Damage Control on PS3 Pricing Slipup

[bapenguin]

GamesIndustry.biz (http://gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=15937) has some damage control from Sony on the recent slip up (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11359) on the possible PS3 Price in Europe.

The idea that Fornay's mention of 499 to 599 Euro price ranges was an indication of the PS3's price point is "a mistranslation or misunderstanding of the discussion, which was actually focused on the relative value of PS3 as a Bluray Disc player," according to SCEE corporate communications director Nick Sharples.

Ahh...he was talking about the Value Chain not the price point. Us peons are so easily confused, we need a wobulator to straighten everything out.

[Kelegacy]

Things always get misconstrued. I spoke to a few people yesterday that confirmed this mistranslation, but people here didn't want to hear that. They wanted fire and brimstone.

[kokyunage]

The only reason why I see they would do damage control if that price range was way off mark. So, that's either a good sign that the PS3 will be released for 399 or a bad sign that it will be more than 599.

If it's the later Sony is so freaking screwed.

[Intruder]

I always figured that that was a bogus figure. That number would have garunteed the death of the system long before it even began its life span. I imagine we will see a 400ish price. But who really knows, it could all just be PR spin too, telling us it is worth 600 and then charging "only" 500. Who knows. As long as it has good games and is affordable, I am there.

[Crenor]

bad sign that it will be more than 599.

If it's the later Sony is so freaking screwed.


I would bet on this. As being less would be a good thing and they would tell us already. And think, still cheaper than stand alone Blu-ray player ($1000) so it will be a bargain...

[Borys]

...
*sigh*

[eth3rton]

Was it...? I think it was more of a Test Rumor to get people talking... If people were saying things like "thats a good deal considering its an Bluray player too...", ect... Sony would more than likely try to release it at that price... But since everyone (with good reason) got all fired up over the price then it is easily dismissed as an "mistranslation or misunderstanding of the discussion"...

IMO it can't cost anymore than the 360. Hardcore gamers will buy it if its more but the average gamer/parent won't. It will also be competing with 2nd generation 360 titles and an incredibly cheaper Nintendo System.....

[The Letter 3]

I would bet on this. As being less would be a good thing and they would tell us already. And think, still cheaper than stand alone Blu-ray player ($1000) so it will be a bargain...
It may very well be less. With a November launch, E3 would be the perfect time to announce their price point, games, and online plans. About six months of buzz time in which to build hype through the release of concrete information is a good plan.

As for the Blu-ray player part, we'll never hear the end of that from Sony. I really wouldn't be surprised if standalone Blu-ray players are being artifically priced higher to make the PS3 look so gosh darn good.

[EternalGamer]

Kelegacy, why in the world would you just assume they are telling the truth when they say that figure wasn't accurate? I am not saying that the price necessarily will be that high, I'm saying we can't know. Fuck, a month ago they were doing this same kind of spin with the Spring launch stuff telling us "we are still planning for a Spring lauch" even though it is very very obvious they knew there was no way in hell it was launching in the Spring.

What do they have to gain by lying? Well, anything they can do spinwise to hold off people from buying a 360 until they reach the market is in their favor. These guys are almost as bad as the Bush Administration when it comes to spin and euphemisms.

Dan

[Genital Eclipse]

Oh man i'm excited for this to be another 80 page thread about something that doesn't matter until the day it's released. Good luck to the blue team today.

[Kelegacy]

Kelegacy, why in the world would you just assume they are telling the truth when they say that figure wasn't accurate? I am not saying that the price necessarily will be that high, I'm saying we can't know. Fuck, a month ago they were doing this same kind of spin with the Spring launch stuff telling us "we are still planning for a Spring lauch" even though it is very very obvious they knew there was no way in hell it was launching in the Spring.

What do they have to gain by lying? Well, anything they can do spinwise to hold off people from buying a 360 until they reach the market is in their favor. These guys are almost as bad as the Bush Administration when it comes to spin and euphemisms.

Dan
Because the figure quoted was so absurd. There is no WAY a console would retail for that much money. If it did, it deserves to flop. Sony is not run by 9th graders.

They may pretend to be aloof of their competition, but they aren't. They know a 600-700 price tag would leave them dead in the water.

[jacktion]

The only reason why I see they would do damage control if that price range was way off mark.

No way dude. The reason they would do spin control is if the rumor was right on the mark and the PS3 is going to be way expensive. Knowing Sony's history, they will lie and spin it as being really cheap and nowhere near 600 dollars and then they will release it for 600 dollars.

Spin control are the lies people use to cover up the truth. If the truth was great than Sony wouldn't need spin control. If the truth is that the system is going to be extremely expensive and it won't sell well and Sony's stock is going to fall... well then I think Sony needs some quick spin control! "It was a mistranslation!" That is exactly what Sony would say if someone let slip with the ugly news that the system is prohibitively expensive.

Doesn't anybody speak French around here? Can we get some independent verification that it is mistranslated or not? Come on foreigners! Do your work! I command you as your American Overlord!

[bapenguin]

The reason I don't buy this is because the Blu-Ray players are going to be $750-$1000 at launch. So the value of the PS3 is lower than that? Huh?

[JediSanf]

Things always get misconstrued. I spoke to a few people yesterday that confirmed this mistranslation, but people here didn't want to hear that. They wanted fire and brimstone.

Acknowledging a reporting error and having a rational conversation is far to difficult. Let's be trolls instead! :rolleyes:

[Morratut]

...
*sigh*

LOL.

Lets just all wait for the offical news guys. :)

I'm sure Sony won't put the PS3 over £399 here in the UK.

Aww frick it I like to speculate too....

I wouldn't pay for a system which was over £399 and the main difference isn't the games but Blu Ray.

I hope Sony isn't thinking along the lines of Blu ray players cost £800 pounds. So a PS3 is a bargain at £600. :confused:

[KhitomerRouge]

Knowing Sony's history, they will lie and spin it as being really cheap and nowhere near 600 dollars and then they will release it for 600 dollars. Right, like how the PSP really is $500 dollars. And the PS2 being an unheard-of $300 really killed sales.

[antoniogaud]

They aren't aloof to their competition?! These were the same people who thought that $250 was a good price for a freaking portable!! Is it a surprise that the PSP is doing so badly compared to the DS in Japan?

Of course they can make mistakes. What do you call their spring launch plan?

The PS3 has technology that is proprietary, untested and technically superior to a X360 that uses off the shelf parts. And yet you expect SONY to sell the PS3 for the same price?

That.is.absurd.

[Yeti2005]

Sony won't announce the price until 2 months before launch just like MS did (unless it's dirt cheap which I doubt). Too many variables like the chip yields, available component supply, etc could effect the price so it would make sense to wait.

Also if the price is high then it's in Sony's best interest to hold off announcing that fact. Sony wants people to hold off on buying the 360 so it makes sense that they would show off some sweet demos and videos at E3 but NOT announce the price (unless of course it's as expensive or cheaper than the 360).

[Kamalot]

I'm sure Sony won't put the PS3 over £399 here in the UK.
I wouldn't bet on it.

[EternalGamer]

The reason I don't buy this is because the Blu-Ray players are going to be $750-$1000 at launch. So the value of the PS3 is lower than that? Huh?


Baps, is right. It is makes no sense that they were just talking about the PS3's value with Blueray. Stand alone Blueray players are starting at a price higher than that estimate that was given for"the value" of a PS3. Are the saying the PS3 is "less valuable" than a stand alone Blueray Player?

This spin makes no sense.

Dan

[antoniogaud]

How does it make ANY sense that Sony's Blue-Ray player is going to be priced at $399 while the rest of the industry's Blue-Ray players will START at the $750 range?!

Either:

1) Sony are miracle workers (maybe)
2) The PS3 will feature a low-end Blue-Ray player (feature disabled)
3) The other companies who joined the Blue-Ray consortium were suckered BIG TIME by Sony, who will steal all of their sales via the underpriced PS3 (see item #1). Expect big lawsuites and/or these same companies jumping ship to HD-DVD.

or much more likely,[I]

4) The PS3 will be expensive and/or come out in two price pointe; the lowest one with Blue-Ray movies disabled (like they did with the DVD features on the first PS2s)

That's all. This isn't rocket science.

[jpublic]

Honestly, what market research makes these nimrods think people are going to buy a DVD player for $750-1000? I thought the HD-DVD players were doing spectacularly poorly at the $500-800 price points.

Not to mention the fact that after getting burned on the UMD format, I suspect the studios aren't too keen on yet more formats.

[Cool AN]

We probably won't know for sure until E3 (hopefully).

Though I am always surprised how much some people on this site seem to hate Sony.

[Kelegacy]

They aren't aloof to their competition?! These were the same people who thought that $250 was a good price for a freaking portable!! Is it a surprise that the PSP is doing so badly compared to the DS in Japan?

Of course they can make mistakes. What do you call their spring launch plan?

The PS3 has technology that is proprietary, untested and technically superior to a X360 that uses off the shelf parts. And yet you expect SONY to sell the PS3 for the same price?

That.is.absurd.
Um, I don't know if you are aware of this, but the 250 price point for the portable didn't slow down the sales figures for the machine. The PSP has been the fastest selling Sony machine ever.

We're not talking about Japan, though the PSP isn't doing as horribly as you claim. If we were merely focusing on Japan, the 360 would already be dead.

[antoniogaud]

Its not that we 'hate' Sony, its that we seriously question their decisions.

The PSP is mediocre. Crap control sticks, lack of games, too expensive.

The PS2 is perhaps the shoddiest technology ever built. I personally retured FIVE PS2's because of disc-read errors. Five. I've had one Xbox. One.

When the PS2 came out, the people were looking for a cheap DVD player and they found it in the PS2. Right now, NOBODY is looking for a new format. What people are looking for is On-Demand, TIVO and downloadable content. Sure the PS3 can deliver those, but so could practically everything else.

Blue-Ray is a mistake.

[Kelegacy]

I would love to say, "I can't wait until you people who think it will be 600 bucks are proved wrong," but that would be silly. The people that are always proved wrong don't acknowledge the fact that they have been, and keep spouting crazy prophecies for the next horizon, whatever it may be.

[Kelegacy]

Its not that we 'hate' Sony, its that we seriously question their decisions.

The PSP is mediocre. Crap control sticks, lack of games, too expensive.

The PS2 is perhaps the shoddiest technology ever built. I personally retured FIVE PS2's because of disc-read errors. Five. I've had one Xbox. One.

When the PS2 came out, the people were looking for a cheap DVD player and they found it in the PS2. Right now, NOBODY is looking for a new format. What people are looking for is On-Demand, TIVO and downloadable content. Sure the PS3 can deliver those, but so could practically everything else.

Blue-Ray is a mistake.
There is no lack of games. If you think so, apparently you haven't looked recently. Are you Kamlot's brother?

I don't even OWN or want a PSP and here I am defending it.

[antoniogaud]

There is a lack of good PSP games.

Most PSP games are all ports of PS2 games - mediocre ones at that.

I own a PSP and I admit that is the case.

[Mason]

As I predicted. Whoosh, it's gone.

I don't get why people accept the "mistranslation" excuse as a valid response to price concerns, as even if you take the VP at his word, Sony still has a problem explaining the economics of the situation. I mean, getting a game console/media player for half the price of a standalone media player is a nice dream, but doesn't really make sense.

Learn from the "spring launch". Lucy's going to keep pulling that football away.

[[HATE]MyLife]

It may very well be less. With a November launch, E3 would be the perfect time to announce their price point, games, and online plans. About six months of buzz time in which to build hype through the release of concrete information is a good plan.

As for the Blu-ray player part, we'll never hear the end of that from Sony. I really wouldn't be surprised if standalone Blu-ray players are being artifically priced higher to make the PS3 look so gosh darn good.

As I understand it though, Sony isn't even able to come up with dev kits for the developers out there. If the dev kits aren't actually out there, or in such limited quantities that they're impossible to come by, does anyone actually buy a November release?

You have 6 months to create a game from scratch. Go!

[eth3rton]

I want a PSP but I am not willing to pay the $250 for the thing. Maybe when it drops "alot" in price I'll pick one up....

[phantomhitman]

hell yeah, value chain pwns n00blleezz

[Dag-Sabot]

Someone should post/convert a poll on the predicted price of the PS3, we would of course, all cast our votes/comments and when the price is finally revealed we can all laugh at oursevles and marvel at our naiveté. Gosh its times like this i wish there were a dilbert cartoon one could plagirise.

[Benanovich Jaminovski]

I want a PSP but I am not willing to pay the $250 for the thing. Maybe when it drops "alot" in price I'll pick one up....

Hey dude count yourself lucky, before it came out there were rumours it was gonna cost like $600+

...

...

:P

[absolut taco]

Sony won't announce the price until 2 months before launch just like MS did (unless it's dirt cheap which I doubt). Too many variables like the chip yields, available component supply, etc could effect the price so it would make sense to wait.
MS announced the 360 price in the middle of August 2005, more than 3 months prior to launch.

[Reanimated]

This is just like when they kept damage controlling the delay.

"It's still coming in Spring, we promise..."

"It's still coming in Spring, we promise..."

"It's still coming in Spring, we promise..."

"It's still coming in Spring, we promise..."

"It's still coming in Spring, we promise..."

"It's still coming in Spring, we promise..."








"Oh wait, actually, it's not coming until Christmas. WHOOPSIE!"

[RandomViolence]

Guys... wait and see. All this is just masturbation until we get confirmation of something. Personally, I'm just ignoring Sony for the time being until they produce something solid, and then I'll make my decisions. After that, we can have a reasonable discussion. Until then we don't need to say the same shit over and over again about every piece of PS3 press that comes out.

[Vermillion]

The real question is, if Blu-Ray fails, what's the point of having the customer pay for such an expensive drive that doesn't do anything other than play games and watch standard dvd? Heck, what's the point of having them pay for one at first release when there will be little or no content for it. Sony is going to have to sell the system as a huge loss leader to keep the customer from footing a potentially frivolous bill.

The more I think about, the more I think Microsoft did it right in not releasing an HD drive with their system. Kept the price down and options open to see which standard wins the day.

[Pigeon]

Someone should post/convert a poll on the predicted price of the PS3, we would of course, all cast our votes/comments and when the price is finally revealed we can all laugh at oursevles and marvel at our naiveté. Gosh its times like this i wish there were a dilbert cartoon one could plagirise.

already been done here (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9911)

[Pigeon]

Oh man i'm excited for this to be another 80 page thread about something that doesn't matter until the day it's released. Good luck to the blue team today.

No way! Blues suck, red team rules!

[RMan]

I’d imagine they were talking about the ‘value’ of the Blueray player, I mean, if they talked about the value of the blueray player is at the ‘rail the freako’ price it is now ($1000) everyone would call them crazy. Although I can’t recall, I’d bet the first DVD player cost around $1000, but that hardly means it’s worth that, I still think at $500 they’re kidding themselves, there’s no way it’s worth that. I don’t think anything useful can be ascertained from their comments, until an official price is released it’s just guessing.

[RMan]

MyLife']As I understand it though, Sony isn't even able to come up with dev kits for the developers out there.
I think that's 'final' dev kits, and it's quite common not to get those until shortly before the system's release.

[jacktion]

Um, I don't know if you are aware of this, but the 250 price point for the portable didn't slow down the sales figures for the machine. (psp)

So by the logic of that statement, if Sony sold the PSP for less it would have sold the exact same number of units? You are saying that a PSP for 100$ would not have sold better than a 250$ price?
I'm just playing the devil's avocate/argument nazi.

Also, we should look at history to see how much the PS3 will launch at. Does anyone know how much the PS2 launched at and also how much standalone DVD players launched at during the same period? Was is a big difference? If so than we can assume that the same difference will occur here.

[Guy Mariano]

Must be really difficult to wait a month and get a more definitive answer at E3

[AniAko]

...
*sigh*

Tell me about it. I refuse to read a single post below this because it's just giong to be a mirror image of yesterday's thread.......

Life should be equipped with a wobulator not sold as an upgrade....

[antoniogaud]

MY TOP 10 REASONS WHY SONY IS SCREWED:

1) Sony is at a disadvantage price-wise to both X360 and Revolution. (not to mention the PS2)

2) Sony is at a disadvantage time-wise to Xbox 360, which has a full year head-start, and the uniquely positioned Revoluion which launches simultaneously.

3) Sony is at a disadvantage in swaying the public to a debut DVD techology which is unproven, conflicts with another debut format, and will probably be seen as being unneccesary by most of the public who likes existing DVDs.

4) Sony has missed the PROMISED Spring delivery date in Japan.

5) Sony's PS3 technology will not be noticably better than X360.

6) Sony does not have an arsenal of must buy PS3-only titles and the majority of the top brands are either multi-platform or X360 console exclusives (Halo, Oblivion, PGR3, Gears of War, etc...)

7) Sony is at a disadvantage in attempting to mass manufacture a machine with two debut technologies; Blue-Ray and Cell. As the X360 launch has shown, even proven technology can be difficult to cope with in big numbers.

8) Sony developers are at a disadvantage when investing large development budgets for PS3. Especially in the first 2 years when due to its price and availability, the PS3 will be an "early-adopters" machine. Where is the profit motivation to create AAA games exclusive to PS3?

9) Sony is at a disadvatge in developing an online network to compete against Xbox Live, a system that took at least 2 years of testing to flesh out.

10) Sony is at a disadvantage because of the public's growing sense that Sony will intentionally exxagerate the PS3's abilities to garner press. They are losing credibility almost weekly.

[Kelegacy]

MY TOP 10 REASONS WHY SONY IS SCREWED:

1) Sony is at a disadvantage price-wise to both X360 and Revolution. (not to mention the PS2)

2) Sony is at a disadvantage time-wise to Xbox 360, which has a full year head-start, and the uniquely positioned Revoluion which launches simultaneously.

3) Sony is at a disadvantage in swaying the public to a debut DVD techology which is unproven, conflicts with another debut format, and will probably be seen as being unneccesary by most of the public who likes existing DVDs.

4) Sony has missed the PROMISED Spring delivery date in Japan.

5) Sony's PS3 technology will not be noticably better than X360.

6) Sony does not have an arsenal of must buy PS3-only titles and the majority of the top brands are either multi-platform or X360 console exclusives (Halo, Oblivion, PGR3, Gears of War, etc...)

7) Sony is at a disadvantage in attempting to mass manufacture a machine with two debut technologies; Blue-Ray and Cell. As the X360 launch has shown, even proven technology can be difficult to cope with in big numbers.

8) Sony developers are at a disadvantage when investing large development budgets for PS3. Especially in the first 2 years when due to its price and availability, the PS3 will be an "early-adopters" machine. Where is the profit motivation to create AAA games exclusive to PS3?

9) Sony is at a disadvatge in developing an online network to compete against Xbox Live, a system that took at least 2 years of testing to flesh out.

10) Sony is at a disadvantage because of the public's growing sense that Sony will intentionally exxagerate the PS3's abilities to garner press. They are losing credibility almost weekly.

You should get a job as a prophet. A la shin ba do re me! All praise antoniogaud!!

[[HATE]MyLife]

I think that's 'final' dev kits, and it's quite common not to get those until shortly before the system's release.
That's not what I'm hearing. From what I know, there are only a few kits out there, and none of them have any actual hardware in them.

[Guy Mariano]

MY TOP 10 REASONS WHY SONY IS SCREWED:

1) Sony is at a disadvantage price-wise to both X360 and Revolution. (not to mention the PS2)

2) Sony is at a disadvantage time-wise to Xbox 360, which has a full year head-start, and the uniquely positioned Revoluion which launches simultaneously.

3) Sony is at a disadvantage in swaying the public to a debut DVD techology which is unproven, conflicts with another debut format, and will probably be seen as being unneccesary by most of the public who likes existing DVDs.

4) Sony has missed the PROMISED Spring delivery date in Japan.

5) Sony's PS3 technology will not be noticably better than X360.

6) Sony does not have an arsenal of must buy PS3-only titles and the majority of the top brands are either multi-platform or X360 console exclusives (Halo, Oblivion, PGR3, Gears of War, etc...)

7) Sony is at a disadvantage in attempting to mass manufacture a machine with two debut technologies; Blue-Ray and Cell. As the X360 launch has shown, even proven technology can be difficult to cope with in big numbers.

8) Sony developers are at a disadvantage when investing large development budgets for PS3. Especially in the first 2 years when due to its price and availability, the PS3 will be an "early-adopters" machine. Where is the profit motivation to create AAA games exclusive to PS3?

9) Sony is at a disadvatge in developing an online network to compete against Xbox Live, a system that took at least 2 years of testing to flesh out.

10) Sony is at a disadvantage because of the public's growing sense that Sony will intentionally exxagerate the PS3's abilities to garner press. They are losing credibility almost weekly.


The big difference is other than people like us who are "hardcore" gamers. Nobody else give a damn about the 360 or even know about the Revolution but they will surely be like " Oh damn a new playstion is out" because 3X more people own one. Not one "regular" gamer I know meaning normal friends of mine that game but aren't all crazy into it are buying a 360 or Revolution or even care to . Why? Because they have all owned PS1 and PS2's . People seem to underestimate that.

[antoniogaud]

The big difference is other than people like us who are "hardcore" gamers. Nobody else give a damn about the 360 or even know about the Revolution but they will surely be like " Oh damn a new playstion is out" because 3X more people own one. Not one "regular" gamer I know meaning normal friends of mine that game but aren't all crazy into it are buying a 360 or Revolution or even care to . Why? Because they have all owned PS1 and PS2's . People seem to underestimate that.

You are high.

The X360 is sold out. Who bought them all... my grandmother?

Brand recognition is important, nobody doubts that, but these 10 points are INDISPUTABLE. That is why I posted them, to see if you Sonyboys could logically argue them.

So far, you can't.

[absolut taco]

Although I can’t recall, I’d bet the first DVD player cost around $1000, but that hardly means it’s worth that, I still think at $500 they’re kidding themselves, there’s no way it’s worth that. I don’t think anything useful can be ascertained from their comments, until an official price is released it’s just guessing.
DVD was a massive improvement over VHS, and those early $1,000 players sold quite well. Blu-Ray/HD-DVD is also a massive improvement over DVD but most people won't really be able to tell, thus I forsee a very slow start for the new HD formats, and the fact that there are 2 formats only makes it worse.

[Zanzibar]

MY TOP 10 REASONS WHY SONY IS SCREWED:
...


A few good points, but let me rebut them anyways. I hate Sony probably more than anyone here, and even I think that the absolute best MS can hope for is a draw.

1. We don't know the price. Those who say that the PS3 could surprise everyone and show up at $399 could very well be right. Sony realizes they cannot price themselves out of the market if they want to hold off Microsoft.

2. Yes, the year head start might help, but Microsoft has failed to deliver the 'killer app' that makes everyone plop down the cash. Oblivion is close, but it ain't Halo 3.

3. Blu-Ray is risky, but if it pays off, Sony will rule the living room for a decade.

4. Well, the Spring date did what it needed to do - hold off people getting an X360. At least in Japan, it did.

5. At launch, maybe. But I think the PS3 graphics will indeed outshine the X360 about a year after launch.

6. No more than the Xbox does. Hell, they've got Final Fantasy, Metal Gear, Ratchet and Clank, and Grand Theft Auto - if that's not a solid franchise-exclusive lineup then I don't know what is.

7. I agree wholeheartedly. However, Sony is building it themselves, rather than outsourcing the production, so the likelihood of slow production is lessened.

8. I agree, the publishers and developers are hosed, but it's the same way with every new platform. Activision had 4 launch titles for the Xbox 360, and only CoD2 was even remotely considered successful because of the lack of consoles available.

9. Sony's online service has an incredible template to work with: Xbox Live. If they simply copy it, it will still be great.

10. I doubt people will look at it as 'Sony lying.' Hell, we elected Clinton, then Bush twice, putting up with lying is second nature to us now ;)

[Zanzibar]

DVD was a massive improvement over VHS, and those early $1,000 players sold quite well. Blu-Ray/HD-DVD is also a massive improvement over DVD but most people won't really be able to tell, thus I forsee a very slow start for the new HD formats, and the fact that there are 2 formats only makes it worse.

Yes, DVD was an improvement over VHS - but the difference was absolutely noticeable on your regular TV. You didn't need to buy a new (ridiculously expensive) TV to see the difference, like you will have to with BR/HD-DVD.

EDIT: not disagreeing with you, by the way.

[antoniogaud]

ZANZIBAR SAID >>1. We don't know the price. Those who say that the PS3 could surprise everyone and show up at $399.<<
True, but we have to be realistic. Both Japanese and European Sony reps said that the PS3 would be "expensive". No executive in their right mind says something like that unless its true. There is a very fine line between telling the truth and scaring away your customers.
>>2. Yes, the year head start might help, but Microsoft has failed to deliver the 'killer app' that makes everyone plop down the cash. Oblivion is close, but it ain't Halo 3.<<
If every machine is sold out, why do they need a killer-app? What about GRAW? PGR3?
>>3. It's risky, but if it pays off, Sony will rule the living room for a decade.<<
Yes, that's my point: Sony is at a disadvantage = risk.
>>4. Well, the Spring date did what it needed to do - hold off people getting an X360. At least in Japan, it did.>>
True, but MS could have released the X360 in 2003 and the Japanese would still wait for the PS3. I should have mentioned that my arguments are biased toward the North American and European markets - I know nothing about Japanese markets.
>>5. At launch, maybe. But I think the PS3 graphics will indeed outshine the X360 about a year after launch.<<
This is highly unlikely. In what way? The PS3's graphics card is inferior to the X360's.
>>6. No more than the Xbox does. Hell, they've got Final Fantasy, Metal Gear, Ratchet and Clank, and Grand Theft Auto - if that's not a solid franchise-exclusive lineup then I don't know what is.<<
The only game exclusive on your list is Ratchet and Clank. No announcements have been made about any of the other games, other than rumors that they WILL NOT be PS3 exclusives (check out EGM this month).
>>7. I agree wholeheartedly. However, Sony is building it themselves, rather than outsourcing the production, so the likelihood of slow production is lessened.<<
Actually, its often the other way around. Outsourcing is often the fastest and cheapest way to mass-produce something.
>>8. I agree, the publishers and developers are hosed, but it's the same way with every new platform.<<
True, with the exception of the Nintendo DS and Xbox Live Arcade.
>>9. Sony's online service has an incredible template to work with: Xbox Live. If they simply copy it, it will still be great.<<
Ah, but 'simply copying it' is the trick, isn't it? Microsoft "knew" what they intended to do from their experience PC online communities, but it still took years to both develop and test the system. Dont forget that an actual infrastructure has to be in place as well. Sony has to get the online working AT LAUNCH to be considered competitive.
>>10. I doubt people will look at it as 'Sony lying.' Hell, we elected Clinton, then Bush twice, putting up with lying is second nature to us now.<<
Perhaps Sony won't be seen as 'liars' by the general public, but you have to admit that the credibility of Sony's statements is seriously dimished within the gaming community.

[RMan]

MyLife']That's not what I'm hearing. From what I know, there are only a few kits out there, and none of them have any actual hardware in them.
That's entirely possible, but there seems to be enough demos and developer feedback that it's hard for me to believe that developers are being significantly hampered by a lack of dev kits, even if true. In the end, nextgen graphics are primarily made by artists, I'm sure they've been working for some time before getting final hardware, and with modern systems it'll be pretty easy to scale the content once you get the final target hardware. IOW, even if they're waiting on the hardware, they're really not 'waiting' on the hardware (unless they're stupid).

[Guy Mariano]

You are high.

The X360 is sold out. Who bought them all... my grandmother?

Brand recognition is important, nobody doubts that, but these 10 points are INDISPUTABLE. That is why I posted them, to see if you Sonyboys could logically argue them.

So far, you can't.

1) Sony is at a disadvantage price-wise to both X360 and Revolution. (not to mention the PS2)

You know the price? Secondly if it is $500 or below it will be flying off the shelves. EASILY.

2) Sony is at a disadvantage time-wise to Xbox 360, which has a full year head-start, and the uniquely positioned Revoluion which launches simultaneously.

See dreamcast and see the PS1 and 2 Launches, both were not the first one out.

3) Sony is at a disadvantage in swaying the public to a debut DVD techology which is unproven, conflicts with another debut format, and will probably be seen as being unneccesary by most of the public who likes existing DVDs.

How is that going to prevent people from buying a PS3? It's a bonus just like DVD was.

4) Sony has missed the PROMISED Spring delivery date in Japan.

Yep that's hurting them real bad. That's why the 360 are flying off the shelves and PS2 are selling 20X more in Japan then 360's

5) Sony's PS3 technology will not be noticably better than X360.

Good to see you have a crystal ball. Regardless the technology is superior. there is no arguing that.


6) Sony does not have an arsenal of must buy PS3-only titles and the majority of the top brands are either multi-platform or X360 console exclusives (Halo, Oblivion, PGR3, Gears of War, etc...)

Go to Wikpedia and look at the list of top selling franchises PS2 and PS1 VS XBOX and then realize what a moron you are it's not in the same stratosphere, they both have all the same sports ones MS has Halo and that's it, Sony hs FF, Grand Turismo, Socom, Rathchet and Clank, the list goes on and on

7) Sony is at a disadvantage in attempting to mass manufacture a machine with two debut technologies; Blue-Ray and Cell. As the X360 launch has shown, even proven technology can be difficult to cope with in big numbers.

Again you know this how? IBM already said the yield for cell are the fastest they have had of any chip granted every launch will have shortages

8) Sony developers are at a disadvantage when investing large development budgets for PS3. Especially in the first 2 years when due to its price and availability, the PS3 will be an "early-adopters" machine. Where is the profit motivation to create AAA games exclusive to PS3?

Could it be the 100 million existing Playtion owners? The same reason the industry has way more backing for Sony than the other 2. THAT IS A FACT.

9) Sony is at a disadvatge in developing an online network to compete against Xbox Live, a system that took at least 2 years of testing to flesh out.

Irrelevant. Online gaming is not nearly as big as you think for regular people. 2) Why does the PS2 keep selling and did sell so well?

10) Sony is at a disadvantage because of the public's growing sense that Sony will intentionally exxagerate the PS3's abilities to garner press. They are losing credibility almost weekly.

lol lol lol the best one of them all. The average public doesn't see any of this you moron. Only us "hardcore" gamers do. Step back into reality.


Try again this is amusing

[The Letter 3]

Oh.
My.
God.

I read this thread up to this point. What have I done? *Readies traditional Japanese knife* I have disgraced my honor!

[Kelegacy]

You are high.

The X360 is sold out. Who bought them all... my grandmother?

Brand recognition is important, nobody doubts that, but these 10 points are INDISPUTABLE. That is why I posted them, to see if you Sonyboys could logically argue them.

So far, you can't.
I will happily reply to your "Sony in trouble" points, each one of them, but only when I get home. I'm at the office right now and only have time for quick bursts of EvAv posting. Alt-Tab is my friend.

[shnastybiznastic]

You know the price? Second under $500 and below it's flying off the shelves. EASILY.
I think you left too many words out of this sentence. Or mabye tried to add too many.

[antoniogaud]

Okay, where do I start with this guy who likes to call his superiors morons...

You know the price? Second under $500 and below it's flying off the shelves. EASILY.
No, I dont know the price. I am basing my statements on what Sony actually said which is that the PS3 would be "expensive". At $500+ for the base console, the PS3 will be a disaster at retail. Sure, Sonybonys would buy it, but Walmart America wont. Ever heard of the 3DO?
2) Sony is at a disadvantage time-wise to Xbox 360, which has a full year head-start, and the uniquely positioned Revoluion which launches simultaneously.

See dreamcast and see the PS1 and 2 Launches, both not the first one out
Do you know anything about the marketplace? The PS2 killed the Dreamcast because it had a DVD player and the Dreamcats didn't. The PS1 sold better than the N64 because it used much cheaper CD roms and showcased better 3d graphics - both new to the industry. N64 games were often $70 plus! Also, the PS1 appealed to more mature gamers than the N64 did.
3) Sony is at a disadvantage in swaying the public to a debut DVD techology which is unproven, conflicts with another debut format, and will probably be seen as being unneccesary by most of the public who likes existing DVDs.

How is that going to prevent people from buying a PS3? It's a bonus just like DVD was.
Um, its one of the main selling points and it is the main reason the PS3 is expensive.
4) Sony has missed the PROMISED Spring delivery date in Japan.

Yep that's hurting them real bad. That's why the 360 are flying off the shelves and PS2 are selling 20X more in Japan then 360's
X360s have sold VERY WELL in the United States and Europe, presumably where you live - where have you been? PS2's cost $100... people can afford to buy them as coasters.
5) Sony's PS3 technology will not be noticably better than X360.

Good to see you have a crystal ball. Regardless the technology is superior. there is not arguing that.
Simple question #1: HOW will games look better especially when the PS3's graphics card is INFERIOR to the X360?
6) Sony does not have an arsenal of must buy PS3-only titles and the majority of the top brands are either multi-platform or X360 console exclusives (Halo, Oblivion, PGR3, Gears of War, etc...)

Go to Wikpedia and look at the list of top selling franchises PS2 and PS1 VS XBOX and then realize what a moron you are it's not in the same stratosphere, they both have all the same sports ones MS has Halo and that's it, Sony hs FF, Grand Turismo, Socom, Rathchet and Clank, the list goes on and on
Simple question #2: How many of those games are PS3 exclusives?
7) Sony is at a disadvantage in attempting to mass manufacture a machine with two debut technologies; Blue-Ray and Cell. As the X360 launch has shown, even proven technology can be difficult to cope with in big numbers.

Again you know this how? IBM already said the yield for cell are the fastest they have had of any chip
I know this because I have been involved with the manufacturing industry for over 10 years.
8) Sony developers are at a disadvantage when investing large development budgets for PS3. Especially in the first 2 years when due to its price and availability, the PS3 will be an "early-adopters" machine. Where is the profit motivation to create AAA games exclusive to PS3?

Could it be the 100 million existing Playtion owners? The same reason the industry has way more backing for Sony than the other 2. THAT IS A FACT.
Simple Question #3: When I ask you what the incentive is for publishing PS3 exclusives, why did you give me 'facts' for the PS2 and PS1? How is it relevant?
9) Sony is at a disadvatge in developing an online network to compete against Xbox Live, a system that took at least 2 years of testing to flesh out.

Irrelevant. Online gaming is not nearly as big as you think for regular people. 2) Why does the PS2 keep selling and did sell so well?
Online gaming isn't important? Better tell that to Sony who is investing nearly a billion dollars in the PS3 Online Hub.
10) Sony is at a disadvantage because of the public's growing sense that Sony will intentionally exxagerate the PS3's abilities to garner press. They are losing credibility almost weekly.

lol lol lol the best one of them all. The average public doesn't see any of this you moron. Only us "hardcore" gamers do. Step back into reality.
Well, the reality is that when mom and pop America or Joe College go to the store and see a X360, a Revolution and the PS3 they will COMPARE their features, price, and games and decide what to buy. When Sony tells them to buy a PS3 because it has Blue-Ray, better graphics, etc and they dont readily see the results, Sony's claims and credibility will be lessened. This is what happened with the PSP and UMDs and this is what might happen with the PS3 and Blue-Ray.

Some advise, stop using names to make yourself seem important and deal with the issues that the PS3 is facing. Otherwise, keep your head in the sand, I'm sure it feels good.

[[HATE]MyLife]

That's entirely possible, but there seems to be enough demos and developer feedback that it's hard for me to believe that developers are being significantly hampered by a lack of dev kits, even if true. In the end, nextgen graphics are primarily made by artists, I'm sure they've been working for some time before getting final hardware, and with modern systems it'll be pretty easy to scale the content once you get the final target hardware. IOW, even if they're waiting on the hardware, they're really not 'waiting' on the hardware (unless they're stupid).
That's true. But note that all of the "demos" so far have been from companies with seriously strong ties to Sony, and the feedback on the system seems to only be coming from those very same sources -- the ones who have most to gain by PS3 capturing mindshare.

I'm not claiming that Sony is dead in the water or anything, it's just that the things that I'm hearing from industry sources are enough to give one pause.

[Guy Mariano]

Well, the reality is that when mom and pop America or Joe College go to the store and see a X360, a Revolution and the PS3 they will COMPARE their features, price, and games and decide what to buy. When Sony tells them to buy a PS3 because it has Blue-Ray, better graphics, etc and they dont readily see the results, Sony's claims and credibility will be lessened. This is what happened with the PSP and UMDs and this is what might happen with the PS3 and Blue-Ray.

Some advise, stop using names to make yourself seem important and deal with the issues that the PS3 is facing. Otherwise, keep your head in the sand, I'm sure it feels good.



Yes, Yes, nice theories. Please enlighten me on why the XBOX didn't take over the PS2 then? It was cleary the superior console right? Better graphics, online better games like the be all end all Halo. Your argument holds no weight.

[Wyrm]

Will the PS3 fail? Probably not. Will it cost way too much? Most likely.

I'm interested to see how they go about their online stuff, because their pathetic attempt at it on the PS2 only served to raise my blood pressure. No voice chat in any game except Socom, a small number of titles, a hard drive you have to buy after the fact, an ONLINE ADAPTOR you have to spend addtional cash on and shitty games to play. The list goes on, but I can promise you they havent learned from all their mistakes.

I love the PS2. I wish that the technology wasnt so shitty because I'm on my third one. I think that's something the sony fanboys neglect to mention when going through sales figures. The only reason people buy so many playstations is because half of them break after less than a year. Here's to hoping they dont release shoddy hardware in the PS3.

You are ignorant if you believe this thing will be cheap.

[thecrazyd]

You are ignorant if you believe this thing will be cheap.
Define "cheap". I do not expect them to give it away for free, but I could definately see a $399 launch. They are willing to dump money on this for the following reasons:

a. It is really the only chance blue ray has at gaining acceptance.
b. They plan to recoup a ton of money through digital sales online.
c. They cannot appear to be too expensive when compared to the other consoles.

[Wyrm]

I think you're wrong. I can agree with that logic, because that seems obvious to us as consumers. But, what you're doing is unfair, because you're saying that partially as a hope. I also HOPE that they dont put the system out above 400 bucks. Will they? You can scream at me later and say I told you so if they dont, but I'm 99% sure it will be more expensive than everyone is prepared to believe.

[thecrazyd]

I think you're wrong. I can agree with that logic, because that seems obvious to us as consumers. But, what you're doing is unfair, because you're saying that partially as a hope. I also HOPE that they dont put the system out above 400 bucks. Will they? You can scream at me later and say I told you so if they dont, but I'm 99% sure it will be more expensive than everyone is prepared to believe.
Can you give me a sound reason to support that beyond "Sony is stupid"? The absolute highest I could ever see them even attempting would be $499, but my money is on $399.

[Wyrm]

I didnt say "Sony is Stupid". I'm telling you that the hardware is going to be expensive because it has bluray in it. And for the record, they are stupid for putting blu ray in the damn thing.

[Zanzibar]

Can you give me a sound reason to support that beyond "Sony is stupid"? The absolute highest I could ever see them even attempting would be $499, but my money is on $399.

60GB HDD. Blu-Ray drive. Cell processor. Bluetooth receiver.

I'd be astonished at $399.

[thecrazyd]

I didnt say "Sony is Stupid". I'm telling you that the hardware is going to be expensive because it has bluray in it. And for the record, they are stupid for putting blu ray in the damn thing.
But they want a huge player base using bluray, and downloading their digital merchandise. The more they get out the better they do. They would be exceedingly stupid to price it a penny over 500. We'll see how it ends up, but my money is on a 399 launch.

[EternalGamer]

I'd certainly take that bet, thecrazyd. I hope I'm wrong, but the logic seems to be against you. If the stand alone players are $800+ there just seems to be no way Sony could get away with charing half that price for something that has not only a built in Blue ray, but a cell processor and a harddrive as well. Why the heck would the other BlueRay manufactures be charging that much for their players if it wasn't necessary? It would be incredibly stupid of them to go against a machine that can do everything they can do and a ton more for half the price. Sony can eat some costs, but they are not Santa Claus.

Sony could most certainly get away with charging $700 or even more if they want when it launches. It would still sell out everywhere because they are not going to be able match the demand at first no matter what the price. They can always shed the price later, when the technology is cheaper and it makes the system look like an even better value. They don't trap themselves at all. They always have the option of lowering the price, but they'll never have the option of raising it. If it comes out at $799, it gains the image of a true high end piece of electronic equipment. And when it is becomes more widely available and the manufacturing costs for BluRay drop in a year they can drop it to $599 and it will look like an absolute steal.

Dan

[Kelegacy]

But they want a huge player base using bluray, and downloading their digital merchandise. The more they get out the better they do. They would be exceedingly stupid to price it a penny over 500. We'll see how it ends up, but my money is on a 399 launch.
I'll go along with you. I'll even go as far as to say 499, but no more. That's a Benjamin window.

If Sony really wants BR to catch on, the PS3 is the way to go. Movies and media will help recoup costs on the machine. At least I hope. If it's over 500, fuck them. That's just ludicrous. BR should be a nice extra, but if I pay a ton more because of it, they can burn and hell and deserve any spanking they get from Nintendo or Microsoft.

[Zanzibar]

I'll go along with you. I'll even go as far as to say 499, but no more. That's a Benjamin window.

If Sony really wants BR to catch on, the PS3 is the way to go. Movies and media will help recoup costs on the machine. At least I hope. If it's over 500, fuck them. That's just ludicrous. BR should be a nice extra, but if I pay a ton more because of it, they can burn and hell and deserve any spanking they get from Nintendo or Microsoft.

PS3 + HDTV + Blu-Ray library. Good luck with that. Got a few grand to blow? Neither do I. Maybe the economy's been better to you than anyone else I know, but my guess is that we're still a good 2 to 3 years before HDTV even makes 50% of the homes. So, even at $500, Sony STILL needs people to buy HDTVs in order to elicit BR movie sales.

[thecrazyd]

I'd certainly take that bet, thecrazyd. I hope I'm wrong, but the logic seems to be against you. If the stand alone players are $800+ there just seems to be no way Sony could get away with charing half that price for something that has not only a built in Blue ray, but a cell processor and a harddrive as well. Why the heck would the other BlueRay manufactures be charging that much for their players if it wasn't necessary? It would be incredibly stupid of them to go against a machine that can do everything they can do and a ton more for half the price. Sony can eat some costs, but they are not Santa Claus.

Sony could most certainly get away with charging $700 or even more if they want when it launches. It would still sell out everywhere because they are not going to be able match the demand at first no matter what the price. They can always shed the price later, when the technology is cheaper and it makes the system look like an even better value. They don't trap themselves at all. They always have the option of lowering the price, but they'll never have the option of raising it. If it comes out at $799, it gains the image of a true high end piece of electronic equipment. And when it is becomes more widely available and the manufacturing costs for BluRay drop in a year they can drop it to $599 and it will look like an absolute steal.

Dan
It will most certainly sell out at launch at 799, but they would have to drop the price fast and often to keep them moving. No one would pay 599 a year from launch. This would also garner universal hatred from the hardcore. Due to the extremely limited audience, very little games would be released. It would be suicide. I will bet you a launch PS3 (regardless of price) that it will hit under 500.

[Yeti2005]

While I hope and pray it's going for $399, I've readied myself for $499 and possibly $599 (although I don't think it will be that high). EternalGamer brings up a good point that Sony isn't going to undercut their Blu-Ray partners by 50%.

Besides Sony will advertise that it's not JUST a game machines, it's a Blu-Ray player and a multimedia hub. Surely that's worth an extra $100 or $200 over the $399 360? ;)

[antoniogaud]

Yes, Yes, nice theories. Please enlighten me on why the XBOX didn't take over the PS2 then? It was cleary the superior console right? Better graphics, online better games like the be all end all Halo. Your argument holds no weight.

Actually that is a pretty easy answer. PS2 had huge name recognition, a year headstart and the Xbox brand was a complete unknown to gamers. Microsoft was known for operating systems, not game machines.

As it was, in 2004 the Xbox started outselling the PS2 (even with people buying replacement PS2 units).

[Kelegacy]

PS3 + HDTV + Blu-Ray library. Good luck with that. Got a few grand to blow? Neither do I. Maybe the economy's been better to you than anyone else I know, but my guess is that we're still a good 2 to 3 years before HDTV even makes 50% of the homes. So, even at $500, Sony STILL needs people to buy HDTVs in order to elicit BR movie sales.
Who needs a BR library? I don't want the thing to watch movies on. BR is an EXTRA, that's it. If it came without it, I'd be fine. I didn't use my PS2 to watch DVDs with at first, either. Movie watching isn't a top priority for me, not at 30 bucks a pop for BR flicks. I might rent them, that's about it. But if the PS3 is truly "Sony's BR Trojan Horse" as Kamalcrap puts it, then Sony will need one of these in homes in order to push the BR medium. A lower price would be ideal, so more people could afford it.

How would BR movies look on non-HD tvs? Sort of like how a 360 game looks on a standard television? Better, but far from the best?

[RMan]

Why the heck would the other BlueRay manufactures be charging that much for their players if it wasn't necessary?
Ohh, I know that one. Because they like money!!

Seriously, they're likely charging that much because, for now, they can (the result of not having competition undercutting your prices). The idea that Sony could get away with charging similar amounts is shortsighted, because they certainly want to sell more units than what the pure players are selling. The pricing will be set primarily according to what people will pay for it and how many units they need to move, not based on the prices for other blueray players, or even how much the units cost them to make. I'd still agree with the $499 being the top end, if they go above that I think they'll be eaten alive in the states, and rightfully so.

[EternalGamer]

It will most certainly sell out at launch at 799, but they would have to drop the price fast and often to keep them moving. No one would pay 599 a year from launch. This would also garner universal hatred from the hardcore. Due to the extremely limited audience, very little games would be released. It would be suicide. I will bet you a launch PS3 (regardless of price) that it will hit under 500.


I'm certainly not going to put that kind of money on the line (though it was a little tempting). Logic dictates it will be more than that, but that doesn't necessarily mean they won't go against it. I just find it unlikely.

We currently have no information to lead us to believe it will be as cheap as you think. On one side we have the evidence (though admitedly still scant and incomplete), on the other we have wish filled thinking.

Dan

[Zanzibar]

Who needs a BR library? I don't want the thing to watch movies on. BR is an EXTRA, that's it. If it came without it, I'd be fine. I didn't use my PS2 to watch DVDs with at first, either. Movie watching isn't a top priority for me, not at 30 bucks a pop for BR flicks. I might rent them, that's about it. But if the PS3 is truly "Sony's BR Trojan Horse" as Kamalcrap puts it, then Sony will need one of these in homes in order to push the BR medium. A lower price would be ideal, so more people could afford it.

How would BR movies look on non-HD tvs? Sort of like how a 360 game looks on a standard television? Better, but far from the best?

I was actually talking about your statement that 'movies and media will help recoup costs on the machine' . I agree with you that BR playback should just be a bonus, but Sony is betting the farm that people will want to upgrade to Blu-Ray - that's why they are hawking it as a Blu-Ray player even above a game machine.

I'm sure that Blu-Ray movies will look solid on a regular TV, but they're trying to convince people that they HAVE to upgrade to Blu-Ray, and the only way they're going to see a difference worthy of spending $30 for a movie instead of $10-15 is to also drop at least a grand on a HDTV. Until market saturation of HDTVs reaches 40% or above, there's just not going to be the demand for Blu-Ray movies.

I know, I know, it's a chicken-or-the-egg scenario: Should Sony wait for 40%, or should they try to push Blu-Ray/PS3 to help achieve that 40%?

[thecrazyd]

I'm certainly not going to put that kind of money on the line (though it was a little tempting). Logic dictates it will be more than that, but that doesn't necessarily mean they won't go against it. I just find it unlikely.

We currently have no information to lead us to believe it will be as cheap as you think. On one side we have the evidence (though admitedly still scant and incomplete), on the other we have wish filled thinking.

Dan
I think that logic clearly dictates that it will be within a hundred dollars of their major competitors launch price. I also think that with their announced online services that they will undercut the price to get more users. In my opinon, the evidence points to a 399-499 launch.

[antoniogaud]

UPDATE!! I was just at the local EBGamestop when the Sony rep stopped by and told the store manager (who is also the regional manager) that he should expect a PS3 price of "at least $499, possibly more."

If that wasn't bad enough, there is more!

He also said, "also expect a higher than $60 price for PS3 games, perhaps as much as $65, this holiday season."

I SWEAR ON THE GAMING GODS THAT I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP. I AM PUTTING MY ENTIRE ONLINE REPUTATION ON THE LINE. I SPOKE TO THE MANAGER NOT 5 MINUTES AFTER HIS CONVERSATION WITH THE SONY REP.

If anybody knows any Sony reps, please call them and confirm *or* call your local EBGamestop and ask the managers what they have just been told by the Sony reps.

Also while there, I picked up the newest GAME INFORMER which states that Xbox is seeking to undercut the PS3 not with a price drop on consoles, but on the games themselves. They hinted at a price drop to $40 on new games, with additional content available via paid downloads on Xbox Live.

[Chalex]

60GB HDD. Blu-Ray drive. Cell processor. Bluetooth receiver.

I'd be astonished at $399.
If you compare it to the cost of the 360 components there is really no reason to assume that the Cell processor or Bluetooth receiver will cost any more than the triple core PPC unit or Microsofts wireless solution. I doubt that the jump from a 20GB drive to a 60GB drive is really all that huge, it's more like getting gouged slightly less.

The only significant price difference is in the media drives and although Blu-Ray is much more expensive on paper the fact that Sony has a more than capable division to produce the drives (especially with the NEC merger) and the potential future profits makes it more than worth their while to eat it if they have to.

[thecrazyd]

No offense, but I will not fall for a story told by someone who wrote "MY TOP 10 REASONS WHY SONY IS SCREWED" (during the writing of which you already lost all online reputation). Also, reps know shit except what has been officially announced. That is a load and you know it as well as I do.

[Kelegacy]

UPDATE!! I was just at the local EBGamestop when the Sony rep stopped by and told the store manager (who is also the regional manager) that he should expect a PS3 price of "at least $499, possibly more."

If that wasn't bad enough, there is more!

He also said, "also expect a higher than $60 price for PS3 games, perhaps as much as $65, this holiday season."

I SWEAR ON THE GAMING GODS THAT I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP. I AM PUTTING MY ENTIRE ONLINE REPUTATION ON THE LINE. I SPOKE TO THE MANAGER NOT 5 MINUTES AFTER HIS CONVERSATION WITH THE SONY REP.

If anybody knows any Sony reps, please call them and confirm *or* call your local EBGamestop and ask the managers what they have just been told by the Sony reps.

Also while there, I picked up the newest GAME INFORMER which states that Xbox is seeking to undercut the PS3 not with a price drop on consoles, but on the games themselves. They hinted at a price drop to $40 on new games, with additional content available via paid downloads on Xbox Live.

Haha. You took the word of an EB rep. You would have been better off pooping on the floor and picking apart the turd to read the future with your prophetic powers.

[Dracula-X]

IRC savvy?

/me bangs head repeatedly into wall

[Chalex]

UPDATE!! I was just at the local EBGamestop when the Sony rep stopped by and told the store manager (who is also the regional manager) that he should expect a PS3 price of "at least $499, possibly more."

If that wasn't bad enough, there is more!

He also said, "also expect a higher than $60 price for PS3 games, perhaps as much as $65, this holiday season."

I SWEAR ON THE GAMING GODS THAT I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP. I AM PUTTING MY ENTIRE ONLINE REPUTATION ON THE LINE. I SPOKE TO THE MANAGER NOT 5 MINUTES AFTER HIS CONVERSATION WITH THE SONY REP.

If anybody knows any Sony reps, please call them and confirm *or* call your local EBGamestop and ask the managers what they have just been told by the Sony reps.

Also while there, I picked up the newest GAME INFORMER which states that Xbox is seeking to undercut the PS3 not with a price drop on consoles, but on the games themselves. They hinted at a price drop to $40 on new games, with additional content available via paid downloads on Xbox Live.
Your < 60 post count online reputation means nothing. That being said there is not going to be a game price drop anytime soon, if ever.

Games are getting more and more expensive to make and it's many times the ONLY way that a console maker has to make any money. This could only happen to first party games, and I promise you it wouldn't be any of the good ones (NNN, Halo 3, PGR) It's not even a possibility for third party games UNLESS Microsoft dropped the $8 per disc licensing fee (which would no doubt force the 360 into unprofitable territory in spectacular fashion.)

[Zanzibar]

If you compare it to the cost of the 360 components there is really no reason to assume that the Cell processor or Bluetooth receiver will cost any more than the triple core PPC unit or Microsofts wireless solution. I doubt that the jump from a 20GB drive to a 60GB drive is really all that huge, it's more like getting gouged slightly less.

The only significant price difference is in the media drives and although Blu-Ray is much more expensive on paper the fact that Sony has a more than capable division to produce the drives (especially with the NEC merger) and the potential future profits makes it more than worth their while to eat it if they have to.

Well, the Cell processor has already cost over a billion dollars for R&D alone, and they haven't even started mass-producing them yet. The tri-core is just using existing technology. The Blu-Ray drive is ALSO completely new technology, and the listed price of the standalone players is $999. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20060404/tc_pcworld/125302) I somehow doubt that the drive itself can cost the company less than $200-$250 right now.

[Goronmon]

I'm kinda torn. On one hand, you have that Ken Kutaragi (sp?) guy who claimed early on that the PS3 would be damn expensive. The stand alone Blu-Ray players are damn expensive. Sony can't afford to lose inane amounts of money on every piece of hardware. It only makes sense that the PS3 would be damn expensive.

On the other hand. The PS3 will be in serious trouble if its cost is above $500. It will be the cheapest BR player to start and it'll play games, and its made by Sony (they could have employees shit in a case, put a PS3 label on it, charge $400 and still sellout of the first shipment.) So, this leads me to believe Sony must have found a way to keep the costs down somewhere. Unless part of the delayed launch is waiting for production costs to drop.

[antoniogaud]

It's not a complete price drop, its only a price drop at retail. Meaning MS will get your money (and share less of it with EB) via Xbox Live. Its good business and it seems like gamers are getting a bargain (when actually, they probably arent).

I dont care whether you believe me or not. What will happen will happen. I dont need your approval to make my day.

[antoniogaud]

No offense, but I will not fall for a story told by someone who wrote "MY TOP 10 REASONS WHY SONY IS SCREWED" (during the writing of which you already lost all online reputation). Also, reps know shit except what has been officially announced. That is a load and you know it as well as I do.

Heh, the only load I see is a bunch of Sonybonys like you failing pathetically to defend Sony when someone uses LOGIC and REASONABLE ASSUMPTIONS against your heartfelt desires.

Take solace that Sony will be more than willing to take your money (at least $500 of it anyway) as an offering of your undying love.

U.R.P.A.T.H.E.T.I.C.

[Zanzibar]

That's a good point; if Sony is so damned intent on getting everyone to buy Blu-Ray discs, why the hell would they price the standalones at $999 unless it ACTUALLY costs that much to make 'em?

[thecrazyd]

Umm... don't know who you are talking to, but ask around. I am a Ninty fanboy if anything.

[Chalex]

Well, the Cell processor has already cost over a billion dollars for R&D alone, and they haven't even started mass-producing them yet. The tri-core is just using existing technology. The Blu-Ray drive is ALSO completely new technology, and the listed price of the standalone players is $999. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20060404/tc_pcworld/125302) I somehow doubt that the drive itself can cost the company less than $200-$250 right now.The Cell cost a shitload of money but it was a joint verture by three MAJOR tech companies, and stands to be used in alot of products in the future. Adding in the fact that Sony will be producing their own processors while Microsoft is paying IBM a premium to have them produced for them. Another factor in Sonys favor is that even if 7 SPUs fail it could still be used for something (I.E. a DVD player, an HDTV, a highend camcorder) while if any of the three cores fail on Microsofts chip fail it's garbage, and they are still paying for it.

Given that Blu-Ray is without a doubt more expensive than a DVD drive, I'm sure most of the cost for the new Blu-Ray stand alone players comes from the fact that you need some serious processing power for them (I'm fairly sure the computer I'm typing this on couldn't do it) which the PS3 will already have as a game machine. An expensive processor bundled with high start up costs mean that the markup percentage is probably roughly the same as the markup percentage for a 360 HDD (which is to say high)

[Chalex]

That's a good point; if Sony is so damned intent on getting everyone to buy Blu-Ray discs, why the hell would they price the standalones at $999 unless it ACTUALLY costs that much to make 'em?Because they have been around for every major format launch and know that early adoptors are willing to pay any price for the shinny new thing, I think the 360 proved that last November.

[Dracula-X]

Heh, the only load I see is a bunch of Sonybonys like you failing pathetically to defend Sony when someone uses LOGIC and REASONABLE ASSUMPTIONS against your heartfelt desires.

Take solace that Sony will be more than willing to take your money (at least $500 of it anyway) as an offering of your undying love.

U.R.P.A.T.H.E.T.I.C.

Sonybony? Spoken like a true Xbot.

U.R.A.T.O.O.L

[Zanzibar]

Given that Blu-Ray is without a doubt more expensive than a DVD drive, I'm sure most of the cost for the new Blu-Ray stand alone players comes from the fact that you need some serious processing power for them (I'm fairly sure the computer I'm typing this on couldn't do it) which the PS3 will already have as a game machine. An expensive processor bundled with high start up costs mean that the markup percentage is probably roughly the same as the markup percentage for a 360 HDD (which is to say high)

I'm not sure about that. Call me a layman, but the technology involved in RUNNING hi-def images has been around for years; the problem has been the amount of storage space required, which DVDs simply could not hold. Any geforce 3 or better video card can output resolutions of 1080p - they're 35 bucks nowadays. Any Pentium 3 chip or better can make the video card run. They cost anywhere from 12 bucks to 60 bucks. Throw in a motherboard and a bit of memory for the frame buffer and we're talking less than $150 for the main technological costs - without the drive.

EDIT: This is STILL a ludicrous point. The Xbox 360 - if you plugged in a Blu-Ray drive - could run the Blu-Ray movies. (It's been all over the 'net, but let me know if you don't believe me and I'll find a link.) It costs $299. That also includes all the hardware for controlling the gamepads etc, which a BR player wouldn't need. Plus a network port. So if the drive itself isn't what's making the player cost $1000, what is??

[antoniogaud]

Why is this so hard to understand? WHY?!?!

Lets make it simple.

XBOX 360 COMPONENTS- 20Gig HDD $1 dollar
- DVD drive $1 dollar
- Multi-Core processor $3 dollars
- Everything else $2 dollars

TOTAL X360 PRICE: $7 dollars

PS3 COMPONENT COSTS- 60Gig HDD $2 dollars
- New technology Cell processors - $2 dollars
- New technology Blu-Ray - $2 dollars
- More advanced Network/Wi-Fi/Blue tooth - $2 dollars
- 7 USB ports - $1 dollar
- Everything else - $2 dollars

TOTAL PS3 PRICE: $11 dollars

WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL? With the Sony you are getting more advanced technology, but you have to pay MORE for it. Why is it so hard for the SonyBonys to accept this?!?!

[Romuluss]

The more I browse gaming forums the more im convinced 'gamer's' completely lack economic knowledge or common sense. This pricing issue is just yet another point where everyone gets inflamed with passion one way or the other.

For those of you still with something resembling logical thinking here's the bottom line. The PS3 will cost no more than $400 or 400 euros(europeans always gets screwed on the conversion). Yes standalone Blu-Ray players cost $999, they do not cost that much to manufacture. You pay out your ass for a Blu-Ray player for no other reason than because its new technology. The PS3 is going to be sold at an extreme loss for the amount of technology packed into it. This is padded out with software sales.

One of the most basic principles in economics- competition drives down prices. If here was no Xbox 360 then yes you very well could see a $500-$600 prices console, but thats not the case. Sony could tout Blu-Ray and Cell all they want not many people would pay 500 or more for such a device when a very similar product(ala X360) is sold for cheaper.

[Chalex]

I'm not sure about that. Call me a layman, but the technology involved in RUNNING hi-def images has been around for years; the problem has been the amount of storage space required, which DVDs simply could not hold. Any geforce 3 or better video card can output resolutions of 1080p - they're 35 bucks nowadays. Any Pentium 3 chip or better can make the video card run. They cost anywhere from 12 bucks to 60 bucks. Throw in a motherboard and a bit of memory for the frame buffer and we're talking less than $150 for the main technological costs - without the drive.

The PC drives "Recommended minimum requirements" are:

Minimum for the NEC HD DVD player and samsungs blu ray player:
Pentium 4 3.0 GHz (or Athlon 3000+) and a 128 mb videocard.
Samsungs recommends Geforce 7800 or a ATI radeon X1800 for speeding up decoding of h.264/AVC or VC1.

http://www.cdrlabs.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=153195&sid=44ecd6e51829ed0a64326e8d383c3a8a

Even without a standalone having to run an OS in the background like a PC does it's still a huge jump from a regular DVD player.

[antoniogaud]

Actually, I not only own a PSP, PS1 and a PS2, but some of my favorite games are on those systems. I call people Sonybonys when they refuse to deal with reality. I would say the same thing to XYZBoys who argued that the PS3 wasn't more technically advanced that the X360.

The PS3 is more advanced and that is why it costs more. The question will be do gamers want this specific technology and will they see substantial gaming improvements from it.

[Kelegacy]

Heh, the only load I see is a bunch of Sonybonys like you failing pathetically to defend Sony when someone uses LOGIC and REASONABLE ASSUMPTIONS against your heartfelt desires.

Take solace that Sony will be more than willing to take your money (at least $500 of it anyway) as an offering of your undying love.

U.R.P.A.T.H.E.T.I.C.
Your use of the word "SonyBonys" shows where your true intentions lay. You're about as objective as Major Nelson, so your ability to reason is a bit flawed. Don't call us pathetic; you look like a donkey calling other people asses when that happens.

[Chalex]

Why is this so hard to understand? WHY?!?!

Lets make it simple.

XBOX 360 COMPONENTS- 20Gig HDD $1 dollar
- DVD drive $1 dollar
- Multi-Core processor $3 dollars
- Everything else $2 dollars

TOTAL X360 PRICE: $7 dollars

PS3 COMPONENT COSTS- 60Gig HDD $2 dollars
- New technology Cell processors - $2 dollars
- New technology Blu-Ray - $2 dollars
- More advanced Network/Wi-Fi/Blue tooth - $2 dollars
- 7 USB ports - $1 dollar
- Everything else - $2 dollars

TOTAL PS3 PRICE: $11 dollars

WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL? With the Sony you are getting more advanced technology, but you have to pay MORE for it. Why is it so hard for the SonyBonys to accept this?!?!Maybe if you used real numbers you wouldn't sounds like such a twit :confused:

[antoniogaud]

Your use of the word "SonyBonys" shows where your true intentions lay. You're about as objective as Major Nelson, so your ability to reason is a bit flawed. Don't call us pathetic; you look like a donkey calling other people asses when that happens.

Gee isnt that what YOU'RE doing? Gimme a break. I was being called moron and idiot buy everyone when I was just posting my opinion. Now when I use it back, I'm the one who gets called on it? HA!

CHALEX, if I used real numbers everyone would complain that they weren't accurate. But my pricing theory is sound. Someone should try to insert serious price estimates to see how they come out.

[Chalex]

I would say the same thing to XYZBoys who argued that the PS3 wasn't more technically advanced that the X360.
I'm pretty sure you did that at least 5 times in previous posts in regards to the RSX without providing anything resembling proof.

[thecrazyd]

Looks like this site has yet another retarded asshole troll.

[bapenguin]

Looks like this site has yet another retarded asshole troll.

Yeah it's getting a bit ridiculous lately. Maybe it's time for some more homoerotic art around here.

[antoniogaud]

Looks like this site has yet another retarded asshole troll.

Yeah, I'm the retarded asshole troll.

I get called names after I post my thoughts on why I think PS3 will fail. Instead of people rationally debating the points back (or just ignoring me), I get juvenile behavior in return.

Yet I'm the retarded asshole troll.

In lighthearted response, I dared call people Sonybonys and LOOKOUT! The ego alarms go off! A 5-alarm fire!!!

You guys amaze me. Although I guess you accomplished your goal. If you cant debate people just call them assholes and hope they go away.

[Zanzibar]

The PC drives "Recommended minimum requirements" are:

Minimum for the NEC HD DVD player and samsungs blu ray player:
Pentium 4 3.0 GHz (or Athlon 3000+) and a 128 mb videocard.
Samsungs recommends Geforce 7800 or a ATI radeon X1800 for speeding up decoding of h.264/AVC or VC1.

http://www.cdrlabs.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=153195&sid=44ecd6e51829ed0a64326e8d383c3a8a

Even without a standalone having to run an OS in the background like a PC does it's still a huge jump from a regular DVD player.

Excellent, that's a good find, thank you. But the Xbox 360 STILL could run it with one CPU tied behind its back and it costs $299.

[rein]

Yeah it's getting a bit ridiculous lately. Maybe it's time for some more homoerotic art around here.

That is the only reason I stick around. I imagine Kelegacy to look a lot like Mr. Banhammer. :p


I am so glad I missed yesterdays thread on this subject. One thread was enough.

I decided to only own one console this time around and I am most likely going with Sony. The reason is I played the PS2 much more than I did my Xbox. It simply had more games I like on it and I expect that trend to continue. I have a 360 right now but I will trade it in when the PS3 launch gets close, unless the PS3 is over $400 without a pack in title. I refuse to pay $500 for a console. I did it in the past with 3DO and Neo Geo. I do not want to do it anymore because if a system launches successfully at that price point we will see that price point as a minimum for the next generation.

[Kelegacy]

Yeah, I'm the retarded asshole troll.

I get called names after I post my thoughts on why I think PS3 will fail. Instead of people rationally debating the points back (or just ignoring me), I get juvenile behavior in return.

Yet I'm the retarded asshole troll.

In lighthearted response, I dared call people Sonybonys and LOOKOUT! The ego alarms go off! A 5-alarm fire!!!

You guys amaze me. Although I guess you accomplished your goal. If you cant debate people just call them assholes and hope they go away.
Don't take it too hard. This is Evil Avatar, and we're supposed to be "edgy". Just relax, take a breather, and go into another thread to talk about other stuff. We all have obvious affiliations here, mine being to Sony machines (I'm not a PS3 fanboy yet because that would just be moronic) but we are all human and respect one another...for the most part. When we all gather in a thread like GrinR's many Iraq War topics, we find that the Xbots or Nintendorks or Sonyboys can be our friends, too. Like Zanzibar. He's a huge Xbox fan, but when he pops into an anti-Bush thread and rips someone apart with a coherent post, I realize that hating one another for preference in consoles is, in a word, retarded.

Ah, look, there's one of GrinR's threads now, on the sidebar! Let's go join and meet some new friends/enemies! It's much more practical to hate one another for things other than videogames!

[Kelegacy]

That is the only reason I stick around. I imagine Kelegacy to look a lot like Mr. Banhammer. :p


WTF? I may be hot, but I'm not homo-hot. C'mon!

I get such a warped rep around here.... :confused:

[Romuluss]

Once again rational explanations are overlooked in the wake of emotional bitching.

Here it is once again,

The more I browse gaming forums the more im convinced 'gamer's' completely lack economic knowledge or common sense. This pricing issue is just yet another point where everyone gets inflamed with passion one way or the other.

For those of you still with something resembling logical thinking here's the bottom line. The PS3 will cost no more than $400 or 400 euros(europeans always gets screwed on the conversion). Yes standalone Blu-Ray players cost $999, they do not cost that much to manufacture. You pay out your ass for a Blu-Ray player for no other reason than because its new technology. The PS3 is going to be sold at an extreme loss for the amount of technology packed into it. This is padded out with software sales.

One of the most basic principles in economics- competition drives down prices. If here was no Xbox 360 then yes you very well could see a $500-$600 prices console, but thats not the case. Sony could tout Blu-Ray and Cell all they want not many people would pay 500 or more for such a device when a very similar product(ala X360) is sold for cheaper.

[antoniogaud]

Actually, I'm not especially offended, but thanks for the post, Kelegacy!

What confuses me though is why people are so upset when they pay more for a PS3 that is more advanced? I own a X360 and love it to death, but I can admit that the PS3 is technically more advanced in certain areas and definitely comes packed with more goods.

I don't expect Sony would give us these goods for free, and since they are substantially more than what the X360 offers, it would seem obvious that the PS3 would cost more, maybe even *MUCH* more.

If the Xbox 360 included 5 additional USB ports, bluetooth, 1000bit modem, a 60gig drive and Blue-Ray, it would cost at least $200 more than it does now.

That in a nutshell, is what I am having a hard time understanding...

[mister_slim]

Damage control? Don't you mean "Straightening out anyone stupid enough to think Sony would announce the PS3 price via a SCEE marketing guy on a French radio show?"

[antoniogaud]

I am quite certain many Sony representatives, both internal and external, know what the price range for the PS3 will be. Just because someone announces this range on a French radio broadcast doesn't make it illegitimate. The price range for the X360 was 'accidentally' announced months before Microsoft revealed it.

[Genital Eclipse]

Oh crap 12 pages of the same shit everyday. Everytime there's a news post about the 360, ps3, or revolution EA should just copy and paste all the comments made in the prior day's headline about the same shit.

That way we can all just sit back and eat our kong-sized whoppers without typing and still feel satisfied.

[Romuluss]

Oh crap 12 pages of the same shit everyday. Everytime there's a news post about the 360, ps3, or revolution EA should just copy and paste all the comments made in the prior day's headline about the same shit.

That way we can all just sit back and eat our kong-sized whoppers without typing and still feel satisfied.

Best post ive read all day.

[Wolfgang]

Microsoft's Minimum requirements for HD playback on a Windows PC:

Minimum Configuration
(to play 720p video)
Windows XP
Windows Media Player 9 Series
2.4 GHz processor or equivalent
384 MB of RAM
64 MB video card
1024 x 768 screen resolution
16-bit sound card
Speakers

Optimum Configuration
(to play 1080p video with 5.1 surround sound)
Windows XP
Windows Media Player 10
DirectX 9.0
3.0 GHz processor or equivalent
512 MB of RAM
128 MB video card
1920 x 1440 screen resolution
24-bit 96 kHz multichannel sound card
5.1 surround sound speaker system

Source: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/musicandvideo/hdvideo/contentshowcase.aspx

Sony's PS3 Graphic card power: There's no doubting that NVIDIA's new 7800GTX is the ultimate in PC graphics technology. The card's G70 GPU, which is more than twice as powerful as two of NVIDIA's previous top-of-the-line 6800 boards, shares a lot of similar workings with the PS3's RSX chip - only it isn't as fast. Oh, and it retails for $599.
source: http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/9132/PlayStation-3-GPU-More-Powerful-than-GeForce-7800/

ATI on 360 vs PS3 graphic card: source: http://www.gamersreports.com/news/708/

How do you think your work on the 360 measures up to PS3?

I take a fairly robust view on this. The Xbox 360 GPU is designed to be a console GPU - that's what we set out to produce when we started the collaboration with Microsoft; let's build a really powerful, really flexible kind of general purpose GPU which doesn't have performance cliffs where if you do certain things suddenly the performance crashes down by a factor of two or something like that; let's have things pretty predictable and easy to work with, and let's generate about the best performance that we can- so we went for things like the unified shaders and so on. The PS3 has been designed in a quite different way because of the way the process worked. We sat down with Microsoft and said: 'This is what we think we can build', and they said: 'Yes, but what about...?' And they started picking holes in our design, so we came up with a collaborative design. They didn't put a spec in front of us and say: 'How much for this?' That definitely wasn't the dialogue - in fact that would make it more of a monologue; it would be kind of bidding on prices and so on. Instead what we have is a very collaborative design.

With the PS3 my understanding of what happened is that they had three different internal hardware solutions - at one point, for example, as I understand it there was a proposal to use multiple Cell processors just to handle the graphics. And towards the end of the process, as the story goes, they took a look at the three internal tenders and decided than none of them would actually do; none of them would deliver the kind of performance and quality that games programmers could use and would make for a good cost-effective console, so they had to go out and shop around. And one of the places they shopped was Nvidia, and what Nvidia did was say: 'Well, you've got this relatively short timeframe, you've got roughly this kind of budget, I'll tell you what we'll do: we'll do you a good price on what is essentially the 7800GTX'. So that's a PC chip, and if you look at the architecture of the two consoles you can see we've done bizarre things that they haven't. We've built ten megabytes of dedicated ED RAM which knows how to antialias and so on, because that's a specific way of addressing a console's problem. It's bizarre in a PC sense but a special skill for a console builder. Whereas the PS3 has 256 meg of system memory and 256 meg of graphics memory it communicates through what is effectively a PCI express bus. It uses GDDR3 fast memory, it's essentially a PC graphics design bolted on to a Cell processor and 256 meg of fast system memory...

More on the PS3 graphic card: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=27463 (Nvidia cried foul on that story though)

Questions I would liked answered about the PS3 before I fly off the deep end and declare a winner:

1) How good is the BRD playback compared to a BRD player (do they lower the resolution, does HDMI and Component input matter, etc...)
2) How much will games cost?
3) How much are BR movies? (rumor up to $39 per movie. source: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060208-6136.html)
4) What exclusives do they have at or near launch?
5) How does their online system really work?
6) What do I really get with the system?
7) What resolution are games going to have to support (720p)?
8) Finally, how much will the system really cost?
9) What is out on the 360 at the time?
10) Revolution -- cost, games, etc...

[antoniogaud]

1) How good is the BRD playback compared to a BRD player?

I expect that the PS3 will not have all the features of the more expensive third-party BR licensee machines.

2) How much will games cost?

Indications suggest minumum $60-65+

3) How much are BR movies?

Indications suggest $30+

4) What exclusives do they have at or near launch?

Expect Gran Turismo, God of War, Devil May Cry and Ratchet and Clank to be regular exclusive releases after launch window.

5) How does their online system really work?

Sony has announced a feature list, but pricing (if any) is unknown. Word on the street is that Sony swiped some people from Xbox Live techs and community management people to get their online hub project up faster.

6) What do I really get with the system?

UNKNOWN. HDD details change with each report + some features may be removed from announced set to lower the baseline price (like the 7 USB ports and bluetooth compatibility)

7) What resolution are games going to have to support (720p)?

Almost assured MINIMUM 720p.

8) Finally, how much will the system really cost?

WELCOME TO THE GUESSING GAME! Personally I believe the PS3 will retail $499US for a non-movie playing version, and $599US for a movie playing version. They simply have too many entanglements between their Blue-Ray consortium to undercut them by too low a price. Without the consortium Blue-Ray is dead.

9) What is out on the 360 at the time?

There are various lists online, but will be 2nd generation of EA sports sims (Madden, Tiger Woods, NBA Live) plus Gears of War, Splinter Cell, etc... I expect that 80%+ of launch PS3 games will be cross platform.

[Wolfgang]

antoniogaud, my point was no one can really answer the questions I asked. All we have is what Sony has said or hasn't said. We don't know how well their online system will work, we don't know anything outside of specs (we assume are correct) and a release month. Outside of that we know nothing.

Edit: And since we know nothing -- all this debate is really a waste of time.

[antoniogaud]

You're right, but educated guessing is fun - and - at least one of us will prove to be right.

Hopefully.

[Wolfgang]

You're right, but educated guessing is fun - and - at least one of us will prove to be right.

Hopefully.

Yeah, the debate is fun -- but often people are stating their ideas as fact. We really have very few facts on the PS3 and Revolution.

I think debating who will win is fun -- but debating the merits of the unknown is sorta pointless.

[Chalex]

Excellent, that's a good find, thank you. But the Xbox 360 STILL could run it with one CPU tied behind its back and it costs $299.

Thats very true, but my point is that by all accounts the 360 is either being sold at an extremely small profit, at cost, or at a loss, which is something that the companies who make stand alone players are not intrested in.


THE FOLLOWING IS SPECULATION (PARTIALLY)

If we assume that the BD-ROM drive costs... let's say $200 (which I think is about right for a third party manufacturer) and they can stip out... $100 of superfluous tech. Then we can assume that a stand alone player costs roughly $400 to build. Add in the interface which needs to be built, licensing costs, R&D, etc. All added up this could easily be anywhere from $450 - $600 per box (depending on quality, number produced, where they are built...) Factor in the new tech premium (it's always been my experience that new tech sells for AT LEAST 2x cost) and that puts us in the $900 - $1200 per box retail range.

[antoniogaud]

I will definitely get both the Revolution and the PS3, but only the Rev this fall since I don't plan on finding a PS3 anywhere on the planet, at any price.

The interesting thing is that the Revolution is a complete wildcard going up against the PS3. When the DS first came out, I thought it was GAMEOVER for Nintendo. What a stupid gimmicky system they are matching up against the sleek, sexy PSP... WHAT FOOLS!

But the DS games were just too damned good, and the control mechanism was fun in an undescribably yet tangible way... the DS wasn't a gimmick, in fact, it was FREAKING GREAT!

Nintendo claims that the $200 Revolution will be just that, a needed revolution in the console gaming industry. If they are correct, then the PS3 will have serious trouble getting sales past the early-adopter launch window, as most Americans love gimmicks and the crazy controller may just make gamers fall in love again with the Big N just as the DS did.

Could happen.

[Chalex]

antoniogaud, my point was no one can really answer the questions I asked. That sounds like a challenge :D

[Wolfgang]

That sounds like a challenge :D

I guess it is and once I have those answers I will know if I should start looking forward to a PS3 or not :)

[Chalex]

Questions I would liked answered about the PS3 before I fly off the deep end and declare a winner:

1) How good is the BRD playback compared to a BRD player (do they lower the resolution, does HDMI and Component input matter, etc...)


This is all handled in SOFTWARE all the hardware will support "closing the analog hole"

Sony's decision to not use the Image Constraint Token for the time being is meant to encourage the adoption of Blu-ray players. Launching a new product that would leave the thousands of analog HDTV owners out in the standard-definition cold could have proven to be a nightmare for Sony and the Blu-ray spec in general. Reports that "Blu-ray discs don't look right on my HDTV" could result in consumers' switching allegiances to the competing HD DVD standard or postponing purchases of next-generation optical players altogether.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060314-6377.html

http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/160?PHPSESSID=b310903ba5eabf93774c7c1589c74e30

2) How much will games cost?


The same as games will cost for the 360, no company is stupid enough to price differntly then their competitor when you would be able to get 70% for your content from the other guy at a lower price (read: multiplatform)


3) How much are BR movies? (rumor up to $39 per movie. source: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060208-6136.html)


A catalog Blu-ray disc will run about $18, but new release DVDs will go for $23.45, wholesale.

We’re not sure what the average mark-up is on a conventional DVD, but it’s probably safe to expect the first run of Blu-ray titles to be in the $30 range.

http://us.gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-entertainment/sony-sets-bluray-pricing-153443.php


4) What exclusives do they have at or near launch?
5) How does their online system really work?
8) Finally, how much will the system really cost?


E3 is about a month away, let's not speculate (well maybe just the launch games)

Alot has been shown of lair and motorstorm (compaired to the nothing of everything else.)

Heavenly Sword was claimed to have been very far along before dev kits were even in the alpha stages, it was mostly a port and polish from the PCs it was being built on.

I would be shcoked if Resistance and Warhawk didn't both make launch being that they have been shown a few times and seem to be comming along nicely.

Then add in what ever garbage EA scrapes together and you should see something around high teens - mid twentys easy


6) What do I really get with the system?


http://ps3.ign.com/articles/614/614682p1.html

If you ment more than tech specs them:

1) A console
2) AV and power cables
3) A controller


7) What resolution are games going to have to support (720p)?


To the best of my understanding all games will support 480p/720p/1080i

1080p maybe if the dev can do it without a performance hit

If companies go forward with the "worldwide disc" method Phil H. talked about at GDC expect to see 540p too


9) What is out on the 360 at the time?
10) Revolution -- cost, games, etc...


These questions aren't actually about the PS3... regardless if you want to know what's going to be out on the 360 you could go here:

http://xbox360.ign.com/index/release.html

and if you want to know what will be on the Revolution, think about all your favorite Nintendo franchises, they are bound to be there.


NOTE: I understand why you put the Rev as reason #10, but honestly I don't think anyone (hardcore) will not buy one regardless of whats going on with the 360 or the PS3, and I don't think anyone would not get a 360/PS3 because they are getting a Rev. You would just be missing too much either way. #10 is a non-factor.

[Wasson_]

HEY....you guys reverse-engineer recovered alien technology and see if it doesn't cost an arm and a leg...

Blue-ray?!?....no Man could have came up with that.

[Chalex]

Blu-ray?!?....no Man could have came up with that.
Fixed. The alien alphabet only has 25 letters. E is not one of them.

[Wolfgang]

This is all handled in SOFTWARE all the hardware will support "closing the analog hole"

Sony's decision to not use the Image Constraint Token for the time being is meant to encourage the adoption of Blu-ray players. Launching a new product that would leave the thousands of analog HDTV owners out in the standard-definition cold could have proven to be a nightmare for Sony and the Blu-ray spec in general. Reports that "Blu-ray discs don't look right on my HDTV" could result in consumers' switching allegiances to the competing HD DVD standard or postponing purchases of next-generation optical players altogether.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060314-6377.html

http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/160?PHPSESSID=b310903ba5eabf93774c7c1589c74e30

I understand how Blu-Ray players will work, but I meant will the PS3 be gimped compared to standalone ones and in which ways?



The same as games will cost for the 360, no company is stupid enough to price differntly then their competitor when you would be able to get 70% for your content from the other guy at a lower price (read: multiplatform)


Assumed, again we do not know for sure.


A catalog Blu-ray disc will run about $18, but new release DVDs will go for $23.45, wholesale.

We’re not sure what the average mark-up is on a conventional DVD, but it’s probably safe to expect the first run of Blu-ray titles to be in the $30 range.

http://us.gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-entertainment/sony-sets-bluray-pricing-153443.php

Yes, that is what my article said too. Again, we don't really know until they are on the market and what will their prices be when the PS3 hits. Doesn't really matter what BR movies cost this summer -- I am not going to stock up while I wait for my PS3.


E3 is about a month away, let's not speculate (well maybe just the launch games)

Alot has been shown of lair and motorstorm (compaired to the nothing of everything else.)

Heavenly Sword was claimed to have been very far along before dev kits were even in the alpha stages, it was mostly a port and polish from the PCs it was being built on.

I would be shcoked if Resistance and Warhawk didn't both make launch being that they have been shown a few times and seem to be comming along nicely.

Then add in what ever garbage EA scrapes together and you should see something around high teens - mid twentys easy

Even the 360 had E3 games that *looked* better than they really ended up being. We know this will be the same for the PS3. E3 will hopefully have several playable demos -- but demos, etc... can be missing things to speed up performance, etc... E3 is a marketing show and everyone sorta dresses everything up.

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/614/614682p1.html

If you ment more than tech specs them:

1) A console
2) AV and power cables
3) A controller

I was asking what do I get when I walk into the store. What is built into the console? What are the HDMI outputs going to require of my TV? HDMI 1.1, 1.3, etc...? Also the PS3 tech specs I suppose are final -- but the devs do not have dev kits, etc... things can still change until they start pumping them out.


To the best of my understanding all games will support 480p/720p/1080i

1080p maybe if the dev can do it without a performance hit

If companies go forward with the "worldwide disc" method Phil H. talked about at GDC expect to see 540p too

Again, Microsoft stated all 360 games must support 720p. Is Sony going to require this (we assume yes), etc...


These questions aren't actually about the PS3... regardless if you want to know what's going to be out on the 360 you could go here:

http://xbox360.ign.com/index/release.html

and if you want to know what will be on the Revolution, think about all your favorite Nintendo franchises, they are bound to be there.

What the 360 has out directly affects how I would feel about the PS3. If the 360 has 10 must have games (and I don't go by release lists, they are never accurate, there are also probably games at E3 that will be out this fall) -- then 360 > PS3 in my eyes for the fall. Also if I went by release lists the PS3 would be out in Japan right now -- Zing :)


NOTE: I understand why you put the Rev as reason #10, but honestly I don't think anyone (hardcore) will not buy one regardless of whats going on with the 360 or the PS3, and I don't think anyone would not get a 360/PS3 because they are getting a Rev. You would just be missing too much either way. #10 is a non-factor.

I consider myself pretty hardcore and I have no intention at this time in buying a Revolution. I bought a Gamecube and only played Super Smash brothers on it. I feel like I wasted money on my Gamecube. I had a PS2, Xbox and Cube all on launch days. I ended up enjoying my Xbox the most due to Live! and playing my cube rarely.

Revolution sounds appealing with all the old 16bit games -- but I have no idea how they will work. What will they be stored on? Are they streamed? Do I have to redownload them each time I want to play them (most 16bit games being around 2MB or less)?

[Genital Eclipse]

OH hell yes you guys got it to 13 pages. All is clear now to us. The lord above thanks you for your insights.

[mister_slim]

Wolfgang, those game prices are set by the publishers. Have you noticed that 90% of Sony's first-party releases are $40? EA's games will cost the same, as will those from Activision and Ubisoft. Sony will probably move up to $50, though they might take the hit for the good of the platform and keep the non-AAA stuff at $40.

[Wolfgang]

Wolfgang, those game prices are set by the publishers. Have you noticed that 90% of Sony's first-party releases are $40? EA's games will cost the same, as will those from Activision and Ubisoft. Sony will probably move up to $50, though they might take the hit for the good of the platform and keep the non-AAA stuff at $40.

... Sony has not announced anything. I think everyone knows how game pricing works. Maybe the PS3 will cost 500, but the games 50. We all know publishers can sell games for whatever price they want, but Sony will make a suggested retail price.

Edit: As I said earlier -- everyone is bitching about the unknown. Everyone is stating what they know from the past or from rumors as Fact.

[mister_slim]

... Sony has not announced anything. I think everyone knows how game pricing works. Maybe the PS3 will cost 500, but the games 50. We all know publishers can sell games for whatever price they want, but Sony will make a suggested retail price.
If you know how game pricing works, why are you pretending Sony has any impact on how EA prices their games? Do you think Nintendo is 'suggesting' DS games should cost $40? No, that's EA.

[Wolfgang]

If you know how game pricing works, why are you pretending Sony has any impact on how EA prices their games? Do you think Nintendo is 'suggesting' DS games should cost $40? No, that's EA.

Sony does have an impact on games. If Sony says "hey, we are selling our own titles at $60", then clearly it is ok for 3rd parties to also. If Sony says they are selling at $40 and EA does $60, then people will want to know why.

So yes, Sony does have an impact on game pricing. Do they control it? No. That is why I can buy a game at Best Buy for 44.99 or the same title at Gamestop for 49.99 -- but Sony can RECOMMEND the suggested price.

You can not really compare a cartridge to a DVD. Cartridges are more expensive and games from EA might use more memory (I have no idea) or EA just wants more money. The bottom line is -- yes all console makers usually state "our games will range from X dollars to Y dollars."

[mister_slim]

So yes, Sony does have an impact on game pricing. Do they control it? No. That is why I can buy a game at Best Buy for 44.99 or the same title at Gamestop for 49.99 -- but Sony can RECOMMEND the suggested price.

You can not really compare a cartridge to a DVD. Cartridges are more expensive and games from EA might use more memory (I have no idea) or EA just wants more money. The bottom line is -- yes all console makers usually state "our games will range from X dollars to Y dollars."
Those MSRPs are set by the publisher as well. Considering PS2 games have ranged from $15 to $80 and Xbox games from $10 to $200, I don't see what influence Sony has. The pricing is entirely set by the publisher. Sony's only real influence is through the licensing fee.

[Wolfgang]

Those MSRPs are set by the publisher as well. Considering PS2 games have ranged from $15 to $80 and Xbox games from $10 to $200, I don't see what influence Sony has. The pricing is entirely set by the publisher. Sony's only real influence is through the licensing fee.

As I stated the publisher can make the pricing whatever they wish. Hell they could give the damn game away. But I guess you have missed in almost every gaming system guide in the past decade that would show the average gaming price.

Yes, Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo make suggested prices -- how many 59.99 titles would be on the 360 if MS did all their titles at 39.99 or 49.99 -- 59.99 would not be the norm.

Looking at the game market it is damn obvious that the game makers do not go to EA and say "sell Madden at 49.99". EA is free to sell madden for $1 or $1000 dollars, but Sony and Microsoft do issue suggestions on what they think the average PS2/PS3/360/etc... games will cost.

EDIT: I know the MSRP for say Madden is set by EA... No shit. EA owns it, how can Sony set the MSRP... but Sony does suggest that hey on the PS2 EA unless there is something amazing with this Madden you should sell it for 39.99 to 49.99 probably.

[mister_slim]

Yes, Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo make suggested prices -- how many 59.99 titles would be on the 360 if MS did all their titles at 39.99 or 49.99 -- 59.99 would not be the norm.
MS does have their games MSRPed at 49.99.

Looking at the game market it is damn obvious that the game makers do not go to EA and say "sell Madden at 49.99". EA is free to sell madden for $1 or $1000 dollars, but Sony and Microsoft do issue suggestions on what they think the average PS2/PS3/360/etc... games will cost.
And they have absolutely no effect on the pricing. 2K Games has had more effect on EA's pricing the last couple of years than MS or Sony. Sony has no way to dictate to EA or Activision a pricing of $65 or $50.

[Wolfgang]

MS does have their games MSRPed at 49.99.

And they have absolutely no effect on the pricing. 2K Games has had more effect on EA's pricing the last couple of years than MS or Sony. Sony has no way to dictate to EA or Activision a pricing of $65 or $50.

Well I guess that is why system games usually fall in line. Hell, I mean when Sony gives a Press Release and says the average game well fall between 29.99 and 49.99 they are just talking out of their ass. I guess Sony and others never maybe suggested to their Partners that hey guys -- unless it comes with something extra, is a collectors edition, etc... maybe it should be priced within these ranges.

Again, no shit that they don't have to listen, but I don't think Sony would be to happy if every EA PS3 games came out at $150 and was on the 360 for 59.99.

They are partners. It isn't like EA just puts crap out on the PS3 -- they all work together -- the market, marketing, product needs, corporate needs all feed into the equation.

Again, apparently you can't understand that or don't want to that the PS3 will have an average window of pricing and that is what I asked. I didn't ask what Madden 2010 collectors edition would cost -- I asked what the average PS3 game prices would be. Just like huh... the average 360 game price is currently 59.99. And is the average 360 game 59.99 because MS looks at GRAW and says "that is worth 59.99" and then the other "that is worth 39.99". No MS has nothing to do with the pricing of each title -- but clearly there is more than the market at work on pricing of games.

[mister_slim]

No MS has nothing to do with the pricing of each title -- but clearly there is more than the market at work on pricing of games.
And if you'd been paying attention to the PR for the last couple of years you'd know that Activision and EA have been pushing the price increase, regardless of MS's position.

[Wolfgang]

And if you'd been paying attention to the PR for the last couple of years you'd know that Activision and EA have been pushing the price increase, regardless of MS's position.

ugh... I guess that is why every 360 title is 59.99. Cause of Activision which barely staying around and EA.

[RandomViolence]

ugh... I guess that is why every 360 title is 59.99. Cause of Activision which barely staying around and EA.

Christ! You are DENSE!

[Wolfgang]

Christ! You are DENSE!

No you people don't seem to understand that the games on a system have a sorta agreed up price. Why the fuck do think games prices on system fall within certain limits -- it is not just the market.

But you guys are the same assholes that know what is coming out for the Revolution, PS3, etc... and how awesome it will all be. Really you don't know shit.

NO WHERE DID I SAY SONY OR MICROSOFT SET THE PRICES OF GAMES. And I am the dense one? Learn2read you people.

Edit: I have repeated now... When people buy a "Buyers Guide" for the consoles this coming christmas. One of the boxes will say what the average price of games are. That is what I fucking asked -- What would the average PS3 game cost -- and yes Sony and Microsoft talk to developers about it. You think MS put out PGR3 for 59.99 and everyone else was doing 49.99 like usual and then they were like "oh fuck, we could get $10 more like MS, shit, lets jump on that".. no clearly the pricing structure was discussed before the system was released. Infact I believe there were Press Releases stating that 360 games would come out on average at 59.99.

[RandomViolence]

No you people don't seem to understand that the games on a system have a sorta agreed up price. Why the fuck do think games prices on system fall within certain limits -- it is not just the market.

But you guys are the same assholes that know what is coming out for the Revolution, PS3, etc... and how awesome it will all be. Really you don't know shit.

NO WHERE DID I SAY SONY OR MICROSOFT SET THE PRICES OF GAMES. And I am the dense one? Learn2read you people.

Edit: I have repeated now... When people buy a "Buyers Guide" for the consoles this coming christmas. One of the boxes will say what the average price of games are. That is what I fucking asked -- What would the average PS3 game cost -- and yes Sony and Microsoft talk to developers about it. You think MS put out PGR3 for 59.99 and everyone else was doing 49.99 like usual and then they were like "oh fuck, we could get $10 more like MS, shit, lets jump on that".. no clearly the pricing structure was discussed before the system was released. Infact I believe there were Press Releases stating that 360 games would come out on average at 59.99.

So... you ranted for all this time to ask if "there's a normal price for games in the next gen"?

[Wolfgang]

So... you ranted for all this time to ask if "there's a normal price for games in the next gen"?

No I have repeated that statement about 5 times now. Once to you and that other guy several times. Yeah I ranted cause apparently there is no normal price. Apparently the developers release each game independent of prices and evaluate each title.

Edit: I had made a list of questions about the PS3 -- questions I would liked answered before I got hot and bothered about it. One of them was -- what would be the average price of games for the system.

To which MisterSlim tried to tell me there was no average price, each publisher would create their own price.

[RandomViolence]

No I have repeated that statement about 5 times now. Once to you and that other guy several times. Yeah I ranted cause apparently there is no normal price. Apparently the developers release each game independent of prices and evaluate each title.

Hey, CHILL OUT, I'm asking to try and further the conversation. I can't understand which parts of your statement are sarcasm and which aren't any more. I would expect the average game's price to be $60, as that is the trend today for current-gen consoles from third-party publishers. First-party who knows, though Microsoft is keeping theirs at $49.99.

[fitbabits]

Holy... I think my brain just boaked at this whole thread!

Look, the PS3 is fucked before it even launches. Anyone denying that has some serious issues of the fanboy variety! :rolleyes:

[Wolfgang]

Hey, CHILL OUT, I'm asking to try and further the conversation. I can't understand which parts of your statement are sarcasm and which aren't any more. I would expect the average game's price to be $60, as that is the trend today for current-gen consoles from third-party publishers. First-party who knows, though Microsoft is keeping theirs at $49.99.

Sorry for "yelling" at ya, but it is frustrating having MisterSlim basically debate a pointless point.

I asked at first a series of questions that CAN NOT be answered yet about the PS3. Of course people tried to answer them. Misterslim then tried to inform me there was no "average" price, publishers set the prices. Which I tried to explain "Yes I know Sony does not set the price", but clearly there is an agreed upon price for the games -- hence why Oblivion and The Outfit cost the same.

Anyway, the point of my questions was to try and say -- there is no reason to say the PS3 will own or it will fail -- we simply do not have enough information about the PS3.

[RandomViolence]

Sorry for "yelling" at ya, but it is frustrating having MisterSlim basically debate a pointless point.

I asked at first a series of questions that CAN NOT be answered yet about the PS3. Of course people tried to answer them. Misterslim then tried to inform me there was no "average" price, publishers set the prices. Which I tried to explain "Yes I know Sony does not set the price", but clearly there is an agreed upon price for the games -- hence why Oblivion and The Outfit cost the same.

Anyway, the point of my questions was to try and say -- there is no reason to say the PS3 will own or it will fail -- we simply do not have enough information about the PS3.

Now we agree, bravo Wolfgang :).

[Wolfgang]

Now we agree, bravo Wolfgang :).

That was my stance the entire time -- I guess we always agreed.

Here is what I posted that started the whole thing with Slim


Questions I would liked answered about the PS3 before I fly off the deep end and declare a winner:

1) How good is the BRD playback compared to a BRD player (do they lower the resolution, does HDMI and Component input matter, etc...)
2) How much will games cost?
3) How much are BR movies? (rumor up to $39 per movie. source: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060208-6136.html)
4) What exclusives do they have at or near launch?
5) How does their online system really work?
6) What do I really get with the system?
7) What resolution are games going to have to support (720p)?
8) Finally, how much will the system really cost?
9) What is out on the 360 at the time?
10) Revolution -- cost, games, etc...

The whole point of that post was to show that there are so many questions left -- we don't know enough to make a choice -- so I was just trying to show that there is no reason to scream about a system when we don't even have half the facts.

Instead I get people trying to answer the questions with speculation and then Slim trying to explain to me how game pricing works. I guess he assumed that I was under the impression that MSFT or Sony set the prices... No, I and I think everyone here realizes EA decides if Madden 2006 will be 59.99, 49.99, 39.99, etc...

My point with question #2 was -- if somoene came up to me and said "hey how much are 360 games?" I would say, "They are usually around $59.99". Now we have no idea what most PS3 game prices will be -- we can assume 59.99 -- but maybe PS3 games will retail for 49.99 for some odd reason or because of BRD costs they could be 69.99 a game -- the point is we don't know.

Edit: I was trying to show that so many people here state what they "think" as a fact. We have people debating "facts" that aren't facts at all. Until the PS3 is actually released there will be a lot of questions left unanswered.

[mister_slim]

ugh... I guess that is why every 360 title is 59.99. Cause of Activision which barely staying around and EA.
This is silly. Don't blame me if you can't do your own research. Activision is the #2 third-party publisher, by the way. And Bobby Kotick and Larry Probst were making the point in interviews in 2003 that the prices for next-gen games would have to go up.

[Wolfgang]

This is silly. Don't blame me if you can't do your own research. Activision is the #2 third-party publisher, by the way. And Bobby Kotick and Larry Probst were making the point in interviews in 2003 that the prices for next-gen games would have to go up.

Apparently you can not grasp that systems have an average ceiling. Hence why games like Oblivion, GRAW and The Outfit all cost the same. Even though they don't not offer the same value.

Now apparently you can not understand that if someone came up to me and asked "what is the average 360 game price" I can tell them. According to you I can not. That is what I asked -- would the average PS3 game be 49.99, 59.99, or 69.99. Everyone in the right mind knows Sony does not tell EA how to price games... For the love of god...

Clearly there is a price point they agree on however and it is not all market conditions.

Edit: I never asked how game prices were set.

I didn't say Activision was not a large publisher, but clearly their house is not in order. Threats from Nasdaq and properities are not living up to hopes.
http://moneycentral.msn.com/stock_quote?ipage=lqd&Symbol=US%3AATVI

Also, yes everyone knows that game publishers want more money and some even need/deserve more money. Hell the new Rainbow 6: Vegas has 140 people working on it.

THAT ALL HAD 0 TO DO WITH MY QUESTION. My question was -- what would be the average PS3 game cost? Not how are prices made, who makes the prices, etc...

The PS3 prices will probably increase to match the 360 -- but the disc is also a BRD and 59.99 might not be a big enough increase for some publishers -- so what will be the average price of PS3 games? We do not know yet.