Do you think their will be a PS3 price drop?

I've been a Sony loyalist since the Playstation 1. Trying to decide between the PS 3 and the 360, it was the first time I was thinking about not going with Sony when it came to a gaming console, but when I started reading up about all the hardware failures the 360 had, I ended up getting the PS 3. In the end, I'd probably spend more on getting my 360 refurbished than I would on getting a PS 3. It also helped that I got it when Amazon dropped the price $50 for one day. That was the biggest reason why I held out: price. Speaking from personal experience, they got me to buy one with a $50 price drop, imagine how many people would buy it if it went down to $299?

Rumor is April 1. Been reading that for the past few months. If it doesn't happen then, I wouldn't be surprised if it happened with God of War 3 came out, or when Uncharted 2 comes out. I'm thinking they will drop the price in time for one of their major exclusive games, and they have a very good list of exclusives this year.
 
[quote name='rickonker']How is Sony going to start charging for PSN? People who bought a PS3 expect a free PSN as part of what they paid for. If they try to start charging for it I would expect lawsuits.[/quote]


Nor really, Sony isent under leagal responability to keep PSN free, when you sign up for your PSN account theres a clause in there that says "we reserve the right to change the terms of service without notice" This would fall under that. I'm not saying that Sony would just start charging us out of the blue, I'm sure they would give us 6 months to a year notice if they ever ddi such a thing, witch I doubt they would.
 
[quote name='naes']Good job, you just listed one of the reason they took out BC.[/QUOTE]

Oh I know, I'm saying it was still a dumb move. They should've figured out another way, or even better they shouldn't have gotten into that situation in the first place.
 
[quote name='kurokubushi']Nor really, Sony isent under leagal responability to keep PSN free, when you sign up for your PSN account theres a clause in there that says "we reserve the right to change the terms of service without notice" This would fall under that. I'm not saying that Sony would just start charging us out of the blue, I'm sure they would give us 6 months to a year notice if they ever ddi such a thing, witch I doubt they would.[/QUOTE]
I don't know if that would be covered. Even if they could do it legally, they would piss off a LOT of people who actually bought their console, so I just don't see it happening.
 
I don't think Live is worth paying for. There's no way I'd pay for the PSN.

I'm rather biased as a PC gamer though. What the hell does MS charge for? There are no hosted servers and the only bandwidth usage is for marketplace stuff.

[quote name='kurokubushi']Nor really, Sony isent under leagal responability to keep PSN free, when you sign up for your PSN account theres a clause in there that says "we reserve the right to change the terms of service without notice" This would fall under that. I'm not saying that Sony would just start charging us out of the blue, I'm sure they would give us 6 months to a year notice if they ever ddi such a thing, witch I doubt they would.[/quote]
 
[quote name='The Mana Knight']Malik is one of the first people I don't see paying $20 for PSN.[/quote]


Actually, Malik would pay $50 a year as long as good exclusives come out with fun multiplayer aspects. If more games like R2 and K2 keep coming out with great multiplayer I don't care if they start charging what XBL does. I am not stuck on the "principal" of it like a lot of other people are. Great multiplayer gaming on 2 platforms for a MSRP of $100 a year ($8.34 a month) is a great deal. $20 for PSn would be spectacular as long as the goods are delivered by Sony.

See TMK, I'm not a fanboy - I just like playing good games.
 
[quote name='rickonker']I don't know if that would be covered. Even if they could do it legally, they would piss off a LOT of people who actually bought their console, so I just don't see it happening.[/quote]

Neither do I, I was just saying that If the really wanted to they could. start charging for it, and theres nor really much anybody could do about it.
 
[quote name='Mr Unoriginal']Unfortunately it seems that the American public doesn't share your opinion of the fairness of the price, or else it would be selling much better. A price drop seems necessary at this point. A lot of good exclusives have already been released for the system, I can't imagine a game that will push a hugh number of people over to the $400 PS3 camp.[/quote]


I know i immediately considered a 360 when they dropped their core price and feel a $100 or more price drop will make the ps3 much more desireable to the general public...
 
[quote name='rickonker']I think cutting PS2 BC was a big fucking mistake. "We're having trouble with the cost of our new console and it isn't selling well...so let's take out the feature that lets it play games from the best-selling console of ALL TIME. Yeah."[/QUOTE]They had to because the truth is, the costs to add PS2 BC would put PS3 at the $500 range at the cheapest. If people feel $400 is already too expensive, just how would you think PS3 would be doing right now if the cheapest SKU was $500 just to add the PS2 BC. Sony's initial plan was to keep it, but due to slower than expected PS3 sales along with people complaining the PS3 was priced too high, that's why Sony had to remove it. If people never complained about the PS3 pricetag in the first place, it would have never been removed.

For the most part, it actually did more good than harm, because I know MANY PS3 owners who jumped on the $400 pricetag, saying PS2 BC didn't matter to them. If PS3 was still $500 right now just to add that feature, there's no way they would have jumped onto buying a PS3. Like I explained in many posts before, adding the PS2 BC is not cheap. If it was 100% software like the PS1 emulator, they could have added it at no extra costs. But since PS2 BC requires at least a GS (because no console GPU out there has a high enough fill rate to emulate it) along with other components, that brings the costs up, PCB size increases, and so on. Sony's goal now is to also stick with one SKU configuration, and since people want a cheaper PS3, that's why PS2 BC was removed and never coming back. Let's just say adding the PS2 hardware components costs around $50 (It's being said to cost around $50-$75 to add). Sony sells 10 million PS3 40GB/80GB Core/160GB PS3 consoles at $400. Sony would have lost an extra $500 - $750 million extra in their gaming division just to add it. Since Sony is still producing PS2 consoles and making a small profit off of every one, that was another reason for them to remove it because if someone buys a PS3 just to buy/play PS2 games, Sony has lost money on a new PS3 console sale and isn't getting that money back lost. That's why if someone really wants to play PS2 games, Sony wants you to buy a PS2 because they make money off of that. If people want to play PS3 games or blu-rays (especially if a blu-ray is a Sony movie), then they want you to buy a PS3 because they will make money off of you when you buy games, accessories, etc. PS2 BC isn't coming back until PS2 stops selling, PS3 hardware costs greatly decrease, and when they finally get a 100% PS2 software emulator working (which requires zero hardware components). I'm not putting much hope into that happening, because the current Cell + RSX architecture makes it VERY difficult to do.

People near launch were whining about the $500/$600 price tag, when it costs Sony $800/$840 to produce the PS3 consoles. The main motherboard alone with all components (not including blu-ray drive, HDD, power supply, bluetooth, etc.) cost them $500. Even using a DVD drive, removing WiFi, HDD, and so on, PS3 would still cost over $600 to produce. Oh course over time, some of the costs have dropped (especially blu-ray drive, Cell and RSX shrunk, HDD prices dropped, etc.). However, the costs that didn't drop so much was the PS2 BC components (whether the EE was included or not) because they're towards the bottom of the exponential curve price wise (where they started out high, but costs have come down and has mostly remained fixed). It was being said that PS2 components contributed to 20-25% of the main PS3 motherboard price. The first thing Sony tried to do was cut out the EE (by emulating it, but still using PS2 components) along with some other changes, but PS3 was still around $600 or so to produce. People still cried and said they wanted a $400 PS3 (The $500 drop of the 60GB was NOT because of costs reduced. The 60GB was expensive and Sony was trying to phase it out. They phased out 20GB sooner because they were losing $300 on every console they sold, more than any other SKU). So Sony had to try to cut whatever they can to bring the costs down (people also need to understand that Sony including WiFi because some countries it's very important to have, and it's actually much cheaper and requires fewer components than PS2 BC). They couldn't remove bluetooth, blu-ray (although the newer blu-ray diodes don't make adding blu-ray all that more expensive), HDD, and so on. PS2 BC was not needed to make the PS3 function either, so that gave another excuse to remove it.

IMO, PS2 BC is very overrated. You can't be signed into PSN while playing them, have to reconnect the controllers, PS2 upscaling is terrible on PS3, not every game works regardless of SKU, some accessories will not work on PS3, and so on.

But right now everyone has a choice. Would they rather see a PS3 without PS2 BC at $400, or would they rather see a PS3 with PS2 BC selling at $500 as the only SKU? Regardless, If Sony never removed PS2 BC, we would NOT be seeing a PS3 selling at $400 right now. That is why removing it was not a big mistake, since people STILL have a issue with the PS3 pricetag. Just imagine that now, the cheapest PS3 on the market (but has PS2 BC, like a 40GB/80GB core configuration) selling at $500 (maybe as cheap as $450) against a $200 360 Arcade and $250 Wii. Does that seem like a good situation to be in for Sony?
 
Jesus TMK... Why don't you apply for a market analysis position or something.

Do you fap to PS3 white papers?
 
At least he seems informed.. It would've been nice if Sony had kept the 60GB at a high price and reduced numbers just for people who had to have it, but otherwise I understand the move.

And honestly as I've told people on other sites, the PS2 plays PS2 games better than the PS3.
 
I bought a slim PS2 and a PS3 at the same time, just to make up for the no BC. The slim PS2 takes up hardly any space and with the component cable, games look fine...if not really good.
 
[quote name='The Mana Knight']They had to because the truth is, the costs to add PS2 BC would put PS3 at the $500 range at the cheapest. If people feel $400 is already too expensive, just how would you think PS3 would be doing right now if the cheapest SKU was $500 just to add the PS2 BC. Sony's initial plan was to keep it, but due to slower than expected PS3 sales along with people complaining the PS3 was priced too high, that's why Sony had to remove it. If people never complained about the PS3 pricetag in the first place, it would have never been removed.

For the most part, it actually did more good than harm, because I know MANY PS3 owners who jumped on the $400 pricetag, saying PS2 BC didn't matter to them. If PS3 was still $500 right now just to add that feature, there's no way they would have jumped onto buying a PS3. Like I explained in many posts before, adding the PS2 BC is not cheap. If it was 100% software like the PS1 emulator, they could have added it at no extra costs. But since PS2 BC requires at least a GS (because no console GPU out there has a high enough fill rate to emulate it) along with other components, that brings the costs up, PCB size increases, and so on. Sony's goal now is to also stick with one SKU configuration, and since people want a cheaper PS3, that's why PS2 BC was removed and never coming back. Let's just say adding the PS2 hardware components costs around $50 (It's being said to cost around $50-$75 to add). Sony sells 10 million PS3 40GB/80GB Core/160GB PS3 consoles at $400. Sony would have lost an extra $500 - $750 million extra in their gaming division just to add it. Since Sony is still producing PS2 consoles and making a small profit off of every one, that was another reason for them to remove it because if someone buys a PS3 just to buy/play PS2 games, Sony has lost money on a new PS3 console sale and isn't getting that money back lost. That's why if someone really wants to play PS2 games, Sony wants you to buy a PS2 because they make money off of that. If people want to play PS3 games or blu-rays (especially if a blu-ray is a Sony movie), then they want you to buy a PS3 because they will make money off of you when you buy games, accessories, etc. PS2 BC isn't coming back until PS2 stops selling, PS3 hardware costs greatly decrease, and when they finally get a 100% PS2 software emulator working (which requires zero hardware components). I'm not putting much hope into that happening, because the current Cell + RSX architecture makes it VERY difficult to do.

People near launch were whining about the $500/$600 price tag, when it costs Sony $800/$840 to produce the PS3 consoles. The main motherboard alone with all components (not including blu-ray drive, HDD, power supply, bluetooth, etc.) cost them $500. Even using a DVD drive, removing WiFi, HDD, and so on, PS3 would still cost over $600 to produce. Oh course over time, some of the costs have dropped (especially blu-ray drive, Cell and RSX shrunk, HDD prices dropped, etc.). However, the costs that didn't drop so much was the PS2 BC components (whether the EE was included or not) because they're towards the bottom of the exponential curve price wise (where they started out high, but costs have come down and has mostly remained fixed). It was being said that PS2 components contributed to 20-25% of the main PS3 motherboard price. The first thing Sony tried to do was cut out the EE (by emulating it, but still using PS2 components) along with some other changes, but PS3 was still around $600 or so to produce. People still cried and said they wanted a $400 PS3 (The $500 drop of the 60GB was NOT because of costs reduced. The 60GB was expensive and Sony was trying to phase it out. They phased out 20GB sooner because they were losing $300 on every console they sold, more than any other SKU). So Sony had to try to cut whatever they can to bring the costs down (people also need to understand that Sony including WiFi because some countries it's very important to have, and it's actually much cheaper and requires fewer components than PS2 BC). They couldn't remove bluetooth, blu-ray (although the newer blu-ray diodes don't make adding blu-ray all that more expensive), HDD, and so on. PS2 BC was not needed to make the PS3 function either, so that gave another excuse to remove it.

IMO, PS2 BC is very overrated. You can't be signed into PSN while playing them, have to reconnect the controllers, PS2 upscaling is terrible on PS3, not every game works regardless of SKU, some accessories will not work on PS3, and so on.

But right now everyone has a choice. Would they rather see a PS3 without PS2 BC at $400, or would they rather see a PS3 with PS2 BC selling at $500 as the only SKU? Regardless, If Sony never removed PS2 BC, we would NOT be seeing a PS3 selling at $400 right now. That is why removing it was not a big mistake, since people STILL have a issue with the PS3 pricetag. Just imagine that now, the cheapest PS3 on the market (but has PS2 BC, like a 40GB/80GB core configuration) selling at $500 (maybe as cheap as $450) against a $200 360 Arcade and $250 Wii. Does that seem like a good situation to be in for Sony?[/quote]



Tru enough, but they should still have at least one line of systems that have BC, while it's true there are a good ammount of gamers that don't care if their ps3 is BC or not, there are just as many that do. When I went to wall-mart I was going to shell out the mony for an 80 gig ps3, but when I found out it wasent BC I decided not to buy it.
 
[quote name='The Mana Knight']They had to because the truth is, the costs to add PS2 BC would put PS3 at the $500 range at the cheapest. If people feel $400 is already too expensive, just how would you think PS3 would be doing right now if the cheapest SKU was $500 just to add the PS2 BC. Sony's initial plan was to keep it, but due to slower than expected PS3 sales along with people complaining the PS3 was priced too high, that's why Sony had to remove it. If people never complained about the PS3 pricetag in the first place, it would have never been removed.

For the most part, it actually did more good than harm, because I know MANY PS3 owners who jumped on the $400 pricetag, saying PS2 BC didn't matter to them. If PS3 was still $500 right now just to add that feature, there's no way they would have jumped onto buying a PS3. Like I explained in many posts before, adding the PS2 BC is not cheap. If it was 100% software like the PS1 emulator, they could have added it at no extra costs. But since PS2 BC requires at least a GS (because no console GPU out there has a high enough fill rate to emulate it) along with other components, that brings the costs up, PCB size increases, and so on. Sony's goal now is to also stick with one SKU configuration, and since people want a cheaper PS3, that's why PS2 BC was removed and never coming back. Let's just say adding the PS2 hardware components costs around $50 (It's being said to cost around $50-$75 to add). Sony sells 10 million PS3 40GB/80GB Core/160GB PS3 consoles at $400. Sony would have lost an extra $500 - $750 million extra in their gaming division just to add it. Since Sony is still producing PS2 consoles and making a small profit off of every one, that was another reason for them to remove it because if someone buys a PS3 just to buy/play PS2 games, Sony has lost money on a new PS3 console sale and isn't getting that money back lost. That's why if someone really wants to play PS2 games, Sony wants you to buy a PS2 because they make money off of that. If people want to play PS3 games or blu-rays (especially if a blu-ray is a Sony movie), then they want you to buy a PS3 because they will make money off of you when you buy games, accessories, etc. PS2 BC isn't coming back until PS2 stops selling, PS3 hardware costs greatly decrease, and when they finally get a 100% PS2 software emulator working (which requires zero hardware components). I'm not putting much hope into that happening, because the current Cell + RSX architecture makes it VERY difficult to do.

People near launch were whining about the $500/$600 price tag, when it costs Sony $800/$840 to produce the PS3 consoles. The main motherboard alone with all components (not including blu-ray drive, HDD, power supply, bluetooth, etc.) cost them $500. Even using a DVD drive, removing WiFi, HDD, and so on, PS3 would still cost over $600 to produce. Oh course over time, some of the costs have dropped (especially blu-ray drive, Cell and RSX shrunk, HDD prices dropped, etc.). However, the costs that didn't drop so much was the PS2 BC components (whether the EE was included or not) because they're towards the bottom of the exponential curve price wise (where they started out high, but costs have come down and has mostly remained fixed). It was being said that PS2 components contributed to 20-25% of the main PS3 motherboard price. The first thing Sony tried to do was cut out the EE (by emulating it, but still using PS2 components) along with some other changes, but PS3 was still around $600 or so to produce. People still cried and said they wanted a $400 PS3 (The $500 drop of the 60GB was NOT because of costs reduced. The 60GB was expensive and Sony was trying to phase it out. They phased out 20GB sooner because they were losing $300 on every console they sold, more than any other SKU). So Sony had to try to cut whatever they can to bring the costs down (people also need to understand that Sony including WiFi because some countries it's very important to have, and it's actually much cheaper and requires fewer components than PS2 BC). They couldn't remove bluetooth, blu-ray (although the newer blu-ray diodes don't make adding blu-ray all that more expensive), HDD, and so on. PS2 BC was not needed to make the PS3 function either, so that gave another excuse to remove it.

IMO, PS2 BC is very overrated. You can't be signed into PSN while playing them, have to reconnect the controllers, PS2 upscaling is terrible on PS3, not every game works regardless of SKU, some accessories will not work on PS3, and so on.

But right now everyone has a choice. Would they rather see a PS3 without PS2 BC at $400, or would they rather see a PS3 with PS2 BC selling at $500 as the only SKU? Regardless, If Sony never removed PS2 BC, we would NOT be seeing a PS3 selling at $400 right now. That is why removing it was not a big mistake, since people STILL have a issue with the PS3 pricetag. Just imagine that now, the cheapest PS3 on the market (but has PS2 BC, like a 40GB/80GB core configuration) selling at $500 (maybe as cheap as $450) against a $200 360 Arcade and $250 Wii. Does that seem like a good situation to be in for Sony?[/QUOTE]
If it costs $50 to add the PS2 hardware components, why does adding them mean the PS3 has to cost $500?
 
Quite literally at this point Sony is damned if they drop the price and damned if they don't. It's a really sticky situation to say the least. If they drop the price it will boost sales a LOT especially at 299. I honestly believe they should have dropped it to 299 during the Holidays, with LBP or Resistance 2 packed in..you know have one bundle for each game and let people decide. Right now I think they're going to have to drop the price. If these April rumors are true, they need to drop to 299 and get Killzone 2 packed in. That game is the closest thing they have right now to a game that truly shows off that system's power. And I'm not even into FPSes really but they'd be dumb not to. Drop to that in April followed this fall by Uncharted 2 and God Of War 3 bundles..again one for each game and let everyone choose and they can quickly gain a LOT of the ground they've lost fo Microsoft. If they drop to 349 it will cause a spike in sales but nowhere near the kind of increase they will experience at 299. If they drop that 40GB down to 249 like the one guy said, holy hell Microsoft will really be hurting then especially if they packed a game in with that one too. At 249 they'll also be cutting into the Wii's sales.
 
[quote name='bh7812']Quite literally at this point Sony is damned if they drop the price and damned if they don't. It's a really sticky situation to say the least. If they drop the price it will boost sales a LOT especially at 299. I honestly believe they should have dropped it to 299 during the Holidays, with LBP or Resistance 2 packed in..you know have one bundle for each game and let people decide. Right now I think they're going to have to drop the price. If these April rumors are true, they need to drop to 299 and get Killzone 2 packed in. That game is the closest thing they have right now to a game that truly shows off that system's power. And I'm not even into FPSes really but they'd be dumb not to. Drop to that in April followed this fall by Uncharted 2 and God Of War 3 bundles..again one for each game and let everyone choose and they can quickly gain a LOT of the ground they've lost fo Microsoft. If they drop to 349 it will cause a spike in sales but nowhere near the kind of increase they will experience at 299. If they drop that 40GB down to 249 like the one guy said, holy hell Microsoft will really be hurting then especially if they packed a game in with that one too. At 249 they'll also be cutting into the Wii's sales.[/quote]


They would lose way to much money doing that. As stated above, Sont is focusing on making a profit, NOT competing with microsoft.
 
Joystiq and Kotaku are reporting on renewed rumors of the drop today. I imagine early summer/late spring would be a good time for me. Coupled with my sony card and me selling my current blu ray player, I would get one at a $300 price tag for around 100 net. I am going to wait because I want one with a 45nm cell and I need to clear out my 360/Wii backlog so I'll be ready to enjoy Resistance, Uncharted, Killzone and other exclusive goodies.
 
Some of you people should stop taking these rumous so seriously and instead use your brains. It would make no sense for Sony to drop the price on the PS3 in the near future. It was already explained pretty clearly by others in this thread why, but I will reiterate a few points.

1. MS can and will easily match Sony's price cuts, making it impossible for PS3 to gain significant market share over xbox.
2. Sony needs money.
3. PS3 is a great value already. A lower-priced PS3 will compete with Sony's stand-alone BD players.

Even if Sony cuts manufacturing costs it is unlikely they will pass them on to the consumer. Sony is in the business of making money, not losing it. If PS3 is not worth $400 to you, then that's ok. Don't buy it and lose out on PS3's excellent exclusives. But, don't expect Sony (or the overall market) to agree with you on PS3's worth. PS3 is worth $400 to plenty other people.

Enough said.
 
You know, the PS2 does play PS2 games better, but that is a result of shoddy emulation software for the PS3. Now, I've got a slim PS2 and a PS3 (as of 2 weeks ago), so I'm not complaining, but I do see BC as an issue, and so do many consumers who have lots of PS2 games, and possibly an aging PS2 fat system. I've seen several people sell their entire PS2 collections at my friend's store, because their PS2 broke and they were going to buy a PS3, rather than a new PS2.

Not that Microsoft has it right, either. But it seems like having a general toolkit and having to tweak it for individual games is the right path...but to what extent. I think the answer lies somewhere in between the ways that MS and Sony implemented back-compat.

As for the rumor today, it was due to an analyst article on Yahoo! Tech news...and I have to say, if the current sales are any indication, it will be a $50 drop. Just like MS did when they had sales right before the 360 dropped from $349 to $299.
 
[quote name='Ronin317']You know, the PS2 does play PS2 games better, but that is a result of shoddy emulation software for the PS3. Now, I've got a slim PS2 and a PS3 (as of 2 weeks ago), so I'm not complaining, but I do see BC as an issue, and so do many consumers who have lots of PS2 games, and possibly an aging PS2 fat system. I've seen several people sell their entire PS2 collections at my friend's store, because their PS2 broke and they were going to buy a PS3, rather than a new PS2.

Not that Microsoft has it right, either. But it seems like having a general toolkit and having to tweak it for individual games is the right path...but to what extent. I think the answer lies somewhere in between the ways that MS and Sony implemented back-compat.

As for the rumor today, it was due to an analyst article on Yahoo! Tech news...and I have to say, if the current sales are any indication, it will be a $50 drop. Just like MS did when they had sales right before the 360 dropped from $349 to $299.[/quote]

The 360 double dropped though. The first drop wasn't enough and the PS3 was still outselling it so they had to drop the price AGAIN for it to be worthwhile to the people. The fact that the PS3 beat the 360 when it was 279 vs 400 dollars shows that people have some concept of value. Though the second drop to 200 dollars is what really propelled them. They just lowered the thing so damn low that people just couldn't resist and people need to get new 360s to replace their old junky ones that died due to DRE, Tray problems, E74 or anything else microsoft doesn't cover.
 
[quote name='Ronin317']As for the rumor today, it was due to an analyst article on Yahoo! Tech news...and I have to say, if the current sales are any indication, it will be a $50 drop. Just like MS did when they had sales right before the 360 dropped from $349 to $299.[/quote]

So an analyst states the obvious fact that Sony needs to cut the price of PS3 by $100 to sell more consoles. He alsso mentions that there is "increased speculation" on the price cut and that market is expecting it to happen in a few months. So? The idiot also suggests that the way Sony could afford to make the price cut is by removing blu-ray from the PS3.

You wanna know why someone would take that idiot seriously? It's because they all want hits on their web sites. All these morons spreading these ridiculous rumors just want advertisement money from visits. Hey, it worked. I visited them to read those stupid articles.
 
[quote name='Paco']The 360 double dropped though. The first drop wasn't enough and the PS3 was still outselling it so they had to drop the price AGAIN for it to be worthwhile to the people. The fact that the PS3 beat the 360 when it was 279 vs 400 dollars shows that people have some concept of value. Though the second drop to 200 dollars is what really propelled them. They just lowered the thing so damn low that people just couldn't resist and people need to get new 360s to replace their old junky ones that died due to DRE, Tray problems, E74 or anything else microsoft doesn't cover.[/quote]

Comparing the $279 (at the time) Arcade system to the $400 (at the time 40gb system) is an apples and oranges comparison, and doesn't work. The $349 20gb 360 was comparable to the 40gb PS3 then. And if I recall correctly, the PS3 outsold the 360 for exactly 1 month, and 1 month only, at those price points. The Arcade system was to compete with the Wii sales, and had nothing to do with the PS3, nor did it vault the 360 ahead of the PS3, nor were people replacing their older systems providing a sales spike. It's foolish thinking...

But more to the point - $50 promotions that happened literally weeks before the overall drop were an indicator that something was coming. And the way that works in retail is that MS, at that time, was giving retailers a $50 kickback on systems to make the promotions fly, and it's often a precursor to a universal drop.

[quote name='Teh Nitwit']So an analyst states the obvious fact that Sony needs to cut the price of PS3 by $100 to sell more consoles. He alsso mentions that there is "increased speculation" on the price cut and that market is expecting it to happen in a few months. So? The idiot also suggests that the way Sony could afford to make the price cut is by removing blu-ray from the PS3.

You wanna know why someone would take that idiot seriously? It's because they all want hits on their web sites. All these morons spreading these ridiculous rumors just want advertisement money from visits. Hey, it worked. I visited them to read those stupid articles.[/quote]

Hey, I didn't say the article was completely feasible...just linking to what fueled today's speculation...
 
Question, even though that X-Box console is selling for $199, it's not the complete console is it? I always read that if you buy it for $200, to get it fully upgraded, you'd probably have to spend another $200, so really, it's a $400 system plus whatever you pay to get it fixed when it gives you the red ring of death. Is all of this true or is it Sony just spewing this out?
 
Simply put - I'd buy a PS3 if the price drops to $299 or below. Since we're already pushing up on E3, it would make sense to announce a price drop then with some killer software for the last 2 quarters of the year to hopefully move systems and software. I'm missing out on a lot of cool games because I flat out can't justify $400 for a system when games rape you with a $70 price point. I bought my 360 from a friend for $300 and it came with 8 games, two controllers and a cooling system. Now I'm not saying it has to be that kind of deal but the system needs to be sub-$300 before the general public will really buy in. They're already complaining about games being too expensive... doesn't make sense to have multiple systems when just about everything comes out multi-platform. There are some great games on PS3, but not enough to make me go bust out the plastic and pay it off for a few months.
 
[quote name='Rafael122']Question, even though that X-Box console is selling for $199, it's not the complete console is it? I always read that if you buy it for $200, to get it fully upgraded, you'd probably have to spend another $200, so really, it's a $400 system plus whatever you pay to get it fixed when it gives you the red ring of death. Is all of this true or is it Sony just spewing this out?[/QUOTE]
That isn't true anymore. Now that the $200 system comes with memory for saving games, you can play 360 games including online with no upgrades. A $30 hard drive add-on lets you do pretty much everything including playing original Xbox games and downloading lots of content.
 
Sony really dropped the ball. They have some games that are worth owning on ps3 but I don't want to plunk down 400 dollars for 2 or three exclusives (MLB the show, MGS 4, kill zone 2?)

They went away from what made the Playstation brand big, which was video games. Tried to launch their blu ray platform off it and most people are not very hungry to pay 25-30 dollars a movie. When DVD's started getting affordable, they had to come out with a way to rip people off and I'm not buying it.
 
[quote name='Tsunami.wav']http://kotaku.com/5160143/could-ps3-deals-be-indicator-of-looming-price-drop

Well with the recent bestbuy ps3 deal and this up and coming gamestop deal, there just might be a price drop sooner than we think.[/quote]


or could it just be they are following the exact strategy they said they would be implementing .... AMAZING isn't it
Eurogamer: Will you cut the price of PS3 this year?
David Reeves: As the cost of manufacturing comes down, we will look at it, as we've looked at it in the past. I'm not going to say we're going to do anything short term or anything long term on the price. At the moment, we have a value-added strategy.
Click to expand...
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/sonys-david-reeves-interview-january2009?page=2

 
Of course, david reeves can't just come out and say they are dropping the price. Then everyone waits! :D

My guess is that if it is to come before the holiday season, it will be after the killlzone excitement tapers off.
 
[quote name='musick']or could it just be they are following the exact strategy they said they would be implementing .... AMAZING isn't it

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/sonys-david-reeves-interview-january2009?page=2

[/quote]

Come on people, stop embarassing yourselves.

Price drops are not value added strategy. David Reeves was talking about bundles - adding a free game, movie or remote. If you actually read the article you quoted, you would (hopefully) realize that he said there there would be NO price drop. You know, the thing about the armadillo...

But don't feel bad. Compared to some other posters here (LRavenwolf and thingsfallnapart) you look like a genius.
 
I'm really growing tired of the 'guaranteed' red ring from the sony fanboys. I know a dozen people that have 360s...and 2 have had them ring. I've had mine since September '06, with a July '06 build date, and have not had a single problem at all. It's certainly not a forgone conclusion, and it's not exactly affecting market penetration to the extent that some of you think. Just as stories like this rumored PS3 price drop gets play in the press, blogs, and forums, the same goes for the 360's problems.

The point is, the problems are well documented, they're a definite problem, but they are also definitely over-blown, and they're definitely overly feared on this forum. And most importantly, it's got little to do with the price drops on the console, and even less to do with the PS3 price drops. If anything, Sony should have played up on the reliability issues MS has had, and they STILL haven't been able to get on board sales wise. And it's based solely on price.
 
[quote name='Ronin317']I'm really growing tired of the 'guaranteed' red ring from the sony fanboys. I know a dozen people that have 360s...and 2 have had them ring. I've had mine since September '06, with a July '06 build date, and have not had a single problem at all. It's certainly not a forgone conclusion, and it's not exactly affecting market penetration to the extent that some of you think. Just as stories like this rumored PS3 price drop gets play in the press, blogs, and forums, the same goes for the 360's problems.

The point is, the problems are well documented, they're a definite problem, but they are also definitely over-blown, and they're definitely overly feared on this forum. And most importantly, it's got little to do with the price drops on the console, and even less to do with the PS3 price drops. If anything, Sony should have played up on the reliability issues MS has had, and they STILL haven't been able to get on board sales wise. And it's based solely on price.[/quote]


I thought along the same lines as you, untill it happened to me. My 360 was bought around the same time as yours, and it just crpaed out on me last month. I can't wit till the end of the year when the 3-year RROD Waranty expires and people are still having itheir systems fail on them. I think thats going to be the turning point where sony overtakes microsoft.
 
The first gen PS3 blu-ray drives are starting to fail pretty regularly too- it just doesn't have a catching name like "RRoD" that everyone enjoys saying.
 
[quote name='nbballard']The first gen PS3 blu-ray drives are starting to fail pretty regularly too- it just doesn't have a catching name like "RRoD" that everyone enjoys saying.[/quote]

link?

Of the two PS3s I got at launch 60GB neither is showing any symptoms (despite heavy daily use).
 
[quote name='kurokubushi']I thought along the same lines as you, untill it happened to me. My 360 was bought around the same time as yours, and it just crpaed out on me last month. I can't wit till the end of the year when the 3-year RROD Waranty expires and people are still having itheir systems fail on them. I think thats going to be the turning point where sony overtakes microsoft.[/quote]

A single exception does not disprove a generalization, that was his point. Just because it happens to person A and B doesn't mean it will happen to C or D. For instance, I've never had a RRoD, and the only thing that influences that is probability, not what happens to A or B in specific instances.
 
[quote name='Teh Nitwit']link?

Of the two PS3s I got at launch 60GB neither is showing any symptoms (despite heavy daily use).[/quote]

Check the PS3 forums. http://boardsus.playstation.com/playstation/board?board.id=ps3

Common issues with the first gen consoles is that the KES-400a laser is failing. Seems to frequently happen after about a year to year and a half. Sony is charging $150+tax to fix after warranty expires. There are two versions of this laser, a white clip and a brown clip. White clips were proned to failure. A laser can be bought from eBay for $65 so people tend to fix it themselves rather than shelling out $150+tax. Sony has already replaced this with a dual laser model KES-410a with the newer models.

This has happend to two of my PS3s. My 60GB and my 40GB (mfg Sept 2007). They are in well ventilated areas so its not heat. Though, a lot of the 60GB units also get the YLOD (yellow light of death) which is caused by overheating because the fans stopped working.

I have both 360 and PS3s with failures. Whats up with paying over $400 for systems that tend to break once you were outside warranty. My NES, SNES, Genesis are still working up to this day without any issues.
 
[quote name='Ronin317']I'm really growing tired of the 'guaranteed' red ring from the sony fanboys. I know a dozen people that have 360s...and 2 have had them ring. I've had mine since September '06, with a July '06 build date, and have not had a single problem at all. It's certainly not a forgone conclusion, and it's not exactly affecting market penetration to the extent that some of you think. Just as stories like this rumored PS3 price drop gets play in the press, blogs, and forums, the same goes for the 360's problems.

The point is, the problems are well documented, they're a definite problem, but they are also definitely over-blown, and they're definitely overly feared on this forum. And most importantly, it's got little to do with the price drops on the console, and even less to do with the PS3 price drops. If anything, Sony should have played up on the reliability issues MS has had, and they STILL haven't been able to get on board sales wise. And it's based solely on price.[/quote]

Well the RRoD is going out but the E74 is starting to skyrocket. I know a lot of people that are getting this defect which is NOT covered by microsoft's warranty. There's also talks of microsoft just removing the RRoD message and making it something else so they can avoid paying for warranties and due to Microsoft's incredibly shady past I would like to know what they're really doing. Lets see what are the common 360 errors. DRE, Shitty dvd drive which caused huge popup in GTA4, RRoD, E74 and a few others. I flat out don't trust microsoft after having a console for four months having it die THEN them blaming ME for it dying and asking for 250 to repair it when I barely played the shit.

It's a lesson on never trust Microsoft when they're trying to rush to market much like Vista. That and the people on live are the living emobidment of human garbage for the most part.

And 20 Valver. That's completely different. Old consoles NEVER had any moving parts, the gpus didn't really make any heat and the things were huge so there was no heat buildup on top of it.
 
[quote name='Paco'] There's also talks of microsoft just removing the RRoD message and making it something else so they can avoid paying for warranties and due to Microsoft's incredibly shady past I would like to know what they're really doing. [/quote]

And those talks are being held by complete morons who have nothing better to do than make up shit that is completely ridiculous, and not to mention, illegal. If anyone thinks that MS would try something like this with a well-known and documented error, or any other for that matter, then they're idiots, and so is anyone that would believe that.

As for the rest of your post...fine, I understand your frustration with their customer care, but that doesn't mean it's across the board. And when you get a chart with hard numbers on the E74 skyrocketing, let us know. I'm betting you're just guessing...Plus, factor in that those with breaking consoles are the ones, even in minority, who crow the loudest, regardless of what brand the console is. The people whose consoles are working properly are not crowing at all, so there's no way to know numbers of how many are happy with them by forum posts or whatever. The Consumer electronics industry as a whole hovers around 3-4% for defects, even on the most simple products such power adapters, and these consoles are insanely complex on the inside.

I also hate to break it to you, but PSN has just as much, per capita, 'human garbage' as on live - and it's free, so eventually there will be more. Fact is there are undesireable assholes everywhere online...it's not just XBOX Live. And Microsoft nor Sony are to blame for the existence of assholes on their respective services. Report the problems and do your part. Don't just sit there and whine about it.
 
[quote name='Paco']The 360 double dropped though. The first drop wasn't enough and the PS3 was still outselling it so they had to drop the price AGAIN for it to be worthwhile to the people. The fact that the PS3 beat the 360 when it was 279 vs 400 dollars shows that people have some concept of value. Though the second drop to 200 dollars is what really propelled them. They just lowered the thing so damn low that people just couldn't resist and people need to get new 360s to replace their old junky ones that died due to DRE, Tray problems, E74 or anything else microsoft doesn't cover.[/QUOTE]

Its like MS has a 200 dollar protection plan. (but instead of getting credit for the sale of a protection plan, they get credit for the sale of another system).

[quote name='Ronin317']I'm really growing tired of the 'guaranteed' red ring from the sony fanboys. I know a dozen people that have 360s...and 2 have had them ring. I've had mine since September '06, with a July '06 build date, and have not had a single problem at all. It's certainly not a forgone conclusion, and it's not exactly affecting market penetration to the extent that some of you think. Just as stories like this rumored PS3 price drop gets play in the press, blogs, and forums, the same goes for the 360's problems.

The point is, the problems are well documented, they're a definite problem, but they are also definitely over-blown, and they're definitely overly feared on this forum. And most importantly, it's got little to do with the price drops on the console, and even less to do with the PS3 price drops. If anything, Sony should have played up on the reliability issues MS has had, and they STILL haven't been able to get on board sales wise. And it's based solely on price.[/QUOTE]

Of course fanboys look at it and make points regarding the issue, but its really not a fanboy issue. Unfortunately, a lot of people have gone through the red ring. Its a real issue, and its not fair for those who actually had to go through 2 and 3 systems. I don't think any fanboy can truly express how the epic the RROD problem is. Also, I don't think the issue can be overblown, at this point. An issue is an issue.
 
[quote name='Ronin317']And those talks are being held by complete morons who have nothing better to do than make up shit that is completely ridiculous, and not to mention, illegal. If anyone thinks that MS would try something like this with a well-known and documented error, or any other for that matter, then they're idiots, and so is anyone that would believe that.

As for the rest of your post...fine, I understand your frustration with their customer care, but that doesn't mean it's across the board. And when you get a chart with hard numbers on the E74 skyrocketing, let us know. I'm betting you're just guessing...Plus, factor in that those with breaking consoles are the ones, even in minority, who crow the loudest, regardless of what brand the console is. The people whose consoles are working properly are not crowing at all, so there's no way to know numbers of how many are happy with them by forum posts or whatever. The Consumer electronics industry as a whole hovers around 3-4% for defects, even on the most simple products such power adapters, and these consoles are insanely complex on the inside.

I also hate to break it to you, but PSN has just as much, per capita, 'human garbage' as on live - and it's free, so eventually there will be more. Fact is there are undesireable assholes everywhere online...it's not just XBOX Live. And Microsoft nor Sony are to blame for the existence of assholes on their respective services. Report the problems and do your part. Don't just sit there and whine about it.[/quote]

Granted the E74 bit is rather new and not too widespread yet. HOWEVER in all fairness the Jasper units have only been around in true consumption for a few months. Time will tell to see if these units are as reliable as 360 fans or microsoft claim they are. BTW didn't the 360 fans hope that reliability would go up with Zephyr, Falcon, the one before that and now Jasper?

And you think PSN has as much human garbage? You poor poor uneducated user. In THREE Minutes of Call of Duty 4 on the 360 I got told "I'm going to rape your sister, you suck $$$$er, you're gay, I'm doing your mom" ALL within three minutes of blatant stupidity. Granted this may be isolated, but it gets even more consistent when you play Halo 3 "I know I know, this game shouldn't count as it's more stupid per capita" but still, I have never been verbally insulted on PSN yet and it takes actual effort on the PSN as it comes with no mic. Factor in the socio economic status of most 360 owners and it's just a matter of time bracing yourself for the entourage of concentrated stupid. Granted you are right in the PSN is free and will eventually have more human garbage, but as long as they don't bundle a mic, this will be kept to a minimum. You also have to acknowledge that the PS3 and 360 go after different age audiences where it's people in their late 20s early 30s that have the PS3, while it's teens and early 20s that go to the 360. And reporting does what exactly? They'll just come back as a more annoying douche then before as Microsoft does a whole lot of nothing unless it's blatantly obvious like RichardGaywood, Or Gayboy incident where open sexuality is almost an instaban.
 
I played Smackdown 08 online with a little black kid. He was fucking obnoxious in general, but the only comment he made was about my character's large feet.
 
[quote name='Anexanhume']A single exception does not disprove a generalization, that was his point. Just because it happens to person A and B doesn't mean it will happen to C or D. For instance, I've never had a RRoD, and the only thing that influences that is probability, not what happens to A or B in specific instances.[/quote]


I know, I'm just stated this because he seems to have a "Well it hassen't happned yet, so it probally wont" mentality.
 
[quote name='Paco']Granted the E74 bit is rather new and not too widespread yet. HOWEVER in all fairness the Jasper units have only been around in true consumption for a few months. Time will tell to see if these units are as reliable as 360 fans or microsoft claim they are. BTW didn't the 360 fans hope that reliability would go up with Zephyr, Falcon, the one before that and now Jasper?

And you think PSN has as much human garbage? You poor poor uneducated user. In THREE Minutes of Call of Duty 4 on the 360 I got told "I'm going to rape your sister, you suck $$$$er, you're gay, I'm doing your mom" ALL within three minutes of blatant stupidity. Granted this may be isolated, but it gets even more consistent when you play Halo 3 "I know I know, this game shouldn't count as it's more stupid per capita" but still, I have never been verbally insulted on PSN yet and it takes actual effort on the PSN as it comes with no mic. Factor in the socio economic status of most 360 owners and it's just a matter of time bracing yourself for the entourage of concentrated stupid. Granted you are right in the PSN is free and will eventually have more human garbage, but as long as they don't bundle a mic, this will be kept to a minimum. You also have to acknowledge that the PS3 and 360 go after different age audiences where it's people in their late 20s early 30s that have the PS3, while it's teens and early 20s that go to the 360. And reporting does what exactly? They'll just come back as a more annoying douche then before as Microsoft does a whole lot of nothing unless it's blatantly obvious like RichardGaywood, Or Gayboy incident where open sexuality is almost an instaban.[/quote]

So now you have age demographics too? I don't have to acknowledge anything that isn't supported by facts. I've run into morons on both networks...regardless of if the PS3 comes with a mic or not. And it's not exclusive to Live - ever play Unreal Tournament on the PC back in the day with a headset? I've seen MS ban people for shouting stupid racist shit in games, and all 8 or 12 people reported the person. The Homophobia incidents are a whole different issue.

The point is that bashing MS because of a small group of assholes that use their service is like bashing CheapyD because someone is a douchebag on these forums. And it certainly doesn't have anything to do with price point.

Oh, and how many of the fat PS2s went tits up? Every system has problems...the RRoD is a more highly publicized one. But it simply is not a forgone conclusion that it will happen to every system, as some people claim. It's obviously an issue, but it gets way way too much play on the forums.
 
[quote name='Ronin317']So now you have age demographics too? I don't have to acknowledge anything that isn't supported by facts. I've run into morons on both networks...regardless of if the PS3 comes with a mic or not. And it's not exclusive to Live - ever play Unreal Tournament on the PC back in the day with a headset? I've seen MS ban people for shouting stupid racist shit in games, and all 8 or 12 people reported the person. The Homophobia incidents are a whole different issue.

The point is that bashing MS because of a small group of assholes that use their service is like bashing CheapyD because someone is a douchebag on these forums. And it certainly doesn't have anything to do with price point.

Oh, and how many of the fat PS2s went tits up? Every system has problems...the RRoD is a more highly publicized one. But it simply is not a forgone conclusion that it will happen to every system, as some people claim. It's obviously an issue, but it gets way way too much play on the forums.[/quote]

Yes there was studies about what demographics used the PS3, Wii and 360. The Nielsen Media Research is copied and pasted below

"Nintendo Wii The Wii, which is by far the bestselling home console of this generation, appeals mainly to males aged between six and 11, and females aged between 25 and 34. Women over the age of 35 use the Wii much more than either the PS3 or Xbox 360. Which would kind of explain how Wii Fit continues to top the all-format charts month after month.
Microsoft Xbox 360
The Xbox 360, currently sitting in a very comfortable second place in terms of sales, appeals mainly to males aged between 12 and 17, and females aged between 25 and 34. This seems like a bizarre mix but the younger age range for boys could explain the level of petty whining and douchebaggery on display over Xbox Live.
Sony PS3
The PS3 generally seems to appeal to the older generation, with no young kids anywhere in the mix. This could just be because the Sony machine is so damn expensive that kids are still saving up their pocket money for one. Both males and females saw the largest usage amongst the 18 to 24 age range. This is considered the hardcore range where gamers play more games and for longer than any other age range.
The most telling statistic to emerge from this survey is that the Wii is by far the least used console, despite being installed in the most homes. This confirms a thought I’ve had for a long time now: the Wii is a short-lived novelty only brought out for parties."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


The best advice I got on those people is to just mute everyone and have only friends go through because the vast majority of people get no punishment or not enough reports for it to warrant a ban. And small group of assholes? You're being quite generous I see. I can do that too. Sony is only a little in debt from the PS3, but in all honesty assholes and little shits are the norm on Live. And it does have to do on price point as the cheaper something is, the obvious lower class or hoods can afford it. And in turn you get people yelling all sorts of obscene crap without any problem. Some of my friends are guilty of this too and I asked them "why?" The answer I got was "because it's fun and it's Xbox live, everyone else does it so who cares?" I'm sure this sentiment is quite true as almost 75% of the people on live are douches who think under the cloak of anonomyous "you can't find me" nature of live, they can go and say the foulest shit on the planet. I blame this on giving 16 year olds mics.

And the PS2 going tits up? Granted the PS2 build quality sucked ass for the first year and a half, but you're comparing a tiny fixer upper to a complete pile of shit. The PS2 only got Dre's and this was fixed by opening it up and tweaking a little cog. The 360 overheats and the motherboard warps, gpu fries or the whole thing is burned to hell. One is fixable by regular people. The other is completely damned to hell and most likely unfixable unless you got hands of god. You can't compare them. But it's thanks to their shitty hardware that microsoft went from their incredibly generous three month warranty from 2005 to half of 2006 to the one year standard, three year RRoD warranty.
 
I really don't buy that data at all, sorry. Nielsen or not. Xbox 360 is the college age system of choice, and it's not all 16 year olds. Also, with the party system in place, you don't have to hear a damn thing from anyone else except those in your party. And it is a small group - How many times have you played a 12 player deathmatch and there's one asshole out of 12? That amounts to small group. 75% is a gross exaggeration. And if live is so terrible, why is it far and away the most popular gaming service? And the rest of what you said is conjecture...lower class hoods? what kind of shit is that? My buddy owns a used media store, and the 'lower class hoods' you speak of are still playing PS2, and waiting until the price drops to get a PS3. Now, this is a store in a suburb of Pittsburgh, so I'm sure it doesn't speak for the mass market, but it does say something.

And yes, the PS2 went tits up on many people, and you're overestimating it being a "tiny fixer upper" for most people. You're talking about people whose VCRs are still in use AND flashing 12:00. People who burn toast on a regular basis - and when trying to make tuna salad on toast end up in a burn unit with mayo in their hair. (RIP Richard Jeni on that one...)
 
[quote name='Ronin317']I really don't buy that data at all, sorry. Nielsen or not. Xbox 360 is the college age system of choice, and it's not all 16 year olds. Also, with the party system in place, you don't have to hear a damn thing from anyone else except those in your party. And it is a small group - How many times have you played a 12 player deathmatch and there's one asshole out of 12? That amounts to small group. 75% is a gross exaggeration. And if live is so terrible, why is it far and away the most popular gaming service? And the rest of what you said is conjecture...lower class hoods? what kind of shit is that? My buddy owns a used media store, and the 'lower class hoods' you speak of are still playing PS2, and waiting until the price drops to get a PS3. Now, this is a store in a suburb of Pittsburgh, so I'm sure it doesn't speak for the mass market, but it does say something.

And yes, the PS2 went tits up on many people, and you're overestimating it being a "tiny fixer upper" for most people. You're talking about people whose VCRs are still in use AND flashing 12:00. People who burn toast on a regular basis - and when trying to make tuna salad on toast end up in a burn unit with mayo in their hair. (RIP Richard Jeni on that one...)[/quote]


The asshole ratio really has do do with what game your playing. With the 360 lets use it's 3 most popular mutliplayer games as an example.

Halo: This series is Nartiouse for being filled with asshole,homphobic 10 year olds, and your be extremly lucky to get into a game withoutone in there.

Call of Duty: 4- For as long as I played it the amoount of assholes I've ran into was very small, you get the occasional guy who thinks it's funny to fire a rocket launcher at the begining of a hardcore match, but thats about it.

Gear of War- My short expierence on this game was somewhere inbetween COD:4 and Halo 3. The asshole ratio wasent narly as large as Halo, but it still happned on a regular basis.

Also I'd like to pint out that the main reason why you probally don't have as amny assoles on PSN, because other than games that come with one (warhawk and socom) Hardly anyone has a mic.

As for your guys "PS2 going Tits up" Argument that ps2 failure ratio was NO WHERE near the the ratio of the 360. At it's worse the ps2 reached nearly a 10% failure rate, while this is addmitidly more than the standard 2-3%, it is nore where near the over 30% failure rate of the 360. And if you sent a ps2 in to get fixed, it stayed fixed, it dient happen again, and again. What you guys like to neglect to mention the the launch systems of the original xbox had a tendancy to breakdown also.
 
$350 by September. I don't think they will do $300 anymore.

You'll notice lately theres a lot of PS3 deals - $50 Giftcard thrown in, free wireless controller, etc. It all ads up to about a $50 price cut, and it looks like Sony is willing to take that.

I'm guessing $300 sometime late next year at this rate, and by then the 360 will be $150 for the arcade ;)
 
[quote name='kurokubushi']
it is nore where near the over 30% failure rate of the 360. .[/QUOTE]

All original 360's are bound to fail eventually, and Falcons failure rate is supposed to be low. Jaspers hopefully won't fail as much if MS has learned their lesson.

If you want PS3 fail rates go around and search how many people are having problems with their 60 gigs. I frequent other msg boards and they have had 10 sixty gigs fail in the last week. Do a search online.
 
[quote name='The Mana Knight'](...) If it was 100% software like the PS1 emulator, they could have added it at no extra costs. But since PS2 BC requires at least a GS (because no console GPU out there has a high enough fill rate to emulate it) along with other components, that brings the costs up, PCB size increases, and so on.(...) [/quote]

I was actually under the impression that the 80gb CECHExx line actually had a 100% Software emulation (both for EE and GS), but I guess I should have done more researching

From http://kotaku.com/gaming/customer-s...n-40gb-ps3s-they-just-dont-want-to-308467.php

The 60GB model launched in Europe was a new model (shared with the 80GB model launched subsequently in USA) which contains only a modified version of the Graphics Synthesiser chip from the PS2 and not the Emotion Engine chip. The European launch model therefore used a combination of software and the modified version of the PS2 Graphics Synthesiser chip to deliver backwards compatibility for PS2 titles. As a result the percentage of backwards compatible PS2 titles was slightly reduced.

But, earlier on in the same article:

The 40GB model, to be launched in Europe on 10th October, is a new model and is not equipped with any of the semi conductors from the PS2, and backwards compatibility would therefore have to be achieved by software emulation alone. The sheer numbers of PS2 titles available, together with the increased complexity of using a software only solution for each and every title means that to ensure accurate software emulation for the majority would be technically challenging, time consuming and costly. As we have mentioned on several occasions, our engineering resources are now focused on developing new and innovative features and services for the PS3 and, as a result the 40GB model does not have backwards compatibility with PS2 titles.

Though, That is to say that a 100% software emulation solution may not be out of the realm of possibility, just yet. Yes, development of such software that can even be called "functioning" is not only difficult and time consuming, but also expensive. The major difficulty with any software solution is that there will be no guarantee that software engineers could make every piece of code from any given ps2 CD to be emulated perfectly on the PS3. Even if they managed to do that, could you imagine the size and complexity of such a piece of software that needed to be installed in your system?

Though, let's do say that Sony did manage to complete such an undertaking, and do are able to utilize a highly functioning and usable software solution for the PS3. It may be possible to appease the BC-demanding crowd if Sony is to 1.) install the software to all existing SKI line with no price increase(and thus them eating the cost of development, in a way), 2.) create an offshoot SKU with a price higher than an existing SKU line (maybe an "Elite" package, due to a lack of a better term, having a bigger hard drive and other extras) and/or 3.) offer the Software as a pay for download from the PSN, or offer it for free and having Sony eat the development cost yet again.

I will say this one caveat though, the truth of the situation is that the market penetration of the PS2 is so great right now that I don't really see the reason why there are people craving BC, when there is a good chance that they themselves already own a perfectly working PS2. Hell, my fiance had a launch model, of which we sold in order to afford a 60gb PS3. Hell, you could just "tack" on the price of buying a used PS2 for someone to a price dropped PS3, and you will still be way ahead than any current PS3 owner.

As a personaly anecdote, I haven't really played any ps2 titles on my PS3 at all lately. I remember playing a round or two of Odin's Sphere (a game of which I haven't finished yet...), but aside from that, I mainly play the current generation offerings that the console can offer, and I'm not worst for it. The reason why I invested on a BC PS3 borded on a purely aesthetic one; I wanted to reduce the clutter on our entertainment center, and I thought it would be ludicrous to have so many consoles in full display (between us, we also own a 360 and a Wii). I'm not bitter with me not touching the BC aspect of my ps3 and my fiance has said that it is better to have it, so we could at least finish our ps2 backlog (which BTW, is still stagnating).

Just my two cents on the issue of BC

As for the price drop... Why the hell not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top