Does Sony's PS3 value argument hold up?
PlayStation 3 pricing is in the news again, thanks to a report from Bloomberg that cites developer complaints over the price of the console. According to the story, developers are calling on Sony to drop the price of the PlayStation 3, so more people will buy the console, and thus their games.
"Sony obviously still has a ways to go with their pricing," Peter Moore, sports game chief at EA, told Bloomberg in an interview. He went on to say that even though Sony hasn't dropped the price of its console just yet, he expects it to happen shortly.
_270x270.jpg)
Value or price? You decide.
(Credit: Sony)A few weeks ago, Mike Hickey, an analyst at Janco Partners, said he expects Sony to cut PS3 pricing $50 to $100 in coming weeks, since the $399.99 version of its console costs $200 more than the Xbox Arcade version and $150 more than the Wii.
For its part, Sony, which has experienced three straight months of declining PS3 sales, shot back at developers and analysts. The company's senior vice president of marketing, Peter Dille, told Bloomberg that while Sony has no plans to reduce prices, "everybody in the development community would love for the PS3 to be free, so they could just sell razor blades."
Sony executives aren't doing enough to make their case. Whenever you look around the Web, the same basic argument is made: the PS3 is too expensive. But on numerous occasions, I've had the opportunity to discuss this issue with Sony representatives. During those calls, they've articulated their point to me about PS3 pricing and value.
Sony is well-aware that the PlayStation 3 costs much more than the Xbox Arcade version or the Wii, but we can knock one competitor off immediately: the company doesn't really consider the Wii a competitor. Pricing against that console doesn't matter much, they say.
But Microsoft is very much a competitor, and although Sony likes to play with percentages and comparisons whenever NPD sales figures are made public, the Xbox 360 is winning in a big way. And most folks believe it's because of its price.
But instead of looking at price as the determining factor of purchase, Sony wants us to look at the value. Sure, the PlayStation 3 is more expensive if you consider initial cost, but over the life of the console, is it really the most expensive video game machine on the market? Sony contends that it's not.
To prove it, Sony officials, in a previous phone conversation, compared the Xbox 360 60GB version for $299.99 with its 80GB $399 console. The initial difference in price is $100, but Sony contends that after you sign up for Xbox Live for $50 a year and consider the fact that the Xbox 360 doesn't have a Blu-ray drive--a possible future purchase for Xbox 360 owners--the PlayStation 3, with its free online gameplay and built-in Blu-ray drive, is actually cheaper over the life of the console.
Not to mention, if you want to turn your Xbox 360 into a Wi-Fi-enabled console and have rechargeable controllers, which come standard with the PlayStation 3, both accessories will add another $120 to the price of the Xbox 360. In just one year, Xbox 360 owners might spend $470 to buy the console and upgrade it before they even consider buying a Blu-ray player.
Though it's a bit more difficult to make this argument, Sony also contends that its $399 PlayStation 3 is cheaper over the long haul than Microsoft's Xbox Arcade version, which retails for $199.99. The company contends that to make it worthwhile, you'll need to install a hard drive, which will run you $100, bringing the real price of the console back to $299.99, where Sony can rationalize the PlayStation 3's cheaper cost as before.
Sony's argument is tenuous, at best, and assumes that users will sign up for Xbox Live, want a Blu-ray player, and buy accessories. But if they do, the PlayStation 3 actually is more affordable over the long term. Whether or not people actually care is another story.
But home finances aren't always run on spreadsheets, and initial cost will remain a major concern to the parent who can only afford to buy their child one gift for their birthday. Furthermore, the Xbox Live offers a more robust online experience than Sony, although Sony has made significant strides over the past few months. And the argument over whether or not Blu-ray is really worthwhile can rage for hours.
Regardless of where you stand on this issue, there is more value in the PlayStation 3 with Blu-ray installed, and the console does have the extras the Xbox 360 doesn't. But it seems that the biggest problem Sony is facing is that most consumers either don't know about that value argument or they just don't care. In either case, Sony's losing money.
And that's why it needs to decide where it stands. Is it going to promote the value argument more effectively than it has in the past or will it concede and appeal to consumers on price? It's a tough decision, but one that needs to be made soon. The PlayStation brand has enjoyed better days and things might only get worse after Killzone 2's allure dies down.
Is it about price or is it about value? Sony execs need to figure that out. And then, somehow, get consumers to see things their way.
Check out Don's Digital Home podcast, Twitter stream, and FriendFeed.
Don Reisinger is a technology columnist who has written about everything from HDTVs to computers to Flowbee Haircut Systems. Don is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and posts at The Digital Home. He is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.
Seriously though, this is a very valid point. Why own an HD game system with HD movie player if you don't have an HD TV. The text on some PS3 games is absolutely unreadable on a standard TV. Given a choice between a new game system and a new HD TV I would opt for the TV and get the game later...
so dont you tell me 1,000 for a decent 32 HD-TV. Why would you lie to yourself?
I wish sony lower the price. It would not be bad.
You know why Microsoft discontinued the 360 Elite? Because once the ps3 goes to 300, Microsoft cant afford to sell their Elite for 300. That means that the Pro 360 will have to cost 200 and arcade 100. That will kil Microsoft on revenue right there. Once ps3 goes for 300, by April the 5th, the 360 will be outsold every month for the rest of its life spam, about 5 years.
They still list it on the Xbox.com website. They still sell it in retail stores.
What the hell are you talking about?
Forgot to mention a decent audio receiver (why experience hd and hd sound thru tiny tv speakers), hdmi cord, second controller, ect. To get a decent game system with some good games it can easily run $1400, unless you can be happy with just 3 titles yearly.
I'm not poor, just frugal. When the price is right I spend. Over 110 ps2 games and counting!
still glad i got it all though, i'll have it paid off in a few months, and I won't have to worry about buying a new TV or surround sound for 10 years or so, and I'm loving the built in blu-ray player.
However, that really isn't the point here. The comparison Don seems to be making is with the Xbox, which is kind of in the same boat on pricing on everything. So, if the PS3 is overpriced, so is the Xbox.
As for the PS2, I agree that there is nothing much wrong with it. I loved my PS2, and if I didn't have the PS3, it would still be a lot of fun. The BIG difference here is the leap to on-line gaming. After you've played some good on-line games, it is VERY hard to go back. It isn't just a matter of higher-rez graphics as some would lead you to believe. Of course, then you have to factor in the WAY overpriced Internet services monthly fee into the mix.
Yes, this is all expensive stuff... but as I used to say to a friend who couldn't believe I owned a nice sports car while I was in college... unless you are really poor, it depends on where you place your budget priorities. He would spend $100s each week in the bars, and $100s going out to eat. I cooked cheap stuff at home and didn't spend much on partying. That equaled my car payment. Most people (at least in N.A.) make enough to afford a PS3 if that is something they really want, considering how much they often spend on other things... even if they don't have a super high paying job.
DheraSa: get your facts straight before posting next time, or stop your spin doctoring. The BLACK Elite may have settled into the background, but only because the RED Resident Evil 5 bundle is now being heavily promoted. Besides, you can still EASILY FIND the black unit if that color floats your boat.
And one other tidbit: MSFT's production costs should by now be pretty cheap on the 360; it's been around for THREE YEARS, and they've sold millions of the bloody thing, RROD and all. Despite tweaks over time, the costs of basic components for the 360 have had plenty of time to amortize to what should by now be a cheap price point for each piece. Even Sony has remarked in the past that their poorer-selling PS3 has seen production price drops, even if it done more to appease investors and analysts than for gamers.
In all likelihood, the 360 in ALL of its forms could be a LOT cheaper than it currently is. However as we all should know by now, that when it comes to most products that's not Microsoft's way. They will price their console just below the competitions' units, to give the appearance of value. If the PS3 does drop yet again, then no one should be surprised that Redmond will be in a strong position to follow suit, with a drop that again puts Sony behind the eight ball once again.
That's the power that MSFT got by getting to market first. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if the Wii sees a price drop shortly to counter undercut by the base 360. Some of the local B&Ms have HUGE stocks of the Wii; they may still be selling but it does seem that supply has more than caught up with demand.
For a lot of people it's just not sensible to drop hundreds of dollars on a gaming console and everything that comes with it (yeah, high speed internet is over priced and now they have download caps where I live) even if the games are as nice as SF3 or MGS4. I can also wait on HD tv because DVD's still look great to me, and I watch most of my TV on my PC, and I don't want to pay extra on my cable bill for HDTV broadcasts....that's ridiculous. The cost on next gen gaming is a little to rich for me :-( TO those who can afford it I'm sure it's a great experience.
Sony will have to bite the bullet though and bring the price down, make the ps3 a impulse buy. I know way too many people with wii's now, and they don't seem to care about next gen's HD graphics at all.
They don't care.
Consoles are about gaming first, second, and last.
The *majority* of console sales go to people who want to stick in a game disk and play.
Multimedia features like movie rental, wireless streaming, and what-not is frosting on the cake.
Sony's real problem is their engineers forgot about the 80-20 (Pareto) rule: 80% of the cost comes from 20% of the features. And 80% of the customers only use 20% of the features.
If they'd trimmed some of the gold plating that targets at most 20% of the customer base they might have ended up with a competitive product instead of one running out of gas now that BD players are dropping in price.
Blu-ray might have sold a few consoles back in 2006-07 but today there are better BD players that cost less than a PS3 and in fact you can get one of those *plus* a 360 Arcade for what a PS3 goes for.
But fear not; Sony *will* shortly announce a big price cut on the 80GB PS3... and a month later replace it with a 200GB model priced at $399.
After all, that's what they did last time they desperately needed a price cut but couldn't afford to do it.
I use a program called PlayOn made by mediamall that lets me steam Netflix to the PS3 (works with 360 too). This program works better than the built in support on the 360, so I end up using that instead.
I prefer the PS3, the 360 has no games that I am interested in (exclusives). I am really enjoying KillZone2 right now. Looking forward to God of War 3, that game is going to rock.
Also, it being a Blu-ray player now costs Sony next to nothing extra (over a normal optical drive) and it probably won the format war for Sony.... which is worth a LOT to them outside the gaming market. It really doesn't matter if you can get a 360 Arcade plus a Blu-ray player if the 360 Arcade isn't an equal system or the game you want don't come for it. I personally want a high-quality system that is capable of doing more than gaming... that doesn't nickel and dime me to death after the purchase... and that lasts long enough to be worth it.
Value over time is more mportant to me than the apparent initial cost!!
I don't care... I want a fun GAMING system. I could care less about Blu-ray... it is a complete waste of money for me. The Wii is a fun system for myself and my family because all I want it to do is play games. I've considered an Xbox360 because it has some great games but I'm still concerned about the RROD issues. PS3? sorry, not interested because it is Too Expensive!! The Wii is a competitor and it is kicking the PS3's butt...
Sony loses money on every PS3 made, and a price drop will just cause the the bleeding to increase. Sony can't afford to drop the price and developers are jumping ship because they won't drop the price. Sony should scrap the PS3 and start designing an affordable PS4 before they they completely tarnish the PlayStation brand name. Go back to what made the PS1 and 2 the leading systems.
I'm sure that the people who have bought the PS3 love them, just like the people who bought the Sega dreamcast loved them... but at this rate Sony is going to go bankrupt if it continues to sell systems at a loss.
whoa, did you just call the Wii a gaming system?
However, then you go on to make several lame points....
1) if the PS3 is too expensive, then the Xbox was too, regardless of the RROD. That is kind of the point of this whole debate. The Xbox only has a perceived lower cost... not an actual lower cost.
2) The Wii isn't kicking the PS3's butt... it is doing just fine. It has sold plenty to be a very viable platform... after that, it really doesn't matter who sells more other than for lame arguments like this article is trying to make and fanboys.
3) The developers are doing just fine for the PS3... ask the folks who made KZ2 or Warhawk, etc. Only stupid developers have this 'jump ship' mentality.
4) The PS2 also lost money on every console at the beginning... Sony has a philosophy of making a long-standing platform that is way ahead at the start in technology. They recoup the $ on games and later when system components consolidate and lower in cost.... and heck, winning the Blu-ray war was probably worth more than anything they will lose on the PS3.
5) Sony is a bit larger than the PS3. I don't know about their financial status, but I doubt they are seriously hurting due to the PS3.
#1The xbox 360 is far cheaper, I can get one for $200, I can not get a PS3 for the same price. All the extras are just that.. extras that I can pick and choose which one I add to the basic system. The PS3 does not give me that option. All I want is a gaming system and the extra 'fluff' I don't care for. I don't want a blu-ray player, I could care less about bleeding edge graphics (I have a decent PC for that!) I want a console I can play games on, Period.
#2 The Wii is outselling both the Xbox360 and the PS3 combined. That is over 50% of the market, that is my definition of domination. Spin it like you wish, Nintendo has won this generation of consoles.
#3 Developers have been complaining. They have been complaining about how difficult the Cell processor is to program for and they have been asking for a price drop to increase the market. Yes there is always certain developers that will do quite well, but on average developers have NOT been happy with the PS3.
#4 The 'sell at a loss' only works to recoup cash if you dominate the market. The PS1+2 completely dominated the market in their generation. They also were very developer friendly and Sony made back the money in licensing of games. This is not happening with the PS3 and it shows in Sony's bottom line.
#5 yes Sony is larger than the PS3 but the PS brand has been Sony's biggest money maker in the last 10 years. (kinda like the Walkman brand was during the 80's) It has now imploded on them. Almost all of Sony's lines are imploding because the alternatives are much cheaper and do the job just as well.
#1 - I suppose you are correct that you can buy a stripped down Xbox for less than a PS3. Just don't try to compare the two other than for basic gaming. I guess I'm saying the other stuff has been worth it for me. Also, if Sony DID leave out some of the extras, I don't think it would allow them to really drop the price much anyway.
#2 - I'm not really sure if anyone cares who is 'winning'... other than the people keeping track of the stats. As I've said MANY MANY times over in these posts... the only time market share really matters for this kind of thing is until you have ENOUGH market share to make game development viable. PS3 has PLENTY to do this.... 22M units plus. That's a market!
For example, LightBox (formerly Incognito) just signed a multi-year, exclusive agreement with Sony. They even got a couple million more than they asked for for dev. Game dev for the PS3 is BOOMING! Just look at Killzone2 sales! Oh, LightBox is hiring for any of those devs needing jobs.
#3 - see #2.... the average game devs are idiots then... what else can I say? The reason they are upset is politics. They just want PS3 to fall in line with M$ standards so they can just push a button on their M$ Visual Studio and pop out a port. I really don't want any games like that, so those studios stick it you know where. I like good games, not ported cr*p.
#4 - no, it works if you bring in more money they you lose. It really has nothing to do with market domination. Sony is losing money because we're in a poor economy (along with many other companies). The problem is, we really don't know how all the balance sheets work out. Maybe they are making more off the Blu-ray format win than the PS3 margin loss. Who knows?
#5 - I don't doubt Sony is hurting overall... but I don't think the PS3 is their big problem.
I often argue with my wife never to buy clothing at Walmart, she says its cheaper, then a month later I see the ratty seam split clothing going in the garbage. While the clothing that costs double at a good retailer, goes for months even years. Yes you got it for $1.99 vs $5.00 but thats a $1.99 a month where the other just lasts.
Same concept, the PS3 brings the entertainment center together. Being that its targets as a media center/game console.
I have both systems, and the XBOX 360 easily cost me more, after I got the controllers, and the WI--FI connector.
Not even talking about the Blue Ray player portion which the PS3 is an excellent blue ray player.
When you add features (Value) the cost in the end is less. But Walmart thrives on the fact many consumers only look at up front cost vs Value.
Sony has promised 3D games and movies to be released this year for the PS3.
The Wi-Fi and easily upgradeable firmware will likely make the PS3 the ONLY worthwhile player/gaming console as true 3D Blu-ray and 3D capable televisions enter the market.
No one cares, no one cares, no one cares. Did you take a statistical survey of all the people who actually cared? Why do people always assume this crap? People don't care about this and they don't care about that.
HOW DO YOU KNOW?
And so what if the PS3 is in third place? Does it change the quality of the games or what Sony has done for gaming?
Hell ******* no.
You get a clue because I'm sick of place, place, place. It doesn't matter if the PS3 is in third. It's a winner in the eyes of many gamers who own it.
Well, speaking personally, I wasn't interested in the PS3 due to its price before economic concerns became a reality. It's too expensive for what I want from a games console.
So, while Super2online may not have surveyed people, you do at least have my opinion. Congratulations.
Sony does need to drop the price of the PS3.
But what annoys me about people these days is the fact they're always bringing up place. We have three great systems on the market. Isn't that enough? Why do we have to keep using place and pedestals?
NES was 3rd gen.
Sony should knock of the excuses and change their business strategy to one that works, rather than whining that consumers don't accept the one that they're using.
What game system do you buy for a 7-year-old? There are not many games available for them on the PS3. But there is a huge library available for the PS2. Sony removed the PS2 compatibility from the PS3, so buying a PS3 is no longer an option. Am I going to buy a PS2? No, it's an obsolete system. I will buy a Wii instead. The Wii offers a lot of the older (and cheaper!) kids games that are available on the PS2 (by being able to run their GameCube equivalents), plus it's not an obsolete system and new games are being developed all the time.
Without being able to play PS2 content, Sony has greatly reduced the market for the PS3.
Let's talk games then. Both are systems aimed at different audiences, generally. PS3 gamer researches the game he wants, wants to spend a lot of time playing it, chooses his titles more exclusively. Spends more time playing the game he does buy. Wii gamer (family, younger kids, adults?) wants to play casually. They casually pick out games and casually buy the shovelware on sale at Wal-mart. They may or may not realize the handful of games they've bought are not worth playing, and buy a few more titles because it has a colorful case that their kid likes. Based on people I know, I want to estimate that the Wii-gamer buys 3-4 times as many games as the PS3-gamer, and plays them for far less. So without even talking about HD resolution, movie streaming, Blu-Ray capabilities, or online play, which one really costs more?
Hey I?m all for saving money but never at the cost of quality. Maybe I?ll MacGyver an Xbox together out of paper clicks and gum one day; play Gears and Fable probably the only games worth having an Xbox for.
It is possible with less throw-away money people might be actually steered towards the PS3. Though, I'm not sure I hold out that much hope for the consumer intelligence to make such a decision. As you can see from many of the responses here... people don't think things through far enough to get to value or TCO.
Actually, a good model might be Apple here.... they have had good value and lowest TCO for decades, yet it only recently caught on because of their strong entry with general consumer products (like iPod) tied to the platform, as well as IMO, M$ offerings reaching abysmally horrible levels. Maybe Sony can learn a few things from that... as we know M$ has no clue about this.
I just wish Sony would work on more software upgrades, and not worry about the hardware. They spent so much time and money on Home instead of opening their platform to Netflix and providing an easier peer-to-peer communication platform that the Xbox has.
@SteveW928 - agree that this is more like Apple vs. LG. Yes, Apple's products cost more, but the value is higher as well.
The ONE feature the Xbox has that PS3 needs that I can think of is cross-game or system voice-chat (though my friends tell me it doesn't work as good as it sounds on Xbox). This might actually be fairly tricky for Sony to implement, as Xbox dedicates one of its 3 cores to this kind of network related M$ stuff. The PS3 doesn't designate cores for this... so I guess it would depend on how fully the current content utilizes computing power Sony might need... and if they can work this into the development specs. But, I think it is something they need to do. I just hope they aren't relying on Home for it. We'll see.
'Oh, $50.00 a year ain't so bad.' Five years from now, you'll be paying $250.00 for a service you can get free.
Unbelievable.
One thing this economy might do is is put a bit more pressure on game titles to actually be good and worth the money... as the disposable income of these 'kids' won't let them buy a new $60 game to play for a week before they go after the next one. I bought Warhawk for $30 over a year ago now, and it is still a game I play 90% of my gaming time.
@ kelmon - I guess that's fine, but then you aren't going to have an Xbox either when you consider the overall cost.
@ juuken2 - So TRUE! And that isn't considering all the other stuff like Wi-Fi... or the ability to expand the hard drive space for many times less $.... or that the M$ headset is cr*p and you can't just add most good ones like I have for PS3... or can't use most standard USB or Bluetooth devices on Xbox.... etc. Plus, remember the Xbox hardware... they have 3 cores, one of which is basically dedicated to their network services. This leaves 2 cores (much like one of my older Macs) to do the gaming. PS3 has lots of extra cores to push off the special processing capabilities... which have been largely untapped yet. KZ2 is a good example of what happens when developers start tapping that ability. There will be many more from these studios that 'get it'.
the fact that you play Warhawk 90% of the time is why devs aren't developing for your fav console
they can't sell you anything more than a game or two in the beginning means no cash from you
CoD is a great game, so is Crysis and Halo
just because a game isn't ps3 exclusive doesn't mean it sucks
warhawk and kz2 are great games, but look outside the box
Halo 3 hype prompted XBOX 360 sales.
That is the difference. That being said, I think that both of those games were overhyped. I got tired of Halo 3 before it even came out. It wasn't a big enough improvement over Halo 2. As far as Killzone 2 is concerned, I actually regret buying a PS3 just to own this game. Sure it looks great, but I've never been so frustrated with a game's controls. Why does realistic have to mean sluggish and inaccurate? Why were they so concerned with "realistic" controls anyway? Radek has a personal cloaking device for God's sake! Is that realistic?
Most people looking for a game console are not considering the TCO, but rather how much $$ is going to come out of their bank account now and how many games are available. Finally even though sony doesn't consider the wii a competitor, everyone else does. Just because they bury their heads in the sand regarding the wii doesn't make it true.
Re, the Wii.... Sony doesn't consider it a competitor because it really isn't. It is kind of like saying some motorcycle is competing with a sports car. I guess under some criteria it is... it is a vehicle, both might be fast around the track, etc..... but they are essentially different markets. The Wii is a previous generation game console with a new twist in interaction. It's quite cool, but a different market than the Xbox or PS3 ultimately. But again, see my above argument.... it really doesn't matter if they consider it competition or not.
no, its xBox vs PS3 vs PC
stop ignoring us
But, this really isn't the point. Market share is largely irrelevant once you've reached enough to make a lucrative market. If you can't convince the stupid developers of this, new studios will come along who don't mind making a hundred million or two. The developers claiming the PS3 is too hard or not worth it are lazy or stupid. Just ask devs of Warhawk or KZ2 to name a few.
The PS3 just needs a reasonable pricecut to compete with it's competitors. They cut the price and PS3 sales will skyrocket.
I honestly doubt lowering the price will do much. They may sell more as a Blu-Ray player, but if they cannot get exclusive back they will remain in last place. With the scr3w the developers attitude Sony has had this generation, that is not likely to happen even with an improving install base.
Here we go again with place. Once again, the PS3 is a great console regardless of place. It is a winner in the eyes of people who have it and use it as a gaming console/media hub.
I think lowering the price will boost sales. PS3 games are selling. I don't know why people are implying that people will just use it as a bluray player when there are cheaper bluray players out there that do the same thing.
Sony and the PS3 may just surprise the people who keep putting it in a negative light and that includes you.
@ juuken2 - Yep... in fact I think Don was one of the writers predicting the demise of Blu-ray because it stood no chance against HD-DVD. ;o)
my uncle uses it as blueray play, and thats all he does with it.... interesting isnt it?
IMHO:
PS3 wins on the following:
value = blu ray (i actually own a HDTV), SACD player, built in wireless, rechargeable controllers, 7.1 surround (xbox is 5.1) free online gaming (xbox owners always dismiss this), many many many FREE add-ons such as wallpapers, game downloads and themes (xbox you pay for EVERYTHING), cost of accessories, interface/user experience is much more streamlined and pretty on the PS3. upgradability, as i can install a new SATA laptop hard drive in my PS# in about 15 minutes and spend less than 100 bucks to get over 300 gigs of storage space. and it doesn;t even void my warranty on the console. the owners manual even provides instructions on backing up data and replacing the drive.
xbox wins on the following:
Game titles available and online gaming experience/xbox live capabilities. PSN doesn?t compare to xbox live. If PSN were more like xbox live I would gladly pay. I like being able to join a friends game already in progress, change chat sessions while in a game, etc etc etc. none of which Sony supports.
Game console purchasers care about two things more than anything: titles available and online game experience. Since xbox wins in both departments, PS3 will always be doomed to lag behind. It is a shame really because it is such a nice console. I wish they would get with the times. Make the PS3 easier for developers to develop games for and make PSN more like xbox live. SONY, ARE YOU LISTENING? WE WILL PAY FOR XBOX LIVE FEATURES!!! GIVE THEM TO US!!
Look MS is a software company, Sony is a hardware company. It's funny the PS3 has way better software running it. When I play movies on my PS3 not only do they look better than the 360 plays them, but the screen smoothly fades to black brings up the movie it's classy. The 360 has a spasm, pop, click, flash white, purple, crackle then plays the movie. What up with that?
Big point, no one's made about the 360. The Xbox is totally locked down aside from demos and music, everything you put on that hard drive you have to pay for. In essence it's not your hard drive at all, you just buy it from MS to put their content on. PS3 allows me to copy my movies to it, rename, copyback to another drive, and upgrade it. I bought it, it's really my hard drive. I can even download movies and shows to other hard drives. I only expect the playstation online to get better, yes 360 is more mature now, but I remember where they used to be as well.
The $99 wireless adapter is outrageous, I can buy a Gigabit router to use as a repeater for that price. (BTW PS3 is Gigabit) there is no question the 360 costs more over time, for less features on patched together hardware. But the games do redeem it. Sony just felt this is the time for a total media center to be in your living room. They are right, they should not compare the PS3 to game only systems (Wii). This console life cycle will be long the 360 was right for it's time, if they don't fix the quality of the experience overall to the level of the PS3, I would expect to see the PS3 take over once again.
You're also right about the Xbox being totally locked down... but not just software wise. For a company that supposedly prides itself in 'working with everything'... Sony is the real 'open' player here. I recently set-up an awesome headset with a Plantronics .Audio 370 and a Syba SD-CM-UAUD USB Stereo Audio Adapter which I paid less than $32 for (and could be had on sale for less than $22). Try THAT with an Xbox! Or, plug in just about any camera.... or upgrade the PS3 with any typical laptop hard-drive.
Tell your friend that he must be doing something wrong with his 360. The party chat works...well, perfectly. You can start a chat party and keep it going even if you're not playing in the same game. You can keep a chat going no matter what you or your friend are doing, as long as both of your 360s are on. How is that not what it's cracked up to be? Maybe your buddy just doesn't have any friends.
Case in point, my uncle could have saved so much money if he just bought the Arcade version of the 360. Microsoft understands this, that's why they make things optional, because they have learned from their computer business that not everyone uses every dang feature you can cram into a computer/console.
Then you have the PS3, you are REQUIRED to have a hard drive, not because you can download movies and games/demos, but because a lot of the PS3 games require installations. RE5 just came out, and it has a monster installation. If you have several games and you only have say, the 20GB PS3, you'd have to uninstall some games just to play others, ridiculous. Sony plays it like Microsoft is forcing you to buy extra accessories, and that Sony is giving you extra accessories.
When in fact it's the exact opposite. Sony forces you to buy a Wi-Fi adapter, forces you to buy a large hard drive (not so you can download DLC/movies, but so you can install the games to play), forces you to buy a wireless controller, and of course forces you to buy a blu-ray player.
The only thing that Microsoft really forces 360 owners to buy is the Xbox Live Subscription. And after playing on both networks, I've observed Xbox Live to be much more stable than PSN, and this is coming from someone who has a "Strict NAT" on my connection for Live.
This whole generation has shown that Sony is no longer focused on the gamers, but more on trying to increase their own profits (they've failed), drag in new customers (failed again), and win this generation on technology alone (failed just like every other tech heavy console of the past generations).
When it comes down to it the 360 is still the cheapest way to play multi-platform titles like Fallout 3, RE5, Assassins Creed, EA Sports Games, Call of Duty 4/5, etc.
And it is a joy to put in the disc and play right away. If I wanted install times I would just buy the game for my PC which I already own.
I thought not.
Sony forgot about the gamers. Then I must have been seeing things when I have 16+ games for my PS3 and only three bluray movies.
Sony has made mistakes but it doesn't change the fact that the PS3 is a gaming console.
That's all we're hearing about these days...
can't u post all 3 of ur comments in one =.=
and the if talk exclusive there r exclusives on 360s that u can't have on ps3 too. of then u'd hear all this self-centered dudes that scream and yell that only games that they like are real games and worth buying all others are just hype, u know what i like halo, and i like cod series. what r u going to do? its choice and preference, if u dont like it its your problem don't be rude to the ppl who like it.
let me say this, i agree with jsnowbordr47, they are just options and guess what im gonna get 360 arcade in a month or two so i can play re5, hawx, and ace combat(ok its old but i like the series but just havent had the money to get a new console)
i dont need or want all those extra "goodies" at least not right now, so until i want it i won't get it. so what is the exact TOC? u can't make one TOC and say everyone is the same, at least in this case u cant just add everything up and say tahts the TOC, it's wrong.
if u cant shell out another 100 bucks fr your own good, then its nt sony's problem
I will even raise the bar on this argument and say the PS3 is "WAY" more expensive because you have to buy a Xbox 360 along side it just to play decent games. Total cost? $399 + $299 = $698 :P
Sony just does not want to admit that they screwed up by FORCING features on users that few people are willing to pay for: especially with the economy. Value obviously is in the eye of the consumer and more of those are buying 360's.
To say people COULD care less, is to say that it is entirely possible that people care more about this topic than other topics and that there is still room for the possibility that these people care less about other things.
You mean to say, "COULDN'T" care less, i.e. that this topic is at the bottom of the totem pole of things these people care about.
I do not care about Blu-Ray. Let me repeat I DO NOT CARE ABOUT BLU RAY!
I know plenty of people do, but the Playstation 3 is more than just Blu Ray. It's also a divx player, and an audio media player, and it has all sort of other bloat in it.
I have a desktop computer hooked into my flatscreen TV. My TV is the monitor for that computer. The computer feeds audio into my sound system, and viola I have all the media center I need. I can watch Hulu, I can watch anything I download, I can run Pandora through my good sound system, the list goes on.
We are hitting a point where internet devices are becoming far more normal connected to the TV. As more and more people want to stream their Netflix or Hulu to their television, and they get some other device, and over time those devices support the other multi-media functions that the PS3 provides then where is the value?
What about the people who have Blu-Ray players that do Netflix, where's the value there? This added value is in a market that is light and developing very quickly, and consoles don't develop quickly. By their nature they are unmoving targets for the sake of game developers. So unless Sony can find a way to move away from that model and really push an total entertainment experience that gaming is only a part of then they are going to be completely out of luck.
Re: LIVE.... so after 3 years, you've already spent the extra $ the PS3 cost... and that is only IF you don't want or need the extra stuff the PS3 comes with. What about when you want a better headset? Or want to expand the hard drive capacity? Or have to buy battery pack rechargers? Or find out the D-Pad on the Xbox is a royal pain? Or the best games are on the PS3? Or your Xbox doesn't make it those 3 years?
vs psn which i have to ssay i can wait 5-15mins for Cod 4 a game matching on ps3
my nephew when i watch him play cod 4 the same game i wait at max 5 mins
I gladly pay the price for XBOX Live. It is totally worth it. I have never played a game of COD WAW with less than 50,000 people online on that game alone. And that is during the down times. Most of the time, its between 150,000-300,000. Whenever I play it on the Playstation Network, I'm lucky to find 60,000 at peak times. (I own it on both systems because my friends play it on XBOX Live, and my brother got a PS3 and COD WAW with his 10 years worth of tickets at Dave and Buster's). In other words, I can eat all the free samples of chocolate cake from Costco that I want, but it is just more worthwhile to just buy the whole cake and eat it with my friends.
If you want a better headset, you have to buy it no matter which console you own. At least the XBOX 360 Elite console comes with one. I agree with you on the hard drive issue and battery packs. I've never had an issue with the d-pad, but I imagine that it could be cumbersome with a fighting game. I find that the XBOX controller works better for shooters, which I play a majority of the time. The best games are on PS3? That was a fanboy comment, and you know it. Besides, Killzone 2's realistic controls SUCK...so frustrating. Why were they so concerned with "realistic" controls when freaking Radek has a personal cloaking device. Is that realistic? Yes, 360s have had serious rrod issues, but the hardware has been fixed. At least MS extended the warranties to 3 years instead of denying that their console had an issue as Sony did with the PS2's "CD READ ERROR" problem that it had it's first 2 years. G4 did a special on how to fix it for God's sake, and Sony still denied it as a problem. That is actually the reason that I ended up buying an original XBOX.
Now that that's done, if they did take out the bluray player and cut the price by $100 then I'm sure it make great sales as a gaming system.
It's pretty much the same strategy with the Blu-Ray, just in this case Sony has more of a vested interest.
In fact Sony has never used the same disc format in any of it's consoles. Actually the only one I can think of thats used the same discs in its consoles is the 360, just heres hoping the 720 uses Blu-Ray or an equivalent.
"Without the remotes?" do you mean the wireless controllers? I suppose they could do that... but again, they are pretty nice, and I'm not sure how much money that would really reduce the overall price.
I think they would probably be best to bundle a few more games and movies with it if they can. I doubt they can lower the price of the actual base package too much currently... though we might see a $50 drop not too far down the road.
dude blue-ray is a technology different than the good old dvd vcd etc... if it's already that cheap to make the drive we would be seeing players selling at $150 range as the main stream price =.=
there isn't enough source to make the price for making them cheap yet, its always like that
You having a slow day or something?
Blu-Ray isn't just to play movies but its the format the games come on. You know how like you maybe backup your work onto a DVD, the same disc format that movies come one. and how you may have used CD's to back up too, jsut like Music uses. well Blu-Ray is a data disc too not just a HD movie disc.
You remember how like the PS2 used DVD's for playing movies and its games, and the 360 continues to use still (heaven forbid if the 720 still uses DVD)
Sony may have made a lot of stupid mistakes this generation but it doesn't change the fact that they built a very unique system that can only be more successful with more impressive software sales and a reasonable pricecut.
Media centers like cnet have blinded people into thinking the PS3 is just a bluray player. It's truly, truly sad.
- by Mike+1 March 17, 2009 1:28 PM PDT
- You cannot buy a Blu-ray player with all the features of the PS3 (not counting gaming features) for $399. I have bought several BD movies and use the BD Live feature as well. It is also the fastest loading (no tray) BD player you can buy for $399. Someone mentioned PlayOn in another post and I use it as well as PlayStation Media Server to share media over my home network. The online web browser experience of the PS3 leaves a little to be desired, but is a quick fix when I am too lazy to go in another room and log on to my desktop or don't want to get my laptop out and go online wirelessly with it. Streaming and downloading features are very handy from my easy chair with the PS3. The games are more expensive to develop and design for the PS3 but the greater capacity of the Blu-ray disks allows for more extensive designs to be experienced in full 1080p HD Blu-ray. I am using and enjoying my PS3 every day while others wait and wish that the price would come so they can feel like they got a good deal. I wish the price of the games was $15-$20 and the price of BD movies was $10-$15, but I also want a brand new Porsche for $25k as well. ;-)
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by make_or_break March 20, 2009 10:30 AM PDT
- Great as long as you WANT the BD movie capability. You'd be surprise how many have tunnel vision and ONLY want a console for its GAMING capability (ohh, hand's raised...pick me...pick me). The convergence strategy hasn't panned out; all anyone has to do is see the PS3's sorry sales figures to get confirmation.
- Like this
-
- by Mike+1 March 26, 2009 2:17 PM PDT
- PlayStation 3 games are Blu-ray format, so you cannot remove that capability, it is just another one of the advantages of the PS3 over Xbox or Wii. Why not get both a great gaming system and the best BD player you can for less money than another gaming system and a separate BD player wuold cost if you intend to buy a BD player anyway. If not, be satisified with inferior technology that will be (or already is) outdated soon. Most every PS3 owner I know is a videophile as well, some are videophiles first and gamers second like myself, exception being my nephew who uses his PS3 to watch the Simpsons when he is not several levels deep into one of the many games he plays daily with the fantastic HD graphics of the PS3.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (152 Comments)The PS3's core market is gamers, period. Sony assumed gamers and videophiles were one in the same. Too bad they can't take a mulligan for that call.
The PS3 sales numbers may be in 3rd, but if the highest price game console can sell that many units and have superior technology, then the game developers cannot ignore them. Sony's leads all-time sales of all game consoles (PS1, PS2, PS3 and PSP) sold, so I think that they do know their market. Their all-time sales of videophile electronic products, (ie, televisions, bd players, etc) is pretty impressive as well, so they probably know more about their market than most companies.
Most cell-phone users just want a telephone, but thankfully someone decided that some people might want e-mail, internet, camera, GPS, etc., heck even games all in one device, imagine that!