Ken Kutaragi says PS3 is 'Probably too CHEAP

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

I bought a '99 ZX2 , 5 months ago , for $300.00 !!!
1998%20Ford%20ZX2%20Escort%20ZX2.jpg
 
[quote name='raregamergirl']So you guys really think it wont sell at $500/ $600? Honestly? [/quote]

i think it will sell no problem. americans are famous for living beyond their means. with all the financing options, i don't think anyone is going balk at it that really wants it. $600 isn't real money when all you are doing is swiping a plastic card...is it? as someone who watches his money carefully and does not believe is borrowing (other than a house), i am going to have a hard time turning loose of 6 or 7 bills of my hard earned money for a gaming console/dvd player. luckily for sony, i am the minority in this obese and debt ridden country that offers its taxpayers the option of using a cc to pay taxes to "help" families.
 
[quote name='jer7583']"we believe people who like games will, without question, purchase it."

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

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

Hehe, you think it wont sell well?

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

At $600, the alternatives look REAL good. Especially with the Wiimote being so positively recieved almost universally.
 
Here's the straight up minimium to get my game on with any of the consoles not including games price and accessories price:

PS3 Gimp Pack: $499.99 +tax

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

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

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

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

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

The only way the PS3 price looks good is if you want it as an HD player, but as a games machine it is obscenely expensive.
 
Remember how a huge percentage of the initial 360 units ended up on ebay? Of course the same thing will happen with the PS3, probably even more people will be buying them at launch to re-sell on ebay, why not turn a quick $500+ profit for camping out one night?

However, it would be AWESOME if people didn't want to pay obscene money for the system on ebay and units actually sold for less than retail. I know this scenario is impossible given the simple fact that all stores will be sold out, but it'd be AWESOME nonetheless.
 
I'm just going to copy and paste what I posted elsewhere. To paraphrase: this is a good business strategy by Sony and it all depends on Blu-Ray. If it works, they along with Toshiba are insanely insanely rich as proprieters of BluRay. If BluRay flops they could take big enough hits to crumple either company (down the road, not immediately). But their current strategy is priming them for the former, not the latter. Explained:

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

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

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

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

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

For now though, Viva la Wii and Jump In with the 360.
 
[quote name='slimpip']I'm just going to copy and paste what I posted elsewhere. To paraphrase: this is a good business strategy by Sony and it all depends on Blu-Ray. If it works, they along with Toshiba are insanely insanely rich as proprieters of BluRay. If BluRay flops they could take big enough hits to crumple either company (down the road, not immediately). But their current strategy is priming them for the former, not the latter. Explained:

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

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

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

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

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

For now though, Viva la Wii and Jump In with the 360.[/QUOTE]

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

AfterEdit: Just like to make it clear that I believe PS3 will sell out at launch. Its after launch that is a huge question mark.
 
[quote name='Morpheus']One problem with your whole idea. HDTVs market penetration is still small. Meaning those supposed HD consumers are not as huge as you make them out to be. I'm willing to bet that they will lose more people because of the price than the people they gain from HD.[/QUOTE]

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

I'm not rooting either way for Sony. I just don't agree with the much publicized opinion that they're arrogant, mean, hate gamers blah blah. They just want some money :)
 
[quote name='slimpip']Out of the "hardcore" gamers Sony will alienate, most likely 50% of them will buy one after a price drop or if Blu-Ray wins the software war (assuming Blu-Ray doesn't flop).
[/QUOTE]

That sounds huge to me.

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

Just remember what happened to all other expensive consoles in the past. Don't underestimate price.
 
[quote name='Morpheus']That sounds huge to me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unlike when the PS2 first came out, the average gamer has a choice this time around. And I can guarentee you, the average gamer is not going to get the PS3.
 
if sony is selling these at $600, they are undoubtedly taking a huge hit on every system sold. they are selling them at a loss just to get them out to the public.

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

Of course, I will probably buy like 10 of the sysems at launch and sell them on ebay for $1500 each heh
 
[quote name='slimpip']Until you said it, I had never thought about expensive consoles in the past (probably because I wasn't buying things for myself in the 90's hehe). That is one factor that should have played into Sony's strategy, "How much is too much?". If the 360 can go without next gen media storage this gen, then so can the PS3 (at least one model).

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

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

I agree with some of what you say. There are so many ways this can go, Sony could win on Blu-ray front (Sony isn't the only one pushing blu-ray) and lose on videogame front. Sony could win on videogame front and lose on blu-ray front (least likely of scenarios). Sony could either win/lose both the blu-ray front and videogame front. Sony is taking a huge risk with the PS3. If they succeed more power to them.
 
[quote name='stubept']Wow... I think a lot of people have lost touch with reality, and that reality is of who the "average gamer" is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:applause: :applause: :applause:

I think you hit most of the nails on the head, sir.
 
[quote name='stubept']Wow... I think a lot of people have lost touch with reality, and that reality is of who the "average gamer" is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amen. :applause:

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

The PS3 has become the luxury car of the consoles. Everyone really wants one but they might never be able to purchase one.
 
[quote name='stubept']Wow... I think a lot of people have lost touch with reality, and that reality is of who the "average gamer" is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You say you are not a hardcore gamer but you bought each system? When you could have gotten madden, splinter cell, gta on xbox or ps2?
 
Thanks to Sony's break-through motion-controlled gaming with six-way-power-funk, I predict the PS3 will be the biggest hit since the Neo Geo!!1

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

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

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

But as for me, I'll be staying home with unspent hundreds of dollars earning interest towards my retirement, playing enjoyable games on the systems I have and maybe even on the Wii, if the price is right. Save a little cash now and then... you might need it some day.
 
[quote name='Scobie']Thanks to Sony's break-through motion-controlled gaming with six-way-power-funk, I predict the PS3 will be the biggest hit since the Neo Geo!!1

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

My rent is $75 cheaper than the PS3.
 
[quote name='m0dem']You say you are not a hardcore gamer but you bought each system? When you could have gotten madden, splinter cell, gta on xbox or ps2?[/quote]

You don't have to be truly hardcore to own all 3 systems.
 
[quote name='Vegan']I'd say you do. You have a major vested interest in video games if you own 3 video game consoles.[/QUOTE]

It's quite easy to get all 3 systems for under $300, half of the PS3.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']My rent is $75 cheaper than the PS3.[/QUOTE]

So Ken would say, go homeless for a month and you will be (almost) be able to afford a PS3.
 
I don't consider myself a hardcore gamer yet own all 3 consoles as well. I'm lucky to play 30 minutes a day (most likely 3 times a week). Why do I own all these damn consoles? They had something I wanted to play and they were CHEAP.

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

Sure, I'll get a PS3 some day. But I can guarantee you I will get a Wii and 360 first. I'll probably get a 360 this holiday season, maybe a Wii for my gf. Who knows how many years until I get a PS3? The average gamer will not pay $600 for a console. I'd rather put that money towards a HDTV.
 
[quote name='depascal22']You don't have to be truly hardcore to own all 3 systems.[/quote]

Then whats the point of owning all three if your not a hardcore gamer? Why do you need all three consoles if your a mild gamer?
 
For one we already know the price of PS3 and while its true most people don't earn $40000 a year it doesn't mean its out of your reach. I already have $140.00 saved for my PS3 and i already figured that if i save 20 bucks a week I should have about $640. If they would have said a month before the ps3 came out there is no way i'd pay that much money, but since they are giving us a few months then i'll have no problem paying that much money. $20 a week means i'll just stop eating for lunch at subway and make lunch the day before at my house. I could just stop buying CD's for a while. I love deals don't get me wrong but the way i see it a one time payment for $600.00 is not much IMO. I will definetly will not pay $60 a game except for a few exceptions. On the day I got my 360 the only reason I got call of duty 2 was because my brother paid for it. I was patient and waited for the buy2 used get 1 free, and it paid off I got Elder Scrolls, Gun, and Condemmed at $92.50. I got Dynasty Warriors 5 for $30 and Amped for $30.00.
 
[quote name='Morpheus']
Now, after initial launches which do you think the casuals will buy?
[/QUOTE]
Playstation 3, so they can play Madden 2007 with a DualShock 3.
 
[quote name='itspaidgasterblaster']For one we already know the price of PS3 and while its true most people don't earn $40000 a year it doesn't mean its out of your reach. I already have $140.00 saved for my PS3 and i already figured that if i save 20 bucks a week I should have about $640. If they would have said a month before the ps3 came out there is no way i'd pay that much money, but since they are giving us a few months then i'll have no problem paying that much money. $20 a week means i'll just stop eating for lunch at subway and make lunch the day before at my house. I could just stop buying CD's for a while.[/QUOTE]

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

Saving $20 a week with your current savings would take 30 straight weeks, or until the last week of November. If you want accessories like another controller, well, that's two more weeks of saving after that. Another game? Three more weeks. That's a good long while to be holding off on CDs and Subway.
 
[quote name='m0dem']Then whats the point of owning all three if your not a hardcore gamer? Why do you need all three consoles if your a mild gamer?[/quote]

Please refer to the post right above yours about the mild gamer with all 3 consoles. I received all my consoles as gifts. You can also be a hardcore gamer and only have one system. Listen to some of the fanboys in some of these forums. Some of these guys would rather go condomless with a toothless hooker than play a game on a different console.
 
Are you a casual gamer if friends and family thought that a videogame console would make a great gift? On multiple occassions? I think it's more than a matter of finances, but of interest.

Of course, I don't think ANYONE here is a casual gamer. Here we are on a videogame messageboard.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Please refer to the post right above yours about the mild gamer with all 3 consoles. I received all my consoles as gifts. You can also be a hardcore gamer and only have one system. Listen to some of the fanboys in some of these forums. Some of these guys would rather go condomless with a toothless hooker than play a game on a different console.[/quote]


Yeah, but those people are idiots. They are an insignificant portion of the videogame world, they only think they are important because they have 30,000 posts on the Gamespot forums.
 
One more thing, I work as a store manager of a Gamestop. . We get a lot of kids with parents, and when I tell these parents that the PS3 is going to be $600, they cringe. No way are they buying that system for little Timmy.

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

Sorry Sony, but you sold 100 million by becoming the system of the casuals, and they became the system of the casuals by having a low price and the rapid increase of games due the ever increasing base of customers by selling cheap PS2's.
 
How can I be a casual gamer and own all three systems?

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

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

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

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

Our next system will no doubt be the Wii.
 
It'll be impossible to convince guys on here that a casual gamer can own all 3 systems. It'll be a few more posts before these guys start flaming for real.

*Goes and finds some cover*
 
[quote name='stubept']How can I be a casual gamer and own all three systems?

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

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

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

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

Our next system will no doubt be the Wii.[/quote]

What you said just prove your not a casual gamer. You bought xbox for the live games. I dont think a casual gamer would buy a whole new system just to play online. Then you say you bought a ps2 for all the musical/rhythm games well all of the ones you listed with the exception of guitar hero can be found on xbox.
 
Honestly: I have, am, and will be hating on Sony for a long time to come. Not forever, because they will eventually have games that are going to be amazing, but for a while for sure. At least while the price remains what the announcement has been.

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

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

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


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

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

Yes, as in: I will not be spending $600 for a PS3. Those senses are perfectly legitimate. The price is legitimate for a BlueRay HD player. I'm not interested in one, and without one, the system is "crippled" at best.
 
Crippled?! It's a gaming console, and you're saying without functionality to play HD movies it's crippled? I won't be watching HD-dvds/ blu-ray, what have you since I have a well established DVD collection, and no HD tv to utilize the capabilities with even. I am getting the PS3 for the games, I wouldn't call it crippled for serving its purpose as a gaming machine...
 
[quote name='Metal Boss']...XBOX, hmm I can play all the games I want for that on my pc, and in better quality...[/quote]

$1500 for a gaming PC or $300 for a console with comparable graphics and the same titles? I don't have to patch my game for it to work? Hmmm, let me think that one over.
 
[quote name='Metal Boss']Crippled?! It's a gaming console, and you're saying without functionality to play HD movies it's crippled? I won't be watching HD-dvds/ blu-ray, what have you since I have a well established DVD collection, and no HD tv to utilize the capabilities with even. I am getting the PS3 for the games, I wouldn't call it crippled for serving its purpose as a gaming machine...[/quote]

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

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



Yep. This proves it. Sony will sell over 5 Millions Units. When kids with no interest in HD want a machine whose only feature is HD... Wii can go fuck itself.
 
[quote name='Metal Boss']Crippled?! It's a gaming console, and you're saying without functionality to play HD movies it's crippled? I won't be watching HD-dvds/ blu-ray, what have you since I have a well established DVD collection, and no HD tv to utilize the capabilities with even. I am getting the PS3 for the games, I wouldn't call it crippled for serving its purpose as a gaming machine...[/quote]

...so you're getting the $499 version?
 
[quote name='CappyCobra']$1500 for a gaming PC or $300 for a console with comparable graphics and the same titles? I don't have to patch my game for it to work? Hmmm, let me think that one over. [/quote]


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


But saying that you play xbox because you don't have to patch your games is pretty silly when talking about crossover ports, so you want to be stuck with a buggy game for the rest of your days? I don't even have to think that one over...
 
[quote name='CappyCobra']$1500 for a gaming PC or $300 for a console with comparable graphics and the same titles? I don't have to patch my game for it to work? Hmmm, let me think that one over. [/quote]

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


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

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

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



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


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

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

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