationale is, everything Nintendo has done so far with the Wii, has focused on the casual gamer. The casual gamer is much more likely to want to go to a store, pick up a box, and have everything in it that they need to enjoy at home (system, 2 controllers, game). This would make sense. The last thing Nintendo wants to do is have the new purchaser go home only to realize they have to go back to the store and spend more money, that would leave a sour taste in many casual gamers mouths (even though the other systems have done this for awhile).

Though, imagine if they could offer a package for $200, with a controller (or 2) and a game worth owning, and they could make money on it. I think if they did this, they have the hottest item this holiday season (and if one is on the shelf, I might pick myself up an early Christmas gift).

[TC]

The PS3, while obscenely expensive, is still accurately priced for a Blu-Ray player + next gen game machine. Problem is, it looks like not many people care to HAVE a Blu-Ray player + next gen game machine for that price.

Exactly. I think we're discovering hardly anyone here cares about blu-ray. If the machine was $400-$450 and didn't have blu-ray I imagine the results would be much more even.

[evanft]

The GameCube was also very weak comapred to the PS2, but it can definitely output better graphics than a PS2. You just can't read the numbers.

What the fuck are you talking about??

GameCube:

CPU: IBM Gekko Processor
Graphics processor: ArtX Custom GP, 162 MHz
Clock speed: 405MHz
RAM: 40 Megabyte

PS2:

CPU: 128-Bit "Emotion Engine"
Graphics processor: 150Mhz GS
Clock speed: 294.912 MHz
RAM: 32 Megabyte

The GameCube is clearly more powerful.

[Daddy]

Well since the $500 model is useless since it cant be upgraded or use blu-ray...id say the PS3 is $700 b/c you cant do ANYTHING with a system w/o at least one game so AGAIN after tax a PS3 and one game is $700...which AGAIN is INSANE....you could buy a used car or a Dp on a new car or for a couple hundred more get a projector and 100in screen....700 bucks is useless....just call this system NEO-GEO 2.....everyone wants one, some people get them....system dies out in 1-2 yrs...unless you see a huge price drop...Id say they better drop the price points before they get shafted

[WrestleCrap'sRD]

The DVD remote solves it all, $10 turns it into a much better DVD player than your average $50 model. Granted, anything above $50 and even Sony's cheap models blow it out of the water, but if someone with a small income had to have one player, I'd say they're better off with the PS2 than a Durabrand or Cyberhome Walmart player...

I'd argue that (I have a $20 Best Buy player that smokes the PS2 as a DVD player), but more than that, the remote wasn't $10 when it first hit. The first party remote (and to be honest I don't remember if it was even available at launch) was like $20 or $30 until just recently. I remember thinking how crazy that was. I'm sure the PS3 would be the same deal, meaning unless you want to use it as a Blue Ray player with a game controller, then you have even MORE expense on top of the $600 you're already paying...yikes.

RD

[daphatty]

I won't pay $250 for the Wii. $199 maybe but not $250. It's pretty clear that the technology inside the Wii is only a marginal upgrade so why would I pay such a high price? I wouldn't be surprised if Nintendo becomes the first company to actually make money on Wii hardware sales from day 1. I certainly won't be an early adopter though.

I will buy the PS3 and will most likely pay the $600 sticker price. I am well aware, however, that I may be wasting $600 on a system that is doomed to fail.

[Grave_Addiction]

Yes, that is one thing about this poll that is flawed at this point because the package contents are not finalized so it could be a bit of a wild card.

It's not flawed because we have no reason to believe that Nintendo will package anything other than what is typical in today's market for consoles.

There has been a report from EGM that says its price will be $250, but we have had no other solid info on pack-ins of any kind, and that's why I didn't include anything about it in the poll.

You're right, though, that if Nintendo does pack in anything with the Wii it will change how we should view its price tag.

[Dr Mario Kart]

I won't pay $250 for the Wii. $199 maybe but not $250. It's pretty clear that the technology inside the Wii is only a marginal upgrade so why would I pay such a high price? I wouldn't be surprised if Nintendo becomes the first company to actually make money on Wii hardware sales from day 1.

I'm quite sure that Nintendo profiting off hardware is the rule rather than the exception.

You should pay a certain price because you supposedly care about games, not technology

[daphatty]

I'm quite sure that Nintendo profiting off hardware is the rule rather than the exception.

You should pay a certain price because you supposedly care about games, not technology

I agree with you about profits but if the Wii is truly Gamecube 1.5, should I really be forking over another $200+ for something that is only marginally better? As a consumer, am I really getting my "money's worth?" Only time will tell of course. However, if history has taught me anything it's that I should ALWAYS wait to buy a nintendo system. Case in point:


Nintendo 64 - Never bought one. Acquired one through a trade and found that it was worthless.

Gamecube - Waited about 1 year before purchasing. System price dropped $50 from launch cost when I bought it. I also managed to get a game AND a Wavebird bundled with this system for no additional cost.

DS - Waited two years before finally buying one (pre-ordered one two days ago.) Saved $70 off launch costs, didn't have to haggle with shortages, AND I get the sexier Lite version.

All things considered I'd say I'm doing well.

[Dr Mario Kart]

Just because the technology therein or the graphics involved is only a marginal upgrade, you cant just write off the games as being only marginally better as well. Hell, I think the games that are leaps ahead in graphics and driven by substantial power are only marginally better games (or not better at all).

Lets pretend that The Beggar Prince genesis game ended up being fantastic. Hailed as one of the greatest RPGs of all time. You better believe I'm going to pay full price for the cartridge, not because of the technology, but because its a good game.

[Vinny]

I don't think that $250 would be that absurd.. sure the specs are similar to that of the GC but the technology is still new. It's not using the same GPU or processor, everything in the system had to researched and developed just as the Cell, RSX, or whatever.

Unlike the PS3 and 360, Nintendo's CPU and GPU had to meet two strict requirements set by Nintendo: they had to be cool, quite, energy efficient in that little system. If you think that's easy for such weak chipsets, then you're wrong. Even the cheapest GPU and CPUs today produce a lot of heat and require a lot of power so surely they did some homework before making the chips.

And that motion sensing stuff probably costs a pretty penny, especially the Wiimote. Plus, Nintendo's systems usually tend to be the least problem prone as well.

[coltyhuxx]

Even if the Wii is $250, I still think it is cheap.

Seriously guys, really, has a console at launch ever been less than $200? And, not to repeat my post in another thread at great length, scale this to inflation. When you bought your NES back in the day - granted you got a pack in game and two controllers for the base system but wasn't that around $200? Maybe $189? How much was $200 back in '85 - a LOT more than it is now. You're getting a sweet deal - we live in cheap video game times.

Of COURSE I want it for $150 too, though... It's that CAG in my DNA.

Here's my question: how in the hell does the average kid/young jobless teen get enough scratch for a $900 system (counting games/basic peripherals/extra controller).. HOW?!?!?

Makes me think back to the NeoGeo Launch... what was that a $500 system? Games were $199!!! That was a big "pass" for me.

[RAMSTORIA]

250 sounds fine to me, especially compared to the other systems, and even more so if it has a bonus like an extra wiimote or VC games or something like that.

[Grave_Addiction]

Just because the technology therein or the graphics involved is only a marginal upgrade, you cant just write off the games as being only marginally better as well. Hell, I think the games that are leaps ahead in graphics and driven by substantial power are only marginally better games (or not better at all).

Lets pretend that The Beggar Prince genesis game ended up being fantastic. Hailed as one of the greatest RPGs of all time. You better believe I'm going to pay full price for the cartridge, not because of the technology, but because its a good game.

When you buy a console, you're not buying the games but the console itself. Yes, the console is the conduit to play those games, but there's still a certain price that a person expects to pay in order to do so.

Also, I don't think he was saying Wii games aren't going to be any better than the Cubes, but just that the system's specs aren't much better.

[Grave_Addiction]

Seriously guys, really, has a console at launch ever been less than $200? And, not to repeat my post in another thread at great length, scale this to inflation. When you bought your NES back in the day - granted you got a pack in game and two controllers for the base system but wasn't that around $200? Maybe $189? How much was $200 back in '85 - a LOT more than it is now. You're getting a sweet deal - we live in cheap video game times.

Of COURSE I want it for $150 too, though... It's that CAG in my DNA.

Here's my question: how in the hell does the average kid/young jobless teen get enough scratch for a $900 system (counting games/basic peripherals/extra controller).. HOW?!?!?

Makes me think back to the NeoGeo Launch... what was that a $500 system? Games were $199!!! That was a big "pass" for me.

I would like to see what the development and manufacturing costs are for the Wii compared to the NES. If they are the same or close to it, then yes, it would be comparable when you factor inflation into it.

But if, because of the Wii's older components, it's substantially cheaper to manufacture than ever before, then inflation isn't that big of a factor into the discussion and the Wii would be overpriced at $250.

[daphatty]

When you buy a console, you're not buying the games but the console itself. Yes, the console is the conduit to play those games, but there's still a certain price that a person expects to pay in order to do so.

Also, I don't think he was saying Wii games aren't going to be any better than the Cubes, but just that the system's specs aren't much better.

Exactly. Each of us has to leverage the value of the purchase price when buying a console. Many people won't buy the PS3 because it costs too damned much and they haven't given the public anything that justifies that buy in price. Nintendo, as far as I am concerned, has also failed to justify the (rumored) purchase price.

[sfriedlander]

I was actually getting upset at the thought of paying $250 for the Wii and not somewhere closer to $200, which is more reasonable, in my opinion.

Now, we know Nintendo is using "ancient" hardware compared to Sony and Microsoft and the manufacturing costs should be significantly lower than they were for the Gamecube.

The PS3 is basically a high-end PC that has the newest form of disc-based media available.

With that in mind, if the Wii launched for $250 as a standalone system would it be more overpriced than the PS3.
i'm thinking the wii is $199 cause the graphics are good but a tidg but worst than the 360

[JSweeney]

I would like to see what the development and manufacturing costs are for the Wii compared to the NES. If they are the same or close to it, then yes, it would be comparable when you factor inflation into it.

But if, because of the Wii's older components, it's substantially cheaper to manufacture than ever before, then inflation isn't that big of a factor into the discussion and the Wii would be overpriced at $250.

I'm assuming that's based on the assumption that the hardware sold for that price is one Wii console, one remote, a power cable and A/V cables. If that is the how the hardware was sold, I could see the logic.

But how much has to be added to that to make it "not overpriced"? The Nunchuck attachment? The Classic Controller? Another Controller? VC Downloads? A game?

It seems rather silly to argue about a pricepoint that doesn't exist for an unknown packout compared to a known packout with a firm pricepoint.

[SMMM]

Nintendo 64 - Never bought one. Acquired one through a trade and found that it was worthless.


The N64 had some of the greatest games of all time that still haven't been beaten by current games in its genre. To say that it is worthless is terrible.

[Reality's Fringe]

You guys think we have it bad, in the UK they have to pay 425 GBP.

That's roughly $205 MORE for the premium pack.

Does anyone know if that includes the 17.5% VAT? Because, if it doesn't....man, poor UK.

[epobirs]

I would like to see what the development and manufacturing costs are for the Wii compared to the NES. If they are the same or close to it, then yes, it would be comparable when you factor inflation into it.

But if, because of the Wii's older components, it's substantially cheaper to manufacture than ever before, then inflation isn't that big of a factor into the discussion and the Wii would be overpriced at $250.

The NES was far more dated at its US launch than the Wii. Everything in the NES was 1970s tech in 1982 and that much older when it was offered to us in 1985. The GameCube was at least pretty state of the art for its price and launch date, especially when the competition's prices were artificially low via subsidized costs. Imagine how different the market in early 2002 would have seemed if the $200 GameCube were up against a $350-$400 PS2 and a $450 Xbox. (Microsoft would have sold a hell of a lot fewer machines but saved a few billion in losses.)

The ability to add supplemental processors in game cartridges made a huge difference for the NES' longevity. The Wii is getting the equivalent boost from a die shrink enabling a clock speed boost and doubling the system memory.

Imagine if an enhanced version of the NES with an intrguing new controller technology had appeared in 1989. Would it have been sufficiently attractive to merit a higher price that was still lower than the higher powered offerings from NEC and Sega?

Nintendo may be giving themselves a much bigger than usual profit margin for hardware if they go for the $250 price but that also leaves the window for rapidly price cutting once they've paid off their launch costs and the following units have no external expenses to pay off. The early adopters should be out there in more than adequate number sto let the skeptics bide their time and wait for the lower price. At $250, those who've become accustomed to $300 and higher entry costs will indulge themselves.

[yester]

When you buy a console, you're not buying the games but the console itself. Yes, the console is the conduit to play those games, but there's still a certain price that a person expects to pay in order to do so.

Also, I don't think he was saying Wii games aren't going to be any better than the Cubes, but just that the system's specs aren't much better.

From your statement, why you complaining then about 250$ for the console?
None of the system was and will comming with any game. Period.
As always, you have to get additional hardware (2. controller, mem, games etc.) additionaly.
Also, nobody confirmed the 250$ pricetag on the Wii so far. We know on the other hand, what the PS3 will cost.
Buttom line is, if you like Nintendo consoles, you buy one anyway. And if not, then you wait or never buy one.
I like the PS because of certain games, but 600$ for just the console and the uncertainty if blueray will take off or just fail, is a hard burdon.
And i am not question the fact, if 600$ are justified or not.

[shipwreck]

From your statement, why you complaining then about 250$ for the console?
None of the system was and will comming with any game. Period.
As always, you have to get additional hardware (2. controller, mem, games etc.) additionaly.
Also, nobody confirmed the 250$ pricetag on the Wii so far. We know on the other hand, what the PS3 will cost.
Buttom line is, if you like Nintendo consoles, you buy one anyway. And if not, then you wait or never buy one.
I like the PS because of certain games, but 600$ for just the console and the uncertainty if blueray will take off or just fail, is a hard burdon.
And i am not question the fact, if 600$ are justified or not.

I'm not quite sure what you were trying to say in that last sentence, but I know that English isn't your primary language and that you were looking for ways to improve in another post. One easy thing to correct is that the "$" goes before numbers. So it should be $600, not 600$. I'm a little off topic, but I just wanted to give you a quick tip on that one. :)

[graf1k]

You guys think we have it bad, in the UK they have to pay 425 GBP.

That's roughly $205 MORE for the premium pack.

Does anyone know if that includes the 17.5% VAT? Because, if it doesn't....man, poor UK.
I would assume that includes VAT. All list prices in Europe include VAT. If for whatever reason you don't have to pay VAT, then it's 17.5% off the list price for you.

As for the question at hand, I think the PS3 at $600 is slightly more insane, but they both are stupid prices. I don't think Nintendo can really justify $250 for Gamecube-like graphics and a new controller.

[vinhjdao]

As for the question at hand, I think the PS3 at $600 is slightly more insane, but they both are stupid prices. I don't think Nintendo can really justify $250 for Gamecube-like graphics and a new controller.

I think they'd have a pretty good argument if they kept the eyes on the current generation rather than the previous one -- it'd be over 15% cheaper than the core XBox 360 and over 35% cheaper than the premium.

[yester]

I'm not quite sure what you were trying to say in that last sentence, but I know that English isn't your primary language and that you were looking for ways to improve in another post. One easy thing to correct is that the "$" goes before numbers. So it should be $600, not 600$. I'm a little off topic, but I just wanted to give you a quick tip on that one. :)

ok... :)
i hope i remeber next time.;)

[Grave_Addiction]

From your statement, why you complaining then about 250$ for the console?
None of the system was and will comming with any game. Period.
As always, you have to get additional hardware (2. controller, mem, games etc.) additionaly.
Also, nobody confirmed the 250$ pricetag on the Wii so far. We know on the other hand, what the PS3 will cost.
Buttom line is, if you like Nintendo consoles, you buy one anyway. And if not, then you wait or never buy one.
I like the PS because of certain games, but 600$ for just the console and the uncertainty if blueray will take off or just fail, is a hard burdon.
And i am not question the fact, if 600$ are justified or not.

I'm "complaining" because I want a Wii, but I think the rumored price of $250 is too much. If it launched at $200, I'll be more than happy to throw down the money for one at launch.

[JSweeney]

I'm "complaining" because I want a Wii, but I think the rumored price of $250 is too much. If it launched at $200, I'll be more than happy to throw down the money for one at launch.

The $50 is that much of an issue to you that it completely changes your entire perception of the console?
What it was $50 cheaper than the $200 price point... would your opinion so altered in the other direction?

[Vinny]

The $50 is that much of an issue to you that it completely changes your entire perception of the console?
What it was $50 cheaper than the $200 price point... would your opinion so altered in the other direction?

:lol:

But you gotta understand, $50 is a pretty big deal these days. That's the price of a first party Wii game... I mean, I'd rather have a system and 2 games than a system and one game.:)

[JSweeney]

:lol:

But you gotta understand, $50 is a pretty big deal these days. That's the price of a first party Wii game... I mean, I'd rather have a system and 2 games than a system and one game.:)

But the Wii is the only system where that $50 equals a game.
By current pricing structures, $50 means even less now than it did in previous generations.

[Grave_Addiction]

The $50 is that much of an issue to you that it completely changes your entire perception of the console?
What it was $50 cheaper than the $200 price point... would your opinion so altered in the other direction?

My perception of the Wii hasn't changed one bit. From what I've seen so far from the Wii, it looks like a really fun console, and it's something that I've decided is worth no more than $200 based on the information I've seen.

$50 isn't really a big deal for me, but it's just the principle of the issue. I bought an Xbox 360 for $400, but, to me, it was worth it based on its advanced technology.

[Strell]

Yea guys, wtf. $50 bucks is a lot of money.

In fact, you can buy 50 tacos for 50 dollars, as they provide adequate sustenance for the Dr. Who marathon.

[zewone]

Yea guys, wtf. $50 bucks is a lot of money.

In fact, you can buy 50 tacos for 50 dollars, as they provide adequate sustenance for the Dr. Who marathon.
My $50 is going to PBS.

[Reality's Fringe]

Yea guys, wtf. $50 bucks is a lot of money.

In fact, you can buy 50 tacos for 50 dollars, as they provide adequate sustenance for the Dr. Who marathon.

I think Tacos are more than that now...at least good ones.

[JSweeney]

My $50 is going to PaBSt.

Fixed.
You get a blue ribbon!

[Mookyjooky]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't every Nintendo console released for $200?

Yep, everyone of them.

But the NES was $250, if you got R.O.B. - And I would gladly pay and extra $50 for a Wii.O.B