Defending the PS3

[falcon]

GamingNexus has a three page editorial (http://www.gamingnexus.com/Default.aspx?Section=Article&I=1110) up today trying to explain some of the decisions behind the PS3. The article covers the price, the motion sensing controllers as well as the online service.

As GamingNexus' resident Microsoft apologist/fanboy it is a bit odd for me to write an article defending Sony. If anything you would expect someone like me to pile on, heaping scoopful after scoopful of fanboy diatribe and scorn on Sony. But that would be the easy way out, that would be the path of least resistance, that's what IGN would do. Instead of writing yet another "PS3 g0t pwn3d by Nintendo and Micro$oft" article I decided to try and see the world from Sony's perspective.

[Kamalot]

I'm not sure why the expectations for a cheaper console came from as Sony has been saying since last year that the thing was not going to be cheap.
The expectation came from what the market has shown will be successful in the past. Never before has a $599 console been a dominant force in the console space.

[51|RandoM]

Somebody really needs to do one of these with the Stephen Colbert approach.

[Kamalot]

Unlike Microsoft, Sony does not completely write off development/production of a console after the next version comes out. The fact that Sony has just recently stopped production of the PSOne gives you some idea of how long Sony keeps cranking out their platforms.
How many gamers were still buying games for theis PS1?

The life of the machine is only as long as gamers are still buying games for it, not the duration of time that it is being manufactured. The PS1 died when the PS2 was released. Anyone justifying the cost of the PS1 for the past 6 years is fooling themself.

Likewise, how many people's PS1s still function a full 10 years later?

[ChunderMan]

The PS1 died when the PS2 was released.
Uh, not true. Final Fantasy IX was just one of the million sellers that came out for the PS1 after the PS2 came out.

[ruceree88]

Its one of the reasons why this “next generation” of console releases seems forced. Hell I am still looking forward to a few ps2 and gamecube games this year and into next…God of war 2 comes to mind….
In the past I don’t recall ever buying anymore games for the old systems once the new ones came out. This doesn’t seem to be the case this generation. What’s even more telling is that with all the hoopla about X360 live the number one game is still Halo2.

[Kamalot]

This means that when all of the good movies start hitting shelves you’ll be able to watch them on your $600 PS3 instead of watching them on your $1000 Blu-ray DVD player. The extra capacity on the discs should also provide developers with the ability to place even higher quality textures and movies on the discs. This means that we’ll get better quality graphics without have to swap discs in and out. When all the good movies start hitting shelves, I'll be able to buy them for much cheaper on DVD and watch them on my upscaling DVD player. No movie format is forth $35 a disc and no movie format is worth $600-$1000 for a player.

He mentions that the higher capacity SHOULD allow developers to put higher quality textures and movies on the disc. Should? Is it undecided at this point? Larger texture files take longer to load. Movies aren't things you can play, as such they aren't necessary to gaming.

Where are the monumental benefits Bluray gives? The biggest benefits offered by Bluray are sitting in Sony's pockets. Sony benefits by selling you the movies you already own in a marginally better format and charging you more money each time.

[Kamalot]

Uh, not true. Final Fantasy IX was just one of the million sellers that came out for the PS1 after the PS2 came out.How many new development projects were started for the PS1 after the PS2 was released? You know damn well that each Final Fantasy game takes YEARS to make. There was no way that Final Fantasy IX could have been released on PS2 because at the time of the project's inception, PS2 was nothing buy paper specs.

The point of the article is that you can spread out the cost of the console as long as the company keeps manufacturing it. That is simply not true. Nintendo recently ceased overseas production of Super Nintendo. Does that mean I can divide the cost of my Super Nintendo over the number of years that Nintendo produced it?

No

So it may be more accurate to say the PS1 stopped eating when the PS2 was released but died over the next year from starvation.

[Siraris]

When all the good movies start hitting shelves, I'll be able to buy them for much cheaper on DVD and watch them on my upscaling DVD player. No movie format is forth $35 a disc and no movie format is worth $600-$1000 for a player.

He mentions that the higher capacity SHOULD allow developers to put higher quality textures and movies on the disc. Should? Is it undecided at this point? Larger texture files take longer to load. Movies aren't things you can play, as such they aren't necessary to gaming.

Where are the monumental benefits Bluray gives? The biggest benefits offered by Bluray are sitting in Sony's pockets. Sony benefits by selling you the movies you already own in a marginally better format and charging you more money each time.

Dude, your blind hatred of Sony gets really old really fast. You don't even look at things objectively, you just continue to spew rhetoric. I don't know how you expect to be taken seriously.

[Kamalot]

You don't even look at things objectively, you just continue to spew rhetoric. I don't know how you expect to be taken seriously.This is the most ironic post I've ever read.

[Kamalot]

It’s also been noticed that Sony’s controller will lack force feedback and while it sucks, it shouldn’t be that much of a surprise given the new motion technology and Sony’s inability to come to an agreement with Immersion Solutions. That said it’s a shame that the two companies couldn’t come to some agreement as it does hurt both companies and gamers in the long run.So Sony's arrogance sucks for gamers?

[Kamalot]

I’m also a bit mystified that people are considering that Sony’s online service is a copy of Microsoft’s Xbox Online.
This shouldn't come as any shock. Sony basically pointed to Live and said, "That's what we're gonna make." Why anyone would be mystified about calling Sony's service a Live copy is befuddling.

[Achilles]

So $600 over the six year lifetime of the device and that’s only $100 or so a year. Divide that by the number of hours you play it a year and the cost really isn’t that high.And if you take $600 and divide it by the distance from Earth to the Moon it suddenly becomes inconsequential. That's like .001 cents per mile; a total bargain.What’s different and possibly better about the PS3 solution is that you get the benefit of the new control scheme but also compatibility with the last two generations of Playstation games… Your games are going to play exactly the same...Except the last two generations could have vibration.

I get that the guy was trying to write the other side of the argument but those two quotes were amusing. I agree with some of the stuff he's saying about using Sony's media library. But right now Sony is putting music videos up on Marketplace with an exclusive contract, so I doubt it'll be a cohsive strategy.

[Mike Jones]

How many gamers were still buying games for theis PS1?

The life of the machine is only as long as gamers are still buying games for it, not the duration of time that it is being manufactured. The PS1 died when the PS2 was released. Anyone justifying the cost of the PS1 for the past 6 years is fooling themself.

Likewise, how many people's PS1s still function a full 10 years later?

It died when PS2 came out?

http://news.com.com/Old+PlayStation+tops+holiday+game+console+sales/2100-1040_3-249457.html

As expected, Sony has the top-selling game console at the start of the holiday shopping season. But it is the PSone, a repackaged version of the 5-year-old original PlayStation, that is topping sales charts, not the new and impossible-to-buy PlayStation 2.

Market researcher PC Data reported Tuesday that the PSone was the top-selling game player for the week ended Nov. 25, capturing 42 percent of the market and claiming the top spot for the third consecutive week.

The PlayStation 2 accounted for just 6 percent of the market, as supplies all but dried up. Sega's Dreamcast and the Nintendo 64 came in second and third with 27 percent and 26 percent market share, respectively.

Sony released the PSone, a repackaged version of the original PlayStation, three months ago to the befuddlement of some analysts. It is unusual for a game console maker to promote an old format after it introduces a new one, and Sony's efforts to position the PSone as a somewhat-portable device were muddled.

But the PSone has enjoyed an unexpected advantage over the PS2: You can buy one.

Component shortages led Sony to cut in half the initial shipments when it introduced the PS2 in North America in October. The company has yet to ramp up production to expected levels, leading to frenzied competition for the few units available through stores and online auctions.

With its $99 price tag--compared with $299 for the PS2--the PSone looks like a good deal for parents ready to outfit their kids with their first game player, said Matt Gravett, game analyst for PC Data.

"I don't think the masses of people buying a PSone are necessarily the ones who went out looking for a PlayStation 2," he said. "I think some parents thought they could get the PS2 for their kids. Now they see they can't, and the PSone looks like a pretty good deal."

Sony's supply problems may also be helping Sega. The company experienced the biggest holiday boost, with Dreamcast sales jumping 104 percent the week of Nov. 19, compared with the previous week, PC Data reported. Nintendo 64 sales jumped 76 percent. PSone sales climbed 58 percent, while PlayStation 2 sales declined 71 percent because of the supply crunch.

"Dreamcast sales have been on the rise since they dropped the price back (to $150) in September," Gravett said. "They had a great week. Almost everyone did, except for PS2."

[fitbabits]

Kamalot,

I must ask - just how much are Microsoft paying you because it must be a whole lot more than they're paying me! ;)

[ruceree88]

The thing about blue ray is it is pointless without HDMI, considering how they keep bleating on about 1080P. I don’t get the point of releasing a version with no HDMI, yet still has the blue ray player. Since it will be down sampled anyway what’s the use? And only a one hundred dollar difference? Is it any wonder Sony is taking a lot of flack?

[GunnyMo]

While it was a well written editorial he really didn't "explain" anything. He barely touched on the statements made by Kutarai and Kazai, didn't comment on the very real possibility of Blu-Ray failing or that the tilt controller is a gimmick with little real game applications besides turning your avatar.

I applaud his effort but it really didn't bring anything new to the table.

[Kamalot]

We all know that Spiderman 3 is going to be one of the biggest movies of the year in 2007, what if Sony released a few PS3 only trailers?
Why would gamers need Spiderman 3 exclusive trailers? Maybe the movie studios need to put out trailers, but how does that help gamers? Sure, it is something extra, but does it make my games better, more immersive, more fun or cheaper? No? Then it is a pointless distraction, designed to get you to put your money into movie tickets and not into gaming.

What if the Blu-ray version of the movie included some playable content or some mini-games that you could only play on a PS3?
Why wouldn’t they be downloadable? Oh, right…so you can buy a Bluray movie.

We could also see Sony releasing songs and music videos in advance on their service which would give them a huge boost on Microsoft and Nintendo who have to go to third party companies to get content like that. Sony could also release a music service that would allow you to purchase and play songs on both your PSP and your PS3.
So, Sony may decide to take on iTunes using the PS3? Not content to fight a war on the videogame front, they also want to take on Apple’s iTunes and Microsoft at the same time? Would YOU buy a song that can only be played on the PS3 or the PSP? Talk about a dead-end street.

I don’t know about anyone else on Evil Avatar, but I’m a gamer. For me, it is about the games, not how many non-gaming things can be done on my game system. If the damn thing plays DVDs or makes coffee, cool; but I ain’t paying any extra for it.

I hope my rebuttal to some of the article’s more baseless points provides enough fodder for the fanboys to munch on the rest of the night.

[Kamalot]

Kamalot,

I must ask - just how much are Microsoft paying you because it must be a whole lot more than they're paying me! ;)
They pay me in blow-jobs. Tonight, Bill's gonna need new knee-pads.

[fitbabits]

They pay me in blow-jobs. Tonight, Bill's gonna need new knee-pads.
Damn, that's where I'm going wrong.

[GrinR]

That article was exactly as crap as I expected it to be.

[RMan]

And if you take $600 and divide it by the distance from Earth to the Moon it suddenly becomes inconsequential. That's like .001 cents per mile; a total bargain.Except the last two generations could have vibration.
I think you totally missed, or are ignoring the point. If you buy the $600 system, and they do their typical 6 year lifespan, the cost is $100 a year. If you buy a $400 360, and they release their next system in 4 years like this one, you pay $100 a year. Objectively, the price of the product is more expensive, but because of the longevity, the overall cost is the same. It's a reasonable thing to make people think about, again, if you're not a fanboy.

Except the last two generations could have vibration.
I get that the guy was trying to write the other side of the argument but those two quotes were amusing.
In context of what he was talking about (comparing to the Nintendo controller), the rumble wasn’t a factor. If you read the text before your quotes they start to make more sense, and may be less amusing :).

[KennyL]

When all the good movies start hitting shelves, I'll be able to buy them for much cheaper on DVD and watch them on my upscaling DVD player. No movie format is forth $35 a disc and no movie format is worth $600-$1000 for a player.

You can get bluray movies for $20 at amazon. Fry's had them for $15 last week.

[Achilles]

I think you totally missed, or are ignoring the point. If you buy the $600 system, and they do their typical 6 year lifespan, the cost is $100 a year. If you buy a $400 360, and they release their next system in 4 years like this one, you pay $100 a year. Objectively, the price of the product is more expensive, but because of the longevity, the overall cost is the same. It's a reasonable thing to make people think about, again, if you're not a fanboy.

In context of what he was talking about (comparing to the Nintendo controller), the rumble wasn’t a factor. If you read the text before your quotes they start to make more sense, and may be less amusing :).I read the whole thing, don't worry. When the guy gets into the absurd territory of dividing the cost of a console by the hours played, movies watched, music listened to, etc. to try to make it seem like a reasonable price, I'm going to use an outlandish example to make fun of him.

For the comparison to the Nintendo controller, he was saying how it has the benefit of the new control scheme, which it doesn’t, it only has some features of the Wii controller. While keeping the old layout which allows you to play all of your old games and allows them to play exactly the same, which any game with vibration won’t.

[RMan]

Maybe the movie studios need to put out trailers, but how does that help gamers?
FYI, most gamers are also people, at the same time even. People like movies, and most of these freaky gamer/people combos think about product purchases more than one dimensionally. Just something to keep in mind (we can always hope, right?).
Then it is a pointless distraction, designed to get you to put your money into movie tickets and not into gaming.
Pointless distraction=entertainment, and I suppose it’s evil for money to go to movies since MS doesn’t have a bunch of movies to sell us?
Would YOU buy a song that can only be played on the PS3 or the PSP? Talk about a dead-end street.
So MS purchased songs will be playable on non-MS sanctioned devices? Link please. They’re all dead end streets, that’s the nature of service based media distribution.
For me, it is about the games, not how many non-gaming things can be done on my game system.
Yet I’m sure we’ll get positive feedback from you on the HD-DVD 360 add-on (hehe, this is a fun one, either I’m right, or I don’t have to hear your rhetoric in HD-DVD threads, win/win).
I hope my rebuttal to some of the article’s more baseless points provides enough fodder for the fanboys to munch on the rest of the night.
Hehe, too much, getting too easy.

[Kamalot]

I wonder...

If Wii has a web browser, can I divide the cost by the time I spend surfing EvilAvatar on my TV?

[Siraris]

I read the whole thing, don't worry. When the guy gets into the absurd territory of dividing the cost of a console by the hours played, movies watched, music listened to, etc. to try to make it seem like a reasonable price, I'm going to use an outlandish example to make fun of him.

For the comparison to the Nintendo controller, he was saying how it has the benefit of the new control scheme, which it doesn’t, it only has some features of the Wii controller. While keeping the old layout which allows you to play all of your old games and allows them to play exactly the same, which any game with vibration won’t.

So how do you make your decisions about buying something? I know I think it out and decide how often I'll use it, what I will get out of it, what it has to offer over other products, amonghst other things. I think that breaking down any product that way is a good idea. If you are buying a console, do you just look at it and say "OH THATS A PERTY BOX I'LL TAKE 1"? I would hope not. If you don't agree with how he breaks down the price of the console, then either disagree and move on or come up with a reasonable other way to rationalize the price. Saying that you can divide the price of the PS3 by the distance from the earth to the sun just makes you seem like a troll.

As for the vibration scheme, I don't think this can be argued at all anymore because no one will agree. I was playing Ace Combat 5 this weekend, and the game has rumble, but it serves no purpose whatsoever. If I'm being shot, I know I'm being shot, I can tell by my damage % going up, or my screen flashing bright red, I don't need my controller to rumble. The only feedback that I've ever appreciated in a game is the logitech force feedback wheel and GT4. Racing games should not be played without a force feedback wheel, because you are not getting the tactile feedback you need from a controller with rumble. But that's another story.

[Kamalot]

Pointless distraction=entertainment, and I suppose it’s evil for money to go to movies since MS doesn’t have a bunch of movies to sell us?Pointless distraction <> gaming. Gaming is what I am about, a gamer at heart. If I want to watch TV or movies I have dedicated devices for that. If you want your DVD player in your TV, go right ahead. When one breaks, you have to replace both. If you want your movie player in your game system, ro right ahead. When one breaks, you have to replace both.

So MS purchased songs will be playable on non-MS sanctioned devices?That's the difference. There are already a TON of players (http://www.playsforsure.com/AdvancedSearchResults.aspx?searchtype=BrowseDevice s&cat=CapacityPanel&index=0) that are MS sanctioned. With Apple, you are stuck with their iPod brand. With Sony...are you going to carry around a PSP?

Yet I’m sure we’ll get positive feedback from you on the HD-DVD 360 add-onPlease read my sig...

[ChunderMan]

Did a quick search of big sellers that came out after the PS2's release:

Dance Dance Revolution Konamix
2002 FIFA World Cup
Syphon Filter 3
Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3
Dragon Warrior VII
Final Fantasy Chronicles
Madden NFL 2002
NASCAR Thunder 2002
Dance Dance Revolution: DDR Extra Mix
Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? 3rd Edition
Mat Hoffman's Pro BMX
Metal Slug X
Dance Dance Revolution
Fear Effect 2: Retro Helix
Breath of Fire IV
Lunar 2: Eternal Blue Complete
Driver 2
Final Fantasy IX
Dave Mirra Freestyle BMX
RPG Maker
Dino Crisis 2
Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2
Parasite Eve II

Sure... some of these were in production before the PS2 came out, and others you might not consider real "games," but they still sold well.

[OUX]

After reading it I am not even sure if he was defending it as I could read between the lines and see his fingers fighting his heart with each damning stroke.

[Siraris]

Pointless distraction <> gaming. Gaming is what I am about, a gamer at heart. If I want to watch TV or movies I have dedicated devices for that. If you want your DVD player in your TV, go right ahead. When one breaks, you have to replace both. If you want your movie player in your game system, ro right ahead. When one breaks, you have to replace both.



And what happens when your dedicated DVD player breaks? You have to buy a new one. What happens when your console breaks? You have to buy a new one. That is the some of the loosest logic for an argument that I've ever seen. Why buy anything at all in the first place? It will just end up breaking and you'll have to buy a new one.

Just to get your level headed logic rolling some more, what do you propose game systems use as their media formats if it bothers you so much that they use multi-purpose formats? Perhaps we should go back to cartidge based systems? Those won't be playing any movies, and they will really keep the price down too! :rolleyes:

[CapnBob]

Wait... we need to consider Sony's point of view? What kind of shit is this? Sony's not my friend. Sony's not family. Sony's a fucking multi-billion-dollar company. This is a business. We are consumers. The only viewpoint that matters to us is the consumer viewpoint, and that by necessity involves objective comparisons to competing products along with our own needs and interests. Sony doesn't get to tell us how they stack up or what our interests are, they show us what they have and then we vote with our dollars. With what they've shown, there's no way in hell they're getting any of mine.

[Zanzibar]

So how do you make your decisions about buying something? I know I think it out and decide how often I'll use it, what I will get out of it, what it has to offer over other products, amonghst other things. I think that breaking down any product that way is a good idea. If you are buying a console, do you just look at it and say "OH THATS A PERTY BOX I'LL TAKE 1"? I would hope not. If you don't agree with how he breaks down the price of the console, then either disagree and move on or come up with a reasonable other way to rationalize the price. Saying that you can divide the price of the PS3 by the distance from the earth to the sun just makes you seem like a troll.Oh, come on. If you break down the price of the PS3 by year, then why isn't the X360 an even BIGGER bargain because it costs $200 less AND you could already have had one as of last November? That's what was so lamebrained about this "price breakdown by year" argument was that it totally ignores any semblance of comparison with its competition, which was Achilles' point, as illustrated by his outlandish example. So, I'll do the math:

Xbox lasted 4 years before its successor launched. However, conventional wisdom says that Microsoft only launched in 2005 because they thought the PS3 would launch shortly thereafter, so if the author of the article says 6 years until the PS4, you can count on 6 years for the X360, thus giving the next Xbox a similar year-long head-start. So: $400 / 6 years = $67 yearly. Now THAT is a bargain. ;)

[Kamalot]

And what happens when your dedicated DVD player breaks? You have to buy a new one. What happens when your console breaks? You have to buy a new one. That is the some of the loosest logic for an argument that I've ever seen. Why buy anything at all in the first place? It will just end up breaking and you'll have to buy a new one.Yes. When my DVD player breaks, I get a new DVD player; NOT a new DVD player and a new game system and a new music service / playback device.

As for what format the games come on, I could care less as long as I'm not forced to pay extra for it like I am with Bluray.

[Syrinx]

And what happens when your dedicated DVD player breaks? You have to buy a new one.

...and I still have the use of my console.

[GrinR]

What's really funny to me is how basically everyone is talking about the "expensive" PS3 as if it's 500 or 600 dollars. HA! HA HA HA! That's me laughing at how unicorn-ridingly fantasial that thinking is.

Let's come down to planet Earth.

The cheapest you'll be able to purchase at launch (nevermind recieve) is going to be 500 for the unit, 3x60 for three games, and 50 for an extra controller. I think that's a fair estimate of what the cheapest bundles will be going for. So you're talking $730 pre-tax/shipping. At $730, you're talking about 55 dollars for tax (785) and round it off with $15 shipping (fat chance) to bring your grand total to $800.

$800 for the CHEAPEST PS3 at launch.

Yeah, that's what it's like.

[RMan]

I read the whole thing, don't worry. When the guy gets into the absurd territory of dividing the cost of a console by the hours played, movies watched, music listened to, etc. to try to make it seem like a reasonable price, I'm going to use an outlandish example to make fun of him.
Well, as long as you know the ridiculous hyperbole is lost when objectively hearing the argument… I mean, I think the system is overly expensive, but from a time based argument the premium PS3 is the same price as the 360, so from that perspective your argument sounds like arguing that your insurance is 12X less expensive if you pay for it monthly rather than yearly. Out here in the real world, using real math, his is a valid point many may not have considered. Again, I think the system’s too expensive, but I think the 360 is too, and their overall cost is identical when considering time spent.
For the comparison to the Nintendo controller, he was saying how it has the benefit of the new control scheme, which it doesn’t, it only has some features of the Wii controller. While keeping the old layout which allows you to play all of your old games and allows them to play exactly the same, which any game with vibration won’t.
FYI, most would consider even force feedback, much less rumble, to be insignificant in terms of weather or not the game plays the same, it’s a minor feedback element. I’ve had many gamers say a home version plays like the arcade version, even if it didn’t come with a seat that shakes or whatever is different. You know what, you’re smarter than that, you’re just picking on something minor, I do not believe you didn’t understand his point, you may have slightly different definitions of what words should mean, but there’s no way you could not understand what he was saying.

[Zanzibar]

RMan, how exactly did you arrive at the math that the PS3 is the same cost over time as an Xbox 360?

[Achilles]

So how do you make your decisions about buying something? I know I think it out and decide how often I'll use it, what I will get out of it, what it has to offer over other products, amonghst other things. I think that breaking down any product that way is a good idea. If you are buying a console, do you just look at it and say "OH THATS A PERTY BOX I'LL TAKE 1"? I would hope not. If you don't agree with how he breaks down the price of the console, then either disagree and move on or come up with a reasonable other way to rationalize the price.Well rationalizing the price is exactly what he was doing. If you take any game system and divide its cost by the years you own it, and the hours you spend on it than you're going to come up with a tiny amount of money. It doesn't mean much since you still have to put all that money down at once when the only things on the system to play are the launch titles.

I would base my decision to buy a console on whether or not there was something I wanted to play on it when I got it home. Say I wanted to play Resistance. Then I'd buy a PS3.

[askheaves]

I think it helps when reading this article to realize that the author is pretty much saying all of this through his teeth. It may be true according to the Sony company line, but he's purposely not arguing the issues just to have a pure case presented for their side.

Each point carries with it its own baggage and mileage.

Also, hire a proofreader.

[RMan]

Pointless distraction <> gaming. Gaming is what I am about, a gamer at heart. If I want to watch TV or movies I have dedicated devices for that. If you want your DVD player in your TV, go right ahead. When one breaks, you have to replace both. If you want your movie player in your game system, ro right ahead. When one breaks, you have to replace both.
Ehh, I agree with the concept, sortof. In the past I’ve had combo devices break, and it’s annoying, but I don’t have devices break much anymore. I often use my PS2 as a DVD player and haven’t had problems with it, I just generally find that stuff gets replaced before it breaks, so the convenience of combined devices outweighs the fear of a broken element of it. My phone, for instance, will last a maximum of 2 years, I don’t worry much about it breaking, and enjoy the convenience of it being my camera, watch, phone, mp3 player, calculator, etc. There’s no way I’d go back to separate devices for each function, unless they were constantly breaking (in which case, I’d be switching suppliers).
That's the difference…With Sony...are you going to carry around a PSP?
I have no clue, you’ll have to post what Sony has announced as supported devices, otherwise you’re making baseless assumptions about what will be required to use their service (if the PSP is all that Sony will ever support, then I'll get on board with some Sony hate, at least for that particular service). Currently I don’t know what, if any, practical differences there will be between the two company’s services, all I know is each will make the greatest effort to corral users to their service, none are going to be open-ended solutions, because they both want our money.
Please read my sig...
Hehe, good call. Oddly, I actually remember that sig, but didn’t associate it with you and didn’t read it when making that response, silly me. It would have been nice if you were one of the completely indiscriminating MS fanboys like I assumed you were.

[Achilles]

You know what, you’re smarter than that, you’re just picking on something minor, I do not believe you didn’t understand his point, you may have slightly different definitions of what words should mean, but there’s no way you could not understand what he was saying.Yes I am, as I said in my first post I’m picking on things that I found funny. I take it by your two posts of disagreeing with the stuff I found funny that you think his section comparing the PS3 controller to the Wii controller, and the bit about dividing the price by life span and hours played is above being made fun of.

What are your opinions on the article?

[jacktion]

How many gamers were still buying games for theis PS1?

The life of the machine is only as long as gamers are still buying games for it, not the duration of time that it is being manufactured. The PS1 died when the PS2 was released. Anyone justifying the cost of the PS1 for the past 6 years is fooling themself.

Likewise, how many people's PS1s still function a full 10 years later?


Wow, are you kidding? The PS1 has been making money like crazy. People DO keep buying PS1 games and companies DO keep making games. The games are admittedly crappy and quick budget titles but there is massive numbers of PS1 and PS2s out there and people wandering through Walmart will grab a 7 dollar PS1 game on a whim. It is a huge market.
I think you are thinking of this from the viewpoint of a hardcore gamer elitist much like most people on these forums. You would definitely not play the PS1 anymore because it is not cool and cutting edge but vast numbers of people do because they don't care about stuff like that.

[RMan]

RMan, how exactly did you arrive at the math that the PS3 is the same cost over time as an Xbox 360?
The Xbox was replaced after 4 years, the PS2 was replaced after 6 years. Although the Xbox only has one replacement, it can’t be called a pattern and I seriously doubt they’ll do another release that quickly (of course, if you asked me 3 years ago if they’d do a 4 year turnaround, I wouldn’t have expected that either). Still, at a 4 year replacement, the 360 would cost $100 a year, and at a 6 year replacement, the premium PS3 would cost $100 a year as well ($600/6 years). It’s even better considering the $500 PS3, which is more equivalent to the premium 360. For the total cost of the systems, I do think they’re about the same cost since I’m betting the Xbox gets another revision in 5 years, and if by some stretch they do it in 4 again, then the PS3 is clearly the better value.

[tombofsoldier]

To use a fark cliche "Defending the PS3's price is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, your still retarded."

[Kamalot]

Hehe, good call. Oddly, I actually remember that sig, but didn’t associate it with you and didn’t read it when making that response, silly me. It would have been nice if you were one of the completely indiscriminating MS fanboys like I assumed you were.Woah! I didn't expect a rational response. Thanks for putting the time into your reply. I'm shocked and pleased to find you aren't a mindless Sony drone. :D

[Dr Quincy]

How many new development projects were started for the PS1 after the PS2 was released?

Fifa 2004 instantly springs to mind. The PlayStation market remained lucrative long after the release of the PlayStation 2.

[Zanzibar]

The Xbox was replaced after 4 years, the PS2 was replaced after 6 years. Although the Xbox only has one replacement, it can’t be called a pattern and I seriously doubt they’ll do another release that quickly (of course, if you asked me 3 years ago if they’d do a 4 year turnaround, I wouldn’t have expected that either). Still, at a 4 year replacement, the 360 would cost $100 a year, and at a 6 year replacement, the premium PS3 would cost $100 a year as well ($600/6 years). It’s even better considering the $500 PS3, which is more equivalent to the premium 360. For the total cost of the systems, I do think they’re about the same cost since I’m betting the Xbox gets another revision in 5 years, and if by some stretch they do it in 4 again, then the PS3 is clearly the better value.

Read my earlier response. I predict that the Xbox720(???) and PS4 will launch within a year of each other.

By your reasoning, the Xbox720 will be out in 2009 (4 years after launch in 2005), while the PS4 will be out in 2012 (6 years after 2006). A three-year difference. Reason that out for me, willya? Why would either company launch alone, when every indicator is that the industry moves together in cycles?

As I said above, the only reason Microsoft rushed the X360 to market in 2005 is because they didn't want to be behind the PS3, which they thought would launch in Spring 2006.

So, concluding, let's say that you're right, that the PS3 lasts another 6 years, at $100/yr. And, let's say that I'm right, that Microsoft wants to stay a year ahead of Sony's next move. That gives BOTH systems a 6-year lifespan, which makes the X360 a CLEAR bargain at $67/yr. The only way that they stay the same value per year is if the PS3 has a 6 year lifespan versus the X360's 4-year lifespan, which, as I stated above, makes absolutely no business sense.

[RMan]

I take it by your two posts of disagreeing with the stuff I found funny that you think his section comparing the PS3 controller to the Wii controller, and the bit about dividing the price by life span and hours played is above being made fun of.
I think they are valid comments, and worthwhile to think about. The more these systems cost, the more people should consider what they’re getting for it. For me personally, I really don’t care about the BR player and very little about other media services, but it’s useful to mention to people that since it’s able to cover more entertainment elements than the PS2 that it’s worthwhile to consider it as more than that. Me, I just want a game system, and I haven’t seen anything that’d make me pay $100 for the system, much less $500 (not a bash on the system, but I place little value on graphics and I just haven’t seen anything other than MGS4 that I’m excited about, and I’m not willing to pay $100+game for that), but I’m not everyone, and for the people that want an HD movie player, or any of the other media services it’s worth considering that’s it’s more than a game system.

The Wii controller comments are also valid, although I think the Wii will catch on well, it’s worth mentioning that the PS3 controller balances the old and new and is a nice compromise between the two, and at least on paper can certainly be argued as an equal, or even better approach.
What are your opinions on the article?
It was decent, I thought it did a good job of laying out the basics. I feel the Sony haters and even people that are not Sony haters but just overly reactive are not considering the big picture. I’d say the biggest negatives towards the system is it’s price (price of system and the assumed price of games). I won’t defend the pricing, but in terms of comparing to the 360, I don’t think they’re that far off, and in terms of the potentially high game prices, I just don’t buy any of it. Game prices are, and will always be set by what people are willing to pay. If they try to sell games at too high a price, people won’t buy them and they’ll drop like a rock. I think there will be a fair amount of early adopter railing and that’s likely the thing that Sony is trying to prepare people for.

I think there has been a steady stream of mostly bad news from Sony for some time, but no single bit is that bad, and the sum total certainly doesn’t spell death for the system. They will not succeed at the level of the PS2 (especially in terms of market share), but by the hyperbole expressed by many hardcore gamers you’d have expected the system to have already died a thousand deaths. I think the editorial expresses that desire for balanced analysis.

[GrinR]

Nobody said shit about my point. $800 bucks at launch.

[OUX]

Nobody said shit about my point. $800 bucks at launch.

I notice that nobody comments on things if you are right. Atleast that is what I tell myself so I don't feel ignored. ;)

[Zanzibar]

Nobody said shit about my point. $800 bucks at launch.
Yes. You are absolutely right. Batshit insane. I dropped $400 on my X360, bought 3 Activision games (Q4, CoD2, GUN) at $15 a pop (company store discount!), got Kameo and PDZ, 2 extra controllers and a play-n-charge kit. Console, accessories and 5(!) games and still felt ripped off at $700 with tax.

[askheaves]

I think there has been a steady stream of mostly bad news from Sony for some time, but no single bit is that bad, and the sum total certainly doesn’t spell death for the system. They will not succeed at the level of the PS2 (especially in terms of market share), but by the hyperbole expressed by many hardcore gamers you’d have expected the system to have already died a thousand deaths. I think the editorial expresses that desire for balanced analysis.


You can shit in one hand and desire in the other...

Thing is, this guy admits he had a hard time writing the article due to the volume of insufficiently answered criticism. It can't possibly be that every gaming news site has suddenly gone all pro-MS (or that he only sourced the notoriously paid-by-***-the-evil-entity-to-hate-on-sony-omg-rawr EvAv), but more likely that Sony HAS been suffering a thousand deaths... or at least a thousand cuts.

The price was the bad piece of news... the big bad piece of news. But the number alone wasn't the issue. If $600 was an insurmountable number, nobody would own cars. I spend about an hour in my car each month and pay $350 for it... that's about 10 cents a second. But it gets me to work and back in a cool environment, a short time and gives me freedom to transport myself, so it's worth it. So even the cost/time analysis isn't the issue. It's the sudden increase in price, the difference between it and the competition's price, the delays and uncertainties added to the negligable difference in wanted features and quality. It looks like the company is failing at producing and marketting this device, and it bodes very badly for an 'investment in potential.'

[OUX]

You know I would honestly like to see a pro/con list on the PS3 that is fairly unbiased.

[fitbabits]

You know I would honestly like to see a pro/con list on the PS3 that is fairly unbiased.
In other words, not from Kamalot or Mike Jones?

[RMan]

Nobody said shit about my point. $800 bucks at launch.
I’ll bite, you can come up with whatever bundle you like, from my perspective it’s still only 100+tax more than the 360, making a bigger bundle only makes that difference less significant. Not saying it isn’t overly expensive, just not so much in comparison to it’s competition.
Read my earlier response. I predict that the Xbox720(???) and PS4 will launch within a year of each other.
Ehh, we’ll see, I think if the PS3 does real well, MS will push an early release again.
By your reasoning, the Xbox720 will be out in 2009 (4 years after launch in 2005), while the PS4 will be out in 2012 (6 years after 2006).
Actually, I said a 5 year span for 360 was more likely, 4 is just the difference between this generation and the only time span we have to work with.
Why would either company launch alone, when every indicator is that the industry moves together in cycles?
That’s not even remotely true. Although this last generation the Xbox and Gamecube released together, the PS2 released a year and a half earlier, and before that it was even less ‘synchronized’ (not that we have much to work with). Companies don’t wait on their competitors to catch up with them, and like the 360, will often rush a new product at the expense of the old if that’s a better overall market strategy. If the Xbox was selling like the PS2 they would not have killed it with the 360, that’s just common sense.
As I said above, the only reason Microsoft rushed the X360 to market in 2005 is because they didn't want to be behind the PS3, which they thought would launch in Spring 2006.
Umm, they wanted to release before the PS3, yet release with them? I think not. They wanted what they got, a period of time where they were the top system.
And, let's say that I'm right, that Microsoft wants to stay a year ahead of Sony's next move. That gives BOTH systems a 6-year lifespan, which makes the X360 a CLEAR bargain at $67/yr.
If it works out that way, sure. I don’t think it will, here’s a breakdown of what I think will happen given current info:
PS3 sells moderately well and takes a lead over MS in early 2009. Although blueray will not take off like DVDs, it will become the standard, unless MS eats massive costs to bundle a HD-DVD and makes very costly alliances for content (which I don't even think they could pull off or would pay for). This means that for the 3rd Xbox, a BR player will be pretty unlikely, and that could hurt them dearly, the only saving grace is that physical media will become obsolete, but not nearly early enough for the 2nd or 3rd Xbox. Also, between the PS3 and Wii, games utilizing motion sensing controllers will become more popular, and a few years from now that shortcoming in the 360 will become significant. By 2009/2010, it will be very clear that at the least MS needs to release a new system with the new controller, as well as a massive HD, and alliances with media companies and perhaps cable companies that allow the system to be on-demand/DVR hardware. These factors will push another early release, but I’m betting on 5 years and not 4 like this time.

The only way that they stay the same value per year is if the PS3 has a 6 year lifespan versus the X360's 4-year lifespan, which, as I stated above, makes absolutely no business sense.
Again, I said I didn’t think it’d be 4 years, just comparing to previous release schedules. We’ll have to wait till the end of the generation to calculate the true value.

[tombofsoldier]

You know I would honestly like to see a pro/con list on the PS3 that is fairly unbiased.

Done

PS3 Pros/Cons
Pros:
Blu-Ray Dvd player
Free online service
Motion sensing controller
Full backwards Compatibility

Cons:
Price
Games

There, while one can certainly argue over the importance of the motion sensing controller, the value of the completely unknown online service, the importance of the game and price, and the value of Blu-Ray, this is the basic summary of the pros/cons/

Sony isnt doing well marketing their new machine right now, but the PS3 isn't dead yet, and will most likely sell a lot. But Sonys spent millions devoloping the PS3, their gaming division is the only one making a profit, and they recently started borrowing large amounts of money. So the real question is, can the PS3 sell enough to save Sony?

[Zanzibar]

Check out this chart. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_console#Timeline) PS2 released US less than a year after the Dreamcast. Xbox and Gamecube US release was one year after PS2 US release. Saturn, N64 and Playstation. Sega Master System and NES. Genesis and Turbografx 16. Atari 5200 and Colecovision. Find me the part where it's not 'remotely true' that console systems aren't launched head-to-head in cycles.

Oh, and why is it imperative that Microsoft release a new console on its own when its competitors aren't? The motion-sensitive controller techology that you speak of is EASILY doable as a replacement controller for the X360; I defy you to point out one way that it isn't. DVR/gigantic HDD? There's nothing you're mentioning that can't be easily done by releasing a larger drive to replace the detachable 20gb one. The PS2 was hopelessly outclassed by the Xbox's hardware, yet it took them 5 years to release the PS3. You've got lots of arguments but none of them hold water.

[Zanzibar]

Why is paying for the Blu-Ray player a "Pro" if 80% of people don't own an HDTV to watch them with?
Why is paying for the wireless internet connectivity a good thing if 80% of people don't use wireless?

[RMan]

PS2 released US less than a year after the Dreamcast. Xbox and Gamecube US release was one year after PS2 US release.
Yea, if you pick the region you can get the numbers closer, this type of selective analyzing is useful. Also, try clicking on the elements of the link you supplied, you’ll find the dates are not always accurate, likely the map was generated by hand. Anyway, even looking at the map you posted, hardly a two year period goes by without a system release, how you figure that’s overall synchronized is beyond me, but good luck with that, I’m not going to argue it anymore.
Oh, and why is it imperative that Microsoft release a new console on its own when its competitors aren't?
Because the competition offers something they do not and is selling better (or seemingly will) because of it, it’s pretty simple.
The motion-sensitive controller techology that you speak of is EASILY doable as a replacement controller for the X360; I defy you to point out one way that it isn't. DVR/gigantic HDD? There's nothing you're mentioning that can't be easily done by releasing a larger drive to replace the detachable 20gb one.
Peripherals such as these hardly ever succeed due to support issues and fragments the development, this has been discussed many, many times.
The PS2 was hopelessly outclassed by the Xbox's hardware, yet it took them 5 years to release the PS3. You've got lots of arguments but none of them hold water.
Hehe, Sony and MS care about sales, not what you think ‘outclassed’ means. The PS2 was not outclassed by the Xbox in the real world, only in a respect that didn’t seem to affect sales.

[Achilles]

Here’s a long-term prediction for those who’d like to call me on it 4 years from now (I’m looken’ at you RMan :p). I predict that Sony will be the first to start the next generation with the PS4 because they will be unable to cost-reduce the PS3 as much as they’d like, and for other reasons.

[AniAko]

I love how people are striving to defend this. You don't need to persuade people something isn't too expensive. If someone thinks it's too expensive, the reality for them is... (drum roll) ... it's TOO expensive! (ta-da!) There were people who thought the original xbox, and PS2 were too expensive, but site didn't make a big to-do about it every week. I say let the justification go and spend time analyzing something important, like why it's ok the cell processors seem to have a slower read than write speed. THAT's a justification worth persuing.

Statistics prove that campaigning against someone's beliefs, in this case the cost effectiveness of a product, proves a marginal amount of people changing their minds. Of the amount of people who change their minds, a very high percentage of them were borderline with the belief to begin with. Sony might not have fucked up with the price, but the reality remains there's just a certain amount of people who will always think it's too expensive.

[GrinR]

I’ll bite, you can come up with whatever bundle you like, from my perspective it’s still only 100+tax more than the 360, making a bigger bundle only makes that difference less significant. Not saying it isn’t overly expensive, just not so much in comparison to it’s competition.

I wasn't comparing it to anything. I was merely stating a hard fact that most people will be hard-pressed to overcome. $800 is a lot of money to most folks, regardless of what the price is for an xbox or corn nuts or a trip to Cabo.

But, since you bring it up, if you were to make a purchase on 11/06, and you were basically generic gamer who wasn't a fanboy either way, you're looking at a $400 Premium box and your choice of games and accessories, since the bundling is basically over now. So, let's say you get the same deal. $400 + 180 + 50 = 630 + 50 tax = 680 + shipping = $700 even.

Just like you said, right? Only in the PS3 bundle you're getting the low-end version, not the premium. You're also getting 3 games that likely 2 of which you won't want (let's be honest). AND you're paying more for it. IF you can get it (which is going to be f'ing tough).

So without comparing it to anything else it's a real hurdle to afford the CHEAPEST POSSIBLE PS3. WITH comparing it, it's not even close to the same value. Lose lose for Sony.

And before the accusations go a'flyin' - I'll be buying one of the $1000 bundles just like I did with the 360. Because I'm fucking rich.

[Paranoia]

I decided to try and see the world from Sony's perspective.

He ought to try one of them new Sony 4D glasses.

[Kamalot]

Check out this chart. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_console#Timeline)Another interesting thing this chart shows is the death of the PS1 at the launch of the PS2.

[Kamalot]

People DO keep buying PS1 games and companies DO keep making games. The games are admittedly crappy and quick budget titles but there is massive numbers of PS1 and PS2s out there and people wandering through Walmart will grab a 7 dollar PS1 game on a whim. It is a huge market.10 years from now I hope you enjoy your admittedly crappy and quick budget titles.

[Kamalot]

Cons:
Price
GamesBeing a gamer, the two most important items are in the "Cons" list, and that Sucks.

[Royal Fool]

Wasn't the Neo Geo $599? Or was that $649 with a game included?

It's over, Sony's doomed.

[Oskin]

This article didnt make sence at all... I could go on forever on the subjet but I don't have to ;) (even though I don't feel like getting bitched at) I have to agree with kamalot. As for the HD-DVD vs Bluray war... I have to agree with microsoft choice, its nice to have the option because I know i'll buy one some day... doesnt mean i have tons of money right now!

[bapenguin]

From what I've seen...the 360 has a planned 7 year life cycle. Whether the next XBox comes out before that (i'm sure it will) I don't know. But I do know there is some plan to go 7 years.

[RorschachCCCLX]

Here is my problem with the people who hope/expect Sony to dominate the market- If Sony pulls another 100 Million unit sales with PS3, its going to say to them that thier arrogants was justified and indeed people will shell out the big bucks for the four letter logo. If they get away with $641.99 (after tax) this time, whos to say they won't ask for a grand next time. Also if ethier of big guys rule the market place you can expect EA to run things forever.

Sony in 2000 told gamers to wait for PS2 because OMG DREAMCAST SUX WE HAVE EMOTION ENGINE. and it PS2's core processor was a whopping 44 mhz faster the dreamcast and can't touch it's 2D abilities. But hype and fanboi-ism +a multi million dollar adcampaign with a pinch of market manipulation and you get Sony's success story.

[theguido]

I think the easiest justification for the PS3 is this. If the games for the PS3 appeal to you more than the ones for the 360, it's only going to cost you less than two games to have the one that plays the games you'd rather play. If the games on the 360 appeal to you more, there's no reason to even concern yourself about the PS3.

Really simple.

[AniAko]

I think the easiest justification for the PS3 is this. If the games for the PS3 appeal to you more than the ones for the 360, it's only going to cost you less than two games to have the one that plays the games you'd rather play. If the games on the 360 appeal to you more, there's no reason to even concern yourself about the PS3.

Really simple.

Except the price difference is $200, not $100.

[theguido]

Except the price difference is $200, not $100.

The $499 PS3 is a completely viable option for some people.

Honestly, I'd say it's a viable option for MOST people since most people don't have HDTV's capable of 1080p.

[RMan]

Here’s a long-term prediction for those who’d like to call me on it 4 years from now (I’m looken’ at you RMan :p). I predict that Sony will be the first to start the next generation with the PS4 because they will be unable to cost-reduce the PS3 as much as they’d like, and for other reasons.
Ballsy. Honestly as far as what the system costs Sony, there seems to be no end to the wild speculation, and I wouldn’t care to speculate (not something that interests me anyway). I do think starting the next generation in order to lower costs seems pretty odd, don’t see how that could possibly lower costs (newer/faster tech and more R&D lowering costs???) If you mean they’ll rip parts out of the system, that also seems unlikely to me, esp. since the cost will significantly decrease ‘naturally’, and it wouldn’t be called a PS4 in that case.
Only in the PS3 bundle you're getting the low-end version, not the premium.
Yea, but with the information we have the low end PS3 is equal or better than the high end 360, and that’s what I will compare it to. Don’t even try to argue with me, if you don’t agree, then deal with it (sorry to sound rude, but this has been discussed many times and some seem to feel what matters is the sku index, not the features of the sku, it’s just silly).
From what I've seen...the 360 has a planned 7 year life cycle. Whether the next XBox comes out before that (i'm sure it will) I don't know. But I do know there is some plan to go 7 years.
That’d be great if it works out that way (that’d be my target, if not 8), but realistically, there’s no way the ‘plan’ for the Xbox1 was 4 years. Plans change real quick when it seems there’s no other choice but to scrap the plan.

[AniAko]

The $499 PS3 is a completely viable option for some people.

Honestly, I'd say it's a viable option for MOST people since most people don't have HDTV's capable of 1080p.

And the $300 Xbox 360 core system is a completely viable option for some people too. There's the $200 difference

[theguido]

And the $300 Xbox 360 core system is a completely viable option for some people too. There's the $200 difference

Try the $340 X360 (A $160 difference)--that is, unless you never save any games ever.

That's not even getting into all the additional money you'd have to spend to make the Core do the same things as the $499 PS3--or hell, make the PREMIUM do the same things as the $499 PS3.

Maybe the Core is viable for some people, but the $499 PS3 is viable for MORE people because you don't really lose anything but 1080p--whereas with the Core you are giving up a lot more.

[Siraris]

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060712/nyw079.html?.v=59

A pretty clear reason why Sony thinks they can get away with the high-priced PS3.

As much bad publicity we see, its pretty obvious the rest of the population doesn't.

[Chang3]

The expectation came from what the market has shown will be successful in the past. Never before has a $599 console been a dominant force in the console space.

You mean any console with no strong name brand... Look at the neo-geo, you know how much it is, was it $500, and guess what it sold, and looking at the psp when it was $250, still sold for the name, so if someone who is familiar with the playstation name brand, it will sell.

[Zechs01]

I'm also curious why people aren't saying that Nintendo's virtual concept isn't just a knock-off of Xbox Live Arcade, it's the same concept right?
He makes some valid points.

[matrixsucks]

Wasn't the Neo Geo $599? Or was that $649 with a game included?

It's over, Sony's doomed.
I don't think SNK dominated the generation preceding the Neo Geo the way Sony did with the PS2.

[Eran Hawke]

Anyone defending the PS3 is flying in the face of common sense. There is no longer any justification someone can give that would make sense any more.

Sony sank their own ship.

[Eran Hawke]

To people who say that the sheep 'Joe Consumer' users will buy the PS3 just because they know what Playstation is, I grew up at a time when Nintendo was a household word, much like Playstation is today. Things change, and Sony is trying very hard to destroy the Playstation name by making it into a movie player 1st, game system 2nd.

[HardScores]

Dude, Kamalot...

1. Calm down.
2. The edit button is your friend. We don't need 3 of your posts in a row.
3. The PSOne life is skewed because of backwards capability. People kept buying new PSOne games because they could play them on their PS2, and continued to buy classic titles throughout the life of the PS2. One guy I helped out when I was in retail bought a PS2 because his PSOne died. He figured he might get some PS2 games later on, but instead helped himself to about 18 PSOne games that were cheap.

[MetroScotty]

I'll be honest. Grammattical flaws aside (I don't care what "e-zine" or "blog" you're writing for, grammar- and spell-check before posting), that was not a very convincing editorial. It basically sounded like every half-assed pro-Sony argument I've heard in the past few months clumsily cobbled together by someone who doesn't truly understand the company which he is defending. In fact, I have yet to see a good, complete argument for Sony's continued dominance, and I'd really like to read one. As much as part of me likes watching a company--so intent on exploiting their own customers--flounder (schadenfreude anybody?), there's another part that believes that something truly good could come out of the PS3. Besides, when companies compete, consumers win.

[Eran Hawke]

I would rather see 3 posts in a row instead of a tower of text like Sirias vomits out. :P

[Siraris]

I would rather see 3 posts in a row instead of a tower of text like Sirias vomits out. :P

Don't tempt me.

[GrinR]

The $499 PS3 is a completely viable option for some people.

Honestly, I'd say it's a viable option for MOST people since most people don't have HDTV's capable of 1080p.

See this is what is just wrong. Like I already wrote, the cheapest is $800, with the "viable" $499 unit.

That is a LOT of money for the "low end" - the low end don't HAVE that much money. Also, those who DO have that kind of discretionary funding are going to get the top-end, like me.

[RMan]

See this is what is just wrong. Like I already wrote, the cheapest is $800, with the "viable" $499 unit.
But the point is that the consumer willing to buy the $500 PS3, much less your proposed $800 bundle, is not going to consider the $300 360. We know some will buy the stipped down 360, we know many, even now, will buy a PS2, but that doesn't make the comparrison of the low-end PS3 to the low end 360 any more reasonable (if that is your argument, not entirely sure anymore :)).

[AniAko]

Try the $340 X360 (A $160 difference)--that is, unless you never save any games ever.
That's a 40% ($200) difference versus a 32% ($160) difference. 32% is one hell of a markup, and can mean working 32% more to be able to afford that higher price.

That's not even getting into all the additional money you'd have to spend to make the Core do the same things as the $499 PS3--or hell, make the PREMIUM do the same things as the $499 PS3.
You're a fool if you buy any 360 and try to make it do the same things as the PS3. So the PS3 has more stuff, good for the PS3, that doesn't make it any more affordable.

Maybe the Core is viable for some people, but the $499 PS3 is viable for MORE people because you don't really lose anything but 1080p--whereas with the Core you are giving up a lot more.
So by buying a 360 I'm giving up a PS3. If I want a 360, don't want a PS3, I'm giving up something I don't want. My mind is perfectly at ease with that, considering I think the PS3 is too expensive.


This is all well and nice, but do you really expect the 360 to still cost $300 this holiday season?

[Evil Avnovice]

I've read and skimmed the entire article, and there's nothing here that the gentleman states that I haven't heard before elsewhere. Was mildly interesting though.