PS3 price drop coming in August?

shrike4242

shrike4242

CAGiversary!
Feedback
1043 (100%)
Ran across this link via a post on Engadget's site ( http://www.engadget.com/2009/06/09/sony-timing-its-ps3-price-cut-to-roll-with-madden-homework/ ):

http://www.industrygamers.com/news/ps3-price-cut-in-august-timed-with-madden-launch/

[quote name='From article'] PS3 Price Cut in August Timed with Madden Launch?

Posted June 8, 2009 by James Brightman

With publishers and retailers having come and gone to E3 this past week, having seen no sign of any console hardware price cuts, the industry is starting to get antsy. Sales in the U.S. are expected to drop yet again in May by as much as 17% and movement on hardware pricing can't come soon enough, especially on the still too expensive PS3.

The good news is that Sony may be preparing to lower the price on PS3 this August in order to take advantage of the launch of EA Sports' Madden, which is always an event unto itself. Sterne Agee analyst Arvind Bhatia reports in his latest industry note that “industry sources indicate Sony is planning a $100 price cut on the PS3 in mid-August, just prior the launch of Madden (8/18) and the start of the back to school shopping season. This will naturally be a positive for the industry.”

IndustryGamers sure hopes these sources are right. The industry needs cheaper consoles right now to keep its momentum from 2008 strong. And if Sony does drop the price on PS3, it could be a catalyst for both Microsoft and Nintendo to slash prices on the Xbox 360 and Wii, respectively. This in turn should help 2009 set yet another sales milestone for the games industry.

“The industry is alive and well. While software sales for the first half of 2009 are expected to be down mid-single-digits, we believe the second half, in contrast, will likely be up 10% to 15% driven by a robust lineup, easier comparisons and potential price cut(s),” added Bhatia. [/quote]
 
I'm not going to reward engadget.com and industrygamers.com for spreading more bullshit rumous by clicking on those links. They can take their rumors and shove them where sun don't shine.

Anyone with a basic understanding of the situation realizes that Sony can not and will not lower price of PS3 by $100. They can't afford to take huge losses now with the hope that they would make up for them in the long run. They will only offer "value added" promotions.

When the article says that PS3 is still "too expensive", then it's already obvious who wrote it and for what reason. This article and the new rumor it's trying to spread is garbage. Enough said.
 
If they wait too long, Microsoft will be able to afford to cut prices again, too, or may just do it out of spite. They could cut by $50 and have a 360 for half the price of a $300 PS3.

Good news, of course, but this needed to happen 6 months ago, not wait another 2.
 
Jesus. I'll be glad when fall comes round and all these speculation threads go bye bye. Will be August, September, October ......

BTW, I don't care.
 
[quote name='vherub']If sony drops the 80gb ps3 to $299, it's going to kill the psp go at $250[/QUOTE]
The $400 PS3 already beats the $170/$200 PSP regularly in the US.
 
[quote name='Teh Nitwit']I'm not going to reward engadget.com and industrygamers.com for spreading more bullshit rumous by clicking on those links. They can take their rumors and shove them where sun don't shine.

Anyone with a basic understanding of the situation realizes that Sony can not and will not lower price of PS3 by $100. They can't afford to take huge losses now with the hope that they would make up for them in the long run. They will only offer "value added" promotions.

When the article says that PS3 is still "too expensive", then it's already obvious who wrote it and for what reason. This article and the new rumor it's trying to spread is garbage. Enough said.[/QUOTE]

They could probably double their monthly sales with a $100 price drop. I'm convinced the majority of the people who buy PS 2 every month would buy a PS 3 if it were $100 cheaper.

I thought they were gonna do a price drop when Uncharted 2 came out, but a price drop that coincides with back to school for the college kids.
 
I know I'd be picking one up if it drops $100. I may wait for some holiday deals but I"ll definitely pick one up.
 
[quote name='Rafael122']They could probably double their monthly sales with a $100 price drop.[/QUOTE]

Yes, PS3 sales would skyrocket, but so would Sony's losses. At this time they can't afford to take bigger losses.

Then again, if PS3 slim costs them a lot less to make, then it's possible they could drop the price. Time will tell.
 
[quote name='Teh Nitwit']I'm not going to reward engadget.com and industrygamers.com for spreading more bullshit rumous by clicking on those links. They can take their rumors and shove them where sun don't shine.

Anyone with a basic understanding of the situation realizes that Sony can not and will not lower price of PS3 by $100. They can't afford to take huge losses now with the hope that they would make up for them in the long run. They will only offer "value added" promotions.

When the article says that PS3 is still "too expensive", then it's already obvious who wrote it and for what reason. This article and the new rumor it's trying to spread is garbage. Enough said.[/QUOTE]

Why does it matter to you what they said and how they said it? Are you a majority shareholder in the company?

If Sony wants to get out of third place before the end of this gen, they NEED to make a drop in price in the PS3 to a more reasonable price.

I'm a PS3 owner and I even thought this thing was overpriced when I bought it(40 gb model for $399). But now that I've had it slightly over a year, I've seen all that it CAN do(on an SDtv)and I admit that there are quite a few functions for the money there. I actually surf CAG on my PS3 at times.

But still, the average Joe Shmoe doesn't want anything more than a GAME system and is probably thinking 'why is this one $400 when the others are $200(360 arcade) and $250(Wii)?

I just hope when the next-next gen comes along, they remember what happened this gen and maybe take the 'safe' route and go with a reasonable starting price.
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']Why does it matter to you what they said and how they said it? Are you a majority shareholder in the company? [/QUOTE]

So, if I get annoyed at yet another bullshit rumor about PS3 price drop being started by (what appears to me) someone with an anti-PS3 agenda, then that means I'm a majority shareholder in the company? WTF?

[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']If Sony wants to get out of third place before the end of this gen, they NEED to make a drop in price in the PS3 to a more reasonable price.[/QUOTE]

You're assuming that a $100 price drop would make PS3 get out of 3rd place. I think you're assuming too much. MS and Nintendo can drop the prices of their consoles much more than Sony can. Sony can't compete with them on price and thus even with a $100 price drop will not gain significant market share.

[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']But still, the average Joe Shmoe doesn't want anything more than a GAME system and is probably thinking 'why is this one $400 when the others are $200(360 arcade) and $250(Wii)?[/QUOTE]

Then rather than droping the price, Sony should focus on educating Joe Shmoe why PS3 is a very good value. Joe Shmoe does understand why Toyota costs more than Yugo and even though it costs more it sells better too.
 
[quote name='Teh Nitwit']So, if I get annoyed at yet another bullshit rumor about PS3 price drop being started by (what appears to me) someone with an anti-PS3 agenda, then that means I'm a majority shareholder in the company? WTF?[/quote]

I misspoke. However, your 'defense' of the price of the PS3 screams fanboy. Actually, as soon as I saw this topic I figured there would be alot of back and forth bickering over how 'zomg biased' those articles are against the almighty Sony. How about we both just chill out, huh? Honestly, 'defending' a company and their products mean shit to them, buying more of their overpriced garbage means the world to them though.


[quote name='Teh Nitwit']You're assuming that a $100 price drop would make PS3 get out of 3rd place. I think you're assuming too much. MS and Nintendo can drop the prices of their consoles much more than Sony can. Sony can't compete with them on price and thus even with a $100 price drop will not gain significant market share.[/quote]

Well, whose fault is that? Who put a new format of drive in their system? Hmmmmmm, let's think about that for a second.....oh yeah, it was Sony.

Had they just stuck to the standard of DVD and not gone overboard on putting new junk in their console, they might be able to drop the price a bit more by now. But they didn't, they're in third place and they'll be stuck there till the end of this gen.

[quote name='Teh Nitwit']Then rather than droping the price, Sony should focus on educating Joe Shmoe why PS3 is a very good value. Joe Shmoe does understand why Toyota costs more than Yugo and even though it costs more it sells better too.[/QUOTE]

But maybe Joe Shmoe is actually Joe Football who buys the newest Madden game EVERY year and doesn't care if he has a Blu-Ray player in his GAME console and maybe he doesn't even give a shit to have online play since his friends come over to play Madden regularly rather than over the net. And so on and so forth. Much like I said I wouldn't use many of the functions of the PS3 and I considered the price to be exorbitant at first, that's how some of the normal consumers view the PS3.

Nowadays, I DO use some of the functions more, but I will still NEVER use the BR player since I'm fine with normal DVD's. That's how the average consumer views the PS3, as a GAME machine. That's why they can't fathom why this thing is four hundred smackers.
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']I misspoke. However, your 'defense' of the price of the PS3 screams fanboy. Actually, as soon as I saw this topic I figured there would be alot of back and forth bickering over how 'zomg biased' those articles are against the almighty Sony. How about we both just chill out, huh? Honestly, 'defending' a company and their products mean shit to them, buying more of their overpriced garbage means the world to them though.[/QUOTE]

Sounds like you created your own reality there. You were expecting to see some fanboyish defense of Sony and that how you interpreted my posts. I like my PS3 and I care about Sony only because PS3's value depends on them. I think Sony makes good quality electronics, but I do not feel compelled by chose their brand over any other.

[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']Well, whose fault is that? Who put a new format of drive in their system? Hmmmmmm, let's think about that for a second.....oh yeah, it was Sony..[/QUOTE]

Why are you telling me that? Of course it's Sony fault that they're in 3rd place. They didn't accurately predict the effects of their decisions. In other words, they made some mistakes. That said, I don't think their decision to use a blu-ray drive is one of them. It's good for us gamers and it helped them win the HD media war.

[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']Had they just stuck to the standard of DVD and not gone overboard on putting new junk in their console, they might be able to drop the price a bit more by now. But they didn't, they're in third place and they'll be stuck there till the end of this gen.[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't blame the blu-ray drive for their failure. I'd mostly blame the cell processor and poor marketing. Plus they alienated people with their arrogance. They should have from the start offered a very cheap PS3 with no BC and a more deluxe model with BC and other bells and whistles (and kept them both going until now).

[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']But maybe Joe Shmoe is actually Joe Football who buys the newest Madden game EVERY year and doesn't care if he has a Blu-Ray player in his GAME console and maybe he doesn't even give a shit to have online play since his friends come over to play Madden regularly rather than over the net. And so on and so forth. Much like I said I wouldn't use many of the functions of the PS3 and I considered the price to be exorbitant at first, that's how some of the normal consumers view the PS3.

Nowadays, I DO use some of the functions more, but I will still NEVER use the BR player since I'm fine with normal DVD's. That's how the average consumer views the PS3, as a GAME machine. That's why they can't fathom why this thing is four hundred smackers.[/QUOTE]

If you had a large HD TV then you wouldn't compare blu-rays with DVDs. You seem to have a thing against blu-rays, I think it may be affecting your judgement.
 
This price drop should happen in July... don't let the entire Summer go by with no price cut. People will be using their money for back to school clothes and laptops.. not for PS3s. I think that Sony doesn't understand American culture. people will spend more money during vacations. Not when its back to school time (at least not on video games).
 
[quote name='Teh Nitwit']Sounds like you created your own reality there. You were expecting to see some fanboyish defense of Sony and that how you interpreted my posts. I like my PS3 and I care about Sony only because PS3's value depends on them. I think Sony makes good quality electronics, but I do not feel compelled by chose their brand over any other.[/quote]

After the DRE fiasco last gen, where multitudes of people ended up with PS2's that didn't want to read ANYTHING and the fact that many friends of mine had PS1's with dead lasers within a year of buying them, I think Sony's QA department needs some better training. Thus far this gen, they SEEM to be doing a bangup job.

[quote name='Teh Nitwit']Why are you telling me that? Of course it's Sony fault that they're in 3rd place. They didn't accurately predict the effects of their decisions. In other words, they made some mistakes. That said, I don't think their decision to use a blu-ray drive is one of them. It's good for us gamers and it helped them win the HD media war.[/quote]

Thing is, there was NO friggin' need for an 'HD media war'. Normal Joe Shmoe consumers(like me) were not crying out 'WE NEED SOME NEW BS FORMAT WHOSE MOVIES COST 2-3x WHAT A STANDARD DVD DOES!!!!!'.

DVD and BR can co-exist for many years simultaneously, since many out there(including and especially me) aren't going to pay $30 per fuckin' movie. I've very rarely paid $20 for ANY movie since the VHS gen. It had to be something I just HAD to have and let's face it 90-95% of the shit the studios put out now aren't worth buying for home viewing.


[quote name='Teh Nitwit']I wouldn't blame the blu-ray drive for their failure. I'd mostly blame the cell processor and poor marketing. Plus they alienated people with their arrogance. They should have from the start offered a very cheap PS3 with no BC and a more deluxe model with BC and other bells and whistles (and kept them both going until now).[/quote]

They SHOULD have done that, but they didn't. Had they done so, I might've bought a PS3 sooner than 2008.

[quote name='Teh Nitwit']If you had a large HD TV then you wouldn't compare blu-rays with DVDs. You seem to have a thing against blu-rays, I think it may be affecting your judgement.[/QUOTE]

I have no need to plunk down a couple grand on some stupid tv when the one I have is perfectly fine and doesn't blind me with it's sheer size. I tried a 27" tv in my room the one time and even on the lowest brightness settings it was blinding in my room. So, why would I cram a ginormous tv into my room?

To be quite honest, I was hoping that BOTH BR and HD-DVD would've failed miserably, since I still think the 'format war' was a crock of shit.
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']Thing is, there was NO friggin' need for an 'HD media war'. Normal Joe Shmoe consumers(like me) were not crying out 'WE NEED SOME NEW BS FORMAT WHOSE MOVIES COST 2-3x WHAT A STANDARD DVD DOES!!!!!'.[/QUOTE]

Obviously, HDDVD and blu-ray was not developed for those consumers. It was developed for those people (like myself) who did want HD video. As for the cost, that's why God invented Netflix.
 
[quote name='Teh Nitwit']Obviously, HDDVD and blu-ray was not developed for those consumers. It was developed for those people (like myself) who did want HD video. As for the cost, that's why God invented Netflix.[/QUOTE]

Well then, that means that DVD can survive indefinitely, since I don't see most movies getting long enough that they'll require the added storage space of a BR disc.

As for Netflix, if I want a particular movie, that means I want to buy it and not rent it.

But that doesn't mean I want to pay out the nose for it either.
 
[quote name='FriskyTanuki']The $400 PS3 already beats the $170/$200 PSP regularly in the US.[/QUOTE]

I meant sony would have a more difficult time justifying the go at $250, with an 80gb ps3 at $299
 
You can get a $299 PS3 right now at sonystyle.com by signing up for a Sony visa card. You get the card, buy the $399 PS3 from sonystyle with the card, and within a month, you get $100 credit on the card.

I did it on 5/18 (although I bought the $499 Uncharted bundle with the free extra controller) and got the 100 bucks back about a week ago. Don't go for the PS card--that offer is expired (last I checked). Also, make sure you call the hotline on the website and check if the offer is still valid for the sony card. Also, read ALL of the fine print--if you get the 0% interest for 12 months, and don't have the money to pay in full, don't make any more purchases on the card--they will credit your payments towards the 0% balance and not your purchases which are >10% interest. Also, you need to make sure that the very first purchase is from sonystyle and it's the PS3 (or anything over $299).

So, if you already have the cash, and don't want to wait for a "possible" price-drop, it's a great deal.
 
Why do you people keep talking about a price drop? The PS3 was freak'n $599 when it came out! Now it is $350 or $299 depending on where you go? Even $399 is a massive price drop. Why do you people act like this has never happened?
 
I very seriously doubt a $100 price drop, that's just way too much if anything it will go down $50 making it $349 & $449, but if all else fails look for Xmas specials to have stores offering $100 gift cards with purchase... Especially if they come out with sometype of PS3 bundle at holiday time..
 
[quote name='formerroadie']Why do you people keep talking about a price drop? The PS3 was freak'n $599 when it came out! Now it is $350 or $299 depending on where you go? Even $399 is a massive price drop. Why do you people act like this has never happened?[/QUOTE]

Becuase there hasn't been a 'true' price drop yet, quite simply. Yes, a PS3 costs less now than at launch... but a PS3 now doesn't play ps2 games, doesn't have memory card slots, and has half the USB ports. We pay less becuase we get less. People want to less for the same product- that's a real price drop.

The PS3's a great machine, but Sony's not doing much to make it a market-friendly one... and the biggest thing they can do for that is drop the price $100 so it's more competitive with the Wii and 360- even a $50 drop would be fine. Personally though, I hope there isn't one in August- just becuase my fiance intends to buy one in July based on the lack of price drop announcements at E3. He'd be pretty miffed if there was a drop that soon after buying one...
 
[quote name='DuelLadyS']Becuase there hasn't been a 'true' price drop yet, quite simply. Yes, a PS3 costs less now than at launch... but a PS3 now doesn't play ps2 games, doesn't have memory card slots, and has half the USB ports. We pay less becuase we get less. People want to less for the same product- that's a real price drop.

The PS3's a great machine, but Sony's not doing much to make it a market-friendly one... and the biggest thing they can do for that is drop the price $100 so it's more competitive with the Wii and 360- even a $50 drop would be fine. Personally though, I hope there isn't one in August- just becuase my fiance intends to buy one in July based on the lack of price drop announcements at E3. He'd be pretty miffed if there was a drop that soon after buying one...[/QUOTE]

If he's absolutely intent on buying in July, at least get it at Best Buy. I think they still have the deal that if they advertise a lower price within 30 days, you get the difference back in cash. Amazon used to do this, but I think they stopped the practice about a year ago.
 
[quote name='formerroadie']Why do you people keep talking about a price drop? The PS3 was freak'n $599 when it came out! Now it is $350 or $299 depending on where you go? Even $399 is a massive price drop. Why do you people act like this has never happened?[/QUOTE]


some people jst dont want to do the extra work to find a good deal which is funny since theres always some posted on this site.everyone else just wants a ps3 for way cheaper than it will ever be. i can see not paying 600 for one but right now theyre not that expensive if you look around. the longer people wait the more they will take away from the console. over time.


when you look at what you can do with it that you cant with other systems ( especially harddrive upgrades) its a good bargain. speaking of which ive got to look into getting one soon.
 
[quote name='DuelLadyS']Becuase there hasn't been a 'true' price drop yet, quite simply. Yes, a PS3 costs less now than at launch... but a PS3 now doesn't play ps2 games, doesn't have memory card slots, and has half the USB ports. We pay less becuase we get less. People want to less for the same product- that's a real price drop.

The PS3's a great machine, but Sony's not doing much to make it a market-friendly one... and the biggest thing they can do for that is drop the price $100 so it's more competitive with the Wii and 360- even a $50 drop would be fine. Personally though, I hope there isn't one in August- just becuase my fiance intends to buy one in July based on the lack of price drop announcements at E3. He'd be pretty miffed if there was a drop that soon after buying one...[/QUOTE]

Well, it's cheaper than an X-Box after you buy the wifi crap, etc. All in all, it's a far better deal than X-Box ever was and people need to recognize that they are also getting a Blu-ray player with it.

Yes, the BC issue sucks, but I got a 60GB refurbished for $350. You just have to look.
 
[quote name='formerroadie']Well, it's cheaper than an X-Box after you buy the wifi crap, etc. All in all, it's a far better deal than X-Box ever was and people need to recognize that they are also getting a Blu-ray player with it.

Yes, the BC issue sucks, but I got a 60GB refurbished for $350. You just have to look.[/QUOTE]

Is that the ONLY argument the anti MS people really have? It's a bit redundant, since NOT everyone wants to play the PS3 online so who needs WiFi in the first place?

As for the BR player nonsense, I guess I'm the only one who uses my GAME machine for playing....oh I don't know.....GAMES!?!?!?!
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']Is that the ONLY argument the anti MS people really have? It's a bit redundant, since NOT everyone wants to play the PS3 online so who needs WiFi in the first place?

As for the BR player nonsense, I guess I'm the only one who uses my GAME machine for playing....oh I don't know.....GAMES!?!?!?![/QUOTE]

I own over 30 PS3 games and counting. So, don't give me that. The PS3's graphics are insanely good and blow away the Box, especially in terms of exclusive games. The tech has not been tapped to its potential like the Box. There are a ton more arguments for getting a PS3. What's weak is you didn't realize this thread is about price drops..... duh!
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']As for the BR player nonsense, I guess I'm the only one who uses my GAME machine for playing....oh I don't know.....GAMES!?!?!?![/QUOTE]

Another anti-bluray rant, eh? Give it a rest, man. Maybe you don't care if PS3 plays blu-rays (exceptionally well), but many others do. It's a major feature.
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']Is that the ONLY argument the anti MS people really have? It's a bit redundant, since NOT everyone wants to play the PS3 online so who needs WiFi in the first place?

As for the BR player nonsense, I guess I'm the only one who uses my GAME machine for playing....oh I don't know.....GAMES!?!?!?![/QUOTE]
Well, I don't know... maybe some people want to play..... GAMES online and want to do it without wires.

As for the BR player nonsense, I guess you're the only one who doesn't know that.... oh I don't know..... GAMES are on Blu-ray discs as well as movies. Without the PS3, it's likely that HD-DVD would have won the HD format war.
 
[quote name='formerroadie']I own over 30 PS3 games and counting. So, don't give me that. The PS3's graphics are insanely good and blow away the Box, especially in terms of exclusive games. The tech has not been tapped to its potential like the Box. There are a ton more arguments for getting a PS3. What's weak is you didn't realize this thread is about price drops..... duh![/QUOTE]

I knew as soon as I saw this speculative thread that there would be the normal garbage, including the fanboy rants about how we 'shouldn't speculate' and 'they already dropped the price'(by ripping out parts from the PS3).

Much of what I have said thus far(and what you've said thus far as well) are called....OPINIONS. YOU may think that 'the PS3 blows away the Xbox in terms of graphics', but side by side comparisons have already proven that there is little difference between the 360 and PS3 versions of some games.

As for the exclusive games, I really don't care for most of Sony's exclusive crap(Killzone 2, Resistance 2, etc, etc). The only game I'm really waiting for right now is God Of War 3. Once that comes out, I'm done for quite a while on games unless I can get some $5-10 ones from Sears again.

Note, I did say SOME games. As for me not realizing this thread is about price drops, I actually did realize that. However Shrike should've definitely put a disclaimer and warned people not to start on with the 'my shit is better' nonsense that always invades these threads. Again though, claiming one thing is 'better' over another is called an....say it with me class...OPINION.

[quote name='Teh Nitwit']Another anti-bluray rant, eh? Give it a rest, man. Maybe you don't care if PS3 plays blu-rays (exceptionally well), but many others do. It's a major feature.[/QUOTE]

Major feature? I suppose that's why any and all PS3 commercials I've seen lately have focused on.....GAMING. Way to tout your silly BR drive in the PS3 and how it plays MOVIES as well as games there, Sony.

[quote name='naes']Well, I don't know... maybe some people want to play..... GAMES online and want to do it without wires.

As for the BR player nonsense, I guess you're the only one who doesn't know that.... oh I don't know..... GAMES are on Blu-ray discs as well as movies. Without the PS3, it's likely that HD-DVD would have won the HD format war.[/QUOTE]

Who said we NEEDED a new format? Sony and their partners in the BR association? MS and their partners in the HD-DVD association? Did they actually ask normal consumers if they really WANTED a new format?

As for playing games online and wirelessly, that's how I play, but if it weren't included I wouldn't go out and waste extra money on the items to get online wirelessly unless I could do it on the cheap.

Is it nice that it's included? Yes it is. Would I rather if Sony pulled a MS and sold a seperate adapter for wireless? Sure, but only if they kept in the PS2 BC for ALL models. Wireless adapters are fairly cheap if you look in the right spots, so why not leave in a function that's actually worthwhile and dump some useless crap?
 
If you are interested in the PS3 in the first place, you will find a deal of at least $100 off if you bother to look for one. If you're not even considering ever buying a PS3, you have no reason to complain.

If you already have enough money now for one, you can go and apply for the Sony Credit card, buy the PS3 and get $100 back within 2 to 3 weeks. So, if you buy the $400 machine, you will effectively pay $300 (I believe you can still do the 12 months no interest if you don't have the whole amount--see my last post for info).

Or, you could buy the $500 machine, get Uncharted: Drakes Fortune for free ($50+ value) and a second wireless controller free (another $50+ value).

Wirless comes with it; online play is FREE, unlike the 360; and the HDD is upgradable with standard laptop HDD (no proprietary rip-offs).

And, if you consider if you buy the 360, within 2 years, you've paid $100 more for the $50 yearly XBOX live fee (maybe there is a lower tier, but still, you can't beat free).

If you look at it purely from a what-you-get-for-the-money standpoint, the PS3 is a better deal (definitely in the long-term since your not nickel-and-dimed for everything).

Remember, it's a MACHINE that sits there--an inanimate object--no reason to fight over which is better.
 
[quote name='jh6269']If you are interested in the PS3 in the first place, you will find a deal of at least $100 off if you bother to look for one. If you're not even considering ever buying a PS3, you have no reason to complain.

If you already have enough money now for one, you can go and apply for the Sony Credit card, buy the PS3 and get $100 back within 2 to 3 weeks. So, if you buy the $400 machine, you will effectively pay $300 (I believe you can still do the 12 months no interest if you don't have the whole amount--see my last post for info).

Or, you could buy the $500 machine, get Uncharted: Drakes Fortune for free ($50+ value) and a second wireless controller free (another $50+ value).

Wirless comes with it; online play is FREE, unlike the 360; and the HDD is upgradable with standard laptop HDD (no proprietary rip-offs).

And, if you consider if you buy the 360, within 2 years, you've paid $100 more for the $50 yearly XBOX live fee (maybe there is a lower tier, but still, you can't beat free).

If you look at it purely from a what-you-get-for-the-money standpoint, the PS3 is a better deal (definitely in the long-term since your not nickel-and-dimed for everything).

Remember, it's a MACHINE that sits there--an inanimate object--no reason to fight over which is better.[/QUOTE]

If there's no reason to fight over which is better, then why did you just take as many cheap shots as you did at MS and the 360 then?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, not everyone WANTS to play online, nor everyone NEEDS WiFi and not everyone NEEDs a ton of useless HDD space.

So for some the base arcade model of the 360 would be good enough for them, since all they want to do is play games OFFLINE.

Actually, if you think about it, LAST gen Sony was nickel and diming you with multitaps and memory cards while MS was giving you a HDD to save games on and four controller ports on the Xbox. So now it's just a reversal on a couple of levels(don't forget about the dreaded Disc Read Error from Sony's PS2 last gen).
 
[quote name='Teh Nitwit']Another anti-bluray rant, eh? Give it a rest, man. Maybe you don't care if PS3 plays blu-rays (exceptionally well), but many others do. It's a major feature.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='formerroadie']Well, it's cheaper than an X-Box after you buy the wifi crap, etc. All in all, it's a far better deal than X-Box ever was and people need to recognize that they are also getting a Blu-ray player with it.
[/QUOTE]

Sony may bill blu-ray as a major feature, but it only counts if people want that feature- and right now, a lot simply don't.

Techincally, I could also argue that a 360 pro comes with component cables and a headset, and ps3 doesn't. By my math, when you equal out the accessories, the systems costs pretty much the same.

When people pick this stuff, they look for the inital big-sticker cost... sure, when you start getting into the details, things even out (and the PS3 even pulls ahead a little in terms of value), it doesn't change the fact that you need $100 more to get a PS3 in your hands. That matters to the typical shopper- and that's why Sony is having usch a hard sell with the PS3.


[quote name='coolz481']If he's absolutely intent on buying in July, at least get it at Best Buy. I think they still have the deal that if they advertise a lower price within 30 days, you get the difference back in cash. Amazon used to do this, but I think they stopped the practice about a year ago.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the tip- I was planning on looking into this. His family's taking a day trip to Oregon in July for the sole purpose of tax-free shopping. Makes for a great time to buy something expensive, like a PS3. (I'm getting a Wii, myself.)
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']If there's no reason to fight over which is better, then why did you just take as many cheap shots as you did at MS and the 360 then?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, not everyone WANTS to play online, nor everyone NEEDS WiFi and not everyone NEEDs a ton of useless HDD space.

So for some the base arcade model of the 360 would be good enough for them, since all they want to do is play games OFFLINE.

Actually, if you think about it, LAST gen Sony was nickel and diming you with multitaps and memory cards while MS was giving you a HDD to save games on and four controller ports on the Xbox. So now it's just a reversal on a couple of levels(don't forget about the dreaded Disc Read Error from Sony's PS2 last gen).[/QUOTE]

Which part of what I said is a cheap shot? AFAIK it's just stating the facts and comparing the value of either system. If something I said is not true, post what is the truth.

You can't dispute that it's generally expected that your console be able to go online--if nothing else but to at least be able to download games. Maybe you don't want to play online but at least it's good to have the option to do so. My friend's two kids each have to pay $50 for the privledge of having XBOX Live. I couldn't believe it when I heard that MS even makes two people in the same household, with the same console, pay for online service (instead of one account with free subaccounts).

Now, as for your last point, I've never owned a Sony console before the PS3 so I don't know about the mem card deal or the other issues. I had a GCN and that system used memory cards too. I think the XBOX came out after both the PS2 and the GCN, so that could be an explaination for XBOX to have an HDD and not the other two...
 
[quote name='jh6269']Which part of what I said is a cheap shot? AFAIK it's just stating the facts and comparing the value of either system. If something I said is not true, post what is the truth.

You can't dispute that it's generally expected that your console be able to go online--if nothing else but to at least be able to download games. Maybe you don't want to play online but at least it's good to have the option to do so. My friend's two kids each have to pay $50 for the privledge of having XBOX Live. I couldn't believe it when I heard that MS even makes two people in the same household, with the same console, pay for online service (instead of one account with free subaccounts).

Now, as for your last point, I've never owned a Sony console before the PS3 so I don't know about the mem card deal or the other issues. I had a GCN and that system used memory cards too. I think the XBOX came out after both the PS2 and the GCN, so that could be an explaination for XBOX to have an HDD and not the other two...[/QUOTE]

Download games? Unless they're $5 or so I refuse to pay for something I don't own a physical copy of that I can resell if I choose to. Before the PS3, I had ZERO desire to go online, but I understand that SOME may have become accustomed to it from last gen with the Xbox and to some smaller extent the PS2.

As for paying for online, since you're on CAG why didn't you try to find them a deal on the '$50 a year' for XBL? Or would that spoil one of your ranting points about why MS and the Xbox/360 sucks?

I just don't get it. I've seen numerous people on CAG complain about '$50 a year for Live', but since they're on here WHY are they paying that when there HAVE been deals galore on the time?

As for the Xbox having a HDD and the other two not having one, the PS2 had one as well, though that was mainly for use on FFXI online(and illegal purposes with the fat model PS2's). But really with how cheap the HDD's are nowadays, I can't believe that all three consoles didn't come with a standard HDD in each for each console last gen or this gen.

Then again, just like the online and/or wireless, not everyone is going to use them or need them, so why add expenses to each console that not everyone is going to use.
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']Download games? Unless they're $5 or so I refuse to pay for something I don't own a physical copy of that I can resell if I choose to. Before the PS3, I had ZERO desire to go online, but I understand that SOME may have become accustomed to it from last gen with the Xbox and to some smaller extent the PS2.[/QUOTE]

The original XBOX had online, and my friend bought one just to play SW Battlefront. I don't know if there was a charge for the online back then or not. And also, it's not just about getting online and playing online. The PS3 (and probably the 360 with the wirless add-on) allows you to host all of your music and pictures on a network media drive, and use the WiFi to access your network storage. You can also use it to download free demos and check out games before you buy them. Also, you can download trailers and stuff for free.

[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']As for paying for online, since you're on CAG why didn't you try to find them a deal on the '$50 a year' for XBL? Or would that spoil one of your ranting points about why MS and the Xbox/360 sucks?

I just don't get it. I've seen numerous people on CAG complain about '$50 a year for Live', but since they're on here WHY are they paying that when there HAVE been deals galore on the time?[/QUOTE]

I thought the CAG deal was a one time deal... But thanks for reminding me. I think the reason for me, that the XBL fee is a show-stopper, is because the other two consoles that I have free online. I would assume it's the same for many other people.

[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']As for the Xbox having a HDD and the other two not having one, the PS2 had one as well, though that was mainly for use on FFXI online(and illegal purposes with the fat model PS2's). But really with how cheap the HDD's are nowadays, I can't believe that all three consoles didn't come with a standard HDD in each for each console last gen or this gen.

Then again, just like the online and/or wireless, not everyone is going to use them or need them, so why add expenses to each console that not everyone is going to use.[/QUOTE]

I can't believe they don't all have HDDs either. At least, they should allow you to use the USB ports to plug in an external USB HDD.
For the downloadable games, yeah, I won't buy a game online if there is a way to buy a hard copy. I bought a few $5 games on the Wii and one on PS3 so far. I bought a bunch of games on the iPod Touch. But with the HDD, and the USB ports, you can backup your games. And I believe that if you lose the game somehow, you can re-download it for free.

Let me just specify; minus the people who don't go online at all, the people who do go online like to be able to just use their existing wireless network. Nowdays when you get cable/or AT&T U-verse, it comes with a Residential Gatway with a wireless router--so more and more people are going to have a Wi-Fi connection in their home. So, this is why it's going to be standard in consoles.

Anyway, nobody is ranting, it's a debate. I didn't say that the 360 sucks, I said that it doesn't come with free online--which it doesn't. I guess we've gotten off topic; the only reason I posted here is to tell people about the deal I got and the deal on sonystyle.com--it's a great deal.

Blockbuster has a deal right now where you pay $10 for a week of unlimited movies (one at a time); DVDs, BluRays, and games. So I've made 3 trips so far to Blockbuster to rent BluRays. My experience so far of the PS3 has been fantastic--I'm glad I bought one. Hopefully Sony will do a price drop, but you can find one now if you want.
 
[quote name='jh6269']Which part of what I said is a cheap shot? AFAIK it's just stating the facts and comparing the value of either system. If something I said is not true, post what is the truth.

You can't dispute that it's generally expected that your console be able to go online--if nothing else but to at least be able to download games. Maybe you don't want to play online but at least it's good to have the option to do so. My friend's two kids each have to pay $50 for the privledge of having XBOX Live. I couldn't believe it when I heard that MS even makes two people in the same household, with the same console, pay for online service (instead of one account with free subaccounts).

Now, as for your last point, I've never owned a Sony console before the PS3 so I don't know about the mem card deal or the other issues. I had a GCN and that system used memory cards too. I think the XBOX came out after both the PS2 and the GCN, so that could be an explaination for XBOX to have an HDD and not the other two...[/QUOTE]


xbox had memory cards too. i never understood why since liek you all mentioned they could save to the harddrive but all consoles during that era had memory cards. in a way they still do since many of the newer consoles can se sd cards, memory sticks ect. that whole xbox live paying for 2 online accounts thing sucks though. in the end lets all just agree to disagree. theres nothing anyone is going to say to anybody that will change the other persons mind. what one person sees as a pro the other will see as a con. and at the very least we can all agree that the 360 and the ps3 are at least way better than the wii lol.
 
Why do threads about PS3's/360's turn into a flame war between PS3 and Xbox owners? Anyway, whatever price drop that occurs this summer (or whenever), there are still very good deals RIGHT NOW that would allow people to get a PS3 months before an actual price at about the same price. Just look around..
 
Well they have to cut the price before the end of the year, the 360 is already very inexpensive and if the rumors of the slim PS3 are real, they have to find a way to unload stock.
 
Well I hope it happens at least by August (that or the release of the rumored PS3 Slim). I've got the bonus trade-in credit from Amazon that I need to use by 8/31 and I want to use it on a PS3. Any extra off I can take will be wonderful.
 
[quote name='lokizz']xbox had memory cards too. i never understood why since liek you all mentioned they could save to the harddrive but all consoles during that era had memory cards. in a way they still do since many of the newer consoles can se sd cards, memory sticks ect. that whole xbox live paying for 2 online accounts thing sucks though. in the end lets all just agree to disagree. theres nothing anyone is going to say to anybody that will change the other persons mind. what one person sees as a pro the other will see as a con. and at the very least we can all agree that the 360 and the ps3 are at least way better than the wii lol.[/QUOTE]


Yeah, and speaking of sD cards, Nintendo tried to rip people off by charging like 90 bucks for their 1st party 2GB sD card. Luckily I got one for $12 from CC.

Yeah, I'm a big Nintendo fan (bought a Wii on launch--stood in line for 2 hours at midnight to get one), but I have to admit I'm pretty peeved that Nintendo didn't put HD in their product. I may not have bought a PS3 if they had (but I did also want a blu-ray player). But I'm a Mario/Zelda/Metroid junkie, so I had no choice but to buy the Wii--even if it does have sub-standard graphics. However, I'd argue that it's worth the $250; my friends, my wife and I have had a blast playing the Wii.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top