Comments on: Sony unveils PS3 pricing, release dates

At a top price of $599, the PS3 will cost $200 more than Microsoft's highest-priced Xbox 360.
Photos: PS3 prototypes

[rick7069]

600 is cheap

Most of you must have e-machine computers. I paid 600 for the graphics card in my computer, 800 for the processor, 600 for memory, 220 for the raptor hard drive, 200 for the sound card - on and on, and you think the ps3 is expensive? The newest graphics card by nvidia for a computer runs about 500 and the nvidia graphics sub-system in the ps3 is the equivalent of two of those cards and that's just the graphics system. For the technology they have included in this box, the price is a steal. A similar gaming experience on a full computer would run well into the thousands.
Now, you'll go back to your original nintendos and leave the serious gaming to us big boys.

[SolarisGuru]

WHAM! ...and he hits the nail on the head!

I totally agree with this guys comment. If you want a PS3, don't complain and groan about the price tag, start saving now.

[*Porter*]

Another view

I'm won't aruge that PS3 isn't a bargain in some respects. You can argue that it's got Blu-Ray, it's got a 60GB hard drive, it's got wifi, and it's got the most powerful graphics processing available to home consumers. All for $600? You're right, rick, that's not too bad.

But I don't think like that. I think, "A new video game system for $600!? Outrageous!" You could tell me that the system can drive me to work at it costs less than a car, but I don't really care--I just want to play games. $600 to play some games is a lot of money. At least with a computer you can do a lot more than just play some games.

Oh and what is Sony thinking by not including HDMI in the $500 version... $500 PS3 = No wifi, no HDMI, and no memory stick... but still 500 bones...haha....anyone that buys the $500 version will be a sucker.

[Dachi]

Not really

Not after you consider that all the games start at $55 and most of them are just new version of old stuff.

PS3 + 10 games = $1150 + tax

That is expensive when you consider you are playing mostly the same games that were out for the original Play Station but with better graphics.

I think I would rather spend the extra money to beef up my next PC.

[jeffhesser]

sucker born every day

the fact that you dropped that much on those parts for your computer says two things; you have too much money, and you don't do the research before you buy. so the fact that you call that a bargain just proves there's a sucker born every day. and i have some snake oil i'll sell you for a steal! it cures everything and makes you smarter.

[Rawnchie14]

You my sir...

are completely daft. First off, you spent way too much on your parts, and I feel bad for you. Second, you're comparing a computer to the PS3, which has so so much more functionality... I can't even register the comparison. I'm not like you, and only play games on my PC... I sure hope you don't.

Lastly... Big boys like you? Right. Real video gamers play the classics, respecting them for thier gameplay, rather than being a graphics ***** and only playing the state of the art games. Being wealthy, and being a big time gamer, are completely different, don't you dare look down on people who will have a hard time swallowing the cost for this system. I myself, plan to buy this system regardless, but some people can't just be throwing 600$ around, have consideration.

Mistuh Chi

[dewalt25]

Money isnt a thing to you, is it?

Just because the PS3 is less than the cost of its parts, DOES NOT MEAN IT IS AT A GREAT PRICE POINT. Every console is sold this way. Sure it's a steal, but at $600, they're banking on a few things, like hype.

All the kiddies got to come out and post as soon as console stories bust out.

[P_S_J]

Couldn't agree more

I see a lot of ranting and raving because Xbox will become obsolete once this hits the shelves. The technology in this thing is a quantum leap forward in console gaming. If games are being developed in BluRay, it will blow Xbox away. I am certainly buying one.

[markdoiron]

Hard Drive Upgrade Pricing

Hmmm. Is there more difference between the 20-GB and the 60-GB models than price? I ask because a new Seagate SATA notebook 60-GB hard drive costs less than $84 retail at buy.com. And that's without the "trade-in" value of the 20-GB drive.

http://www.buy.com/prod/Hitachi_TravelStar_5K100_hard_drive_60_GB_SATA_150_0A26923/q/loc/58952/201668792.html

mark d.

[dheadley]

Pricing is in line with Xbox 360 pricing, Same price in the end....

the top Xbox 360 lacks a HD DVD / Blueray player for that price as well as some of the other features. Microsoft is reportedly going to offer a add-on HD DVD player for the 360 but they haven't released a price for it yet. Industry experts estimate that even taking a good loss on the drive that MS will have to sell it for around the $200 US range. So there will really be no difference in the end for an equal set-up between the two systems.

[markdoiron]

Well, In A Twisted Sort of Way, Yes ...

In a twisted sort of way you may be right. But it's twisted because game consoles that provide movie playing have never done very well at that--the user interface is always poor. And since it should be obvious that Sony is having to cut corners to get this product to market, one of the most obvious places is in movie playback. I suspect that it's capability will be about as mediocre as the PS2's.

That's just a guess, of course. I could be wrong. But one thing I'm certain I'm not wrong about is the impact of user experience on sales: Just ask Apple as they laugh all the way to the bank with their iPod sales profits! :-)

mark d.

[Captain-Atari]

Not really...

I'm not being forced to buy HD-DVD in the case of Microsoft's xbox 360. Sony is forcing Playstation 3 customers to finance their BLUE RAY licensing campaign. If Microsoft releases an HD-DVD player I won't need it to play games only for watching Movies. There is no guarantee that Developers are going to produce GAME content that will require the storage capacity of either BluRay or HD-DVD. As far as movies are concerned You will always be better off with a dedicated Movie player than some type of hybrid. The PS3 like the PS2 will be a compromise between it's primary function "GAMING" and the secondary function "Watching Movies". The Movie experience will suffer when compared to dedicated Bluray and HD-DVD players. In the end it's all about the games and while Sony will attempt to win the HD Format war by counting PS3 sales it may not matter if HD-DVD moves the same amount of movies with possibly fewer players. Hard core gamers play TV more than they watch it and in the end BLURAY may still lose out if most of it's audience are PS3 customers who would rather spend 60$ on FinalFantasy ??? than spoend $30 the BLURAY release of a movie they already have on DVD.

[umbrae]

Not True...

The HD-DVD is not necessary to play games and will only be used for Movies on the 360, so you cannot include this in the price against the PS3. Most gamers will not want a HD-DVD drive. However, you MUST have the expensive Blu-Ray drive included in the PS3 to play games. You will also see the cost of Blu-Ray leak into the cost of game media as well. Although, Sony will soak most of those costs for at least a year.

[rick7069]

not true - not true

By the time the ps3 is released, hi-def dvd's will be spreading rapidly on the market and with the samsung blue-ray player hitting at 1400, the ps3 will not only be a great video game machine, but it will also be a logical choice for any home entertainment system. The proliferation of hi-def tv's is also rapidly spreading and many, many people can't wait for the opportunity to take more advantage of their high-dollar investments and will buy the ps3 just for the cheap blue-ray player alone. And, now that they own a cheap blue-ray player, why not take advantage of the game system that came with it for free.
You under-estimate the value of the new player in driving sales in the future and also in making blue-ray the new hd-dvd of choice, winning the new standard war.

[bluesmandan]

PS2 history lessons

I remember reading about the PS2 before it came out. The review from a technological standpoint was that the hardware blew everything else out of the water but was a nightmare to program. I'm assuming we'll see the same thing with the PS3. If history is any lesson, Tretton is right about the long-term and the PS3 is not going to be priced too high. Remember, people said the same thing about the iPod: no one would pay such a high price for an MP3 player. I admit it's not the greatest comparison because there weren't any good MP3 players at the time and the Xbox is a decent system. Still, it shows that consumers will swallow the cost if the value justifies it. If the tech advance in the Playstation 3 is anything like the advance from the Playstation 2, then Sony is absolutely doing the right thing.

[duke442games]

Blah, blah, blah- Dont care. $600 is too much

This is an insane price for a video game system. I mean, for the love of all that is good and holy, what percentage of people on the PLANET will spend thid kind of money on a game system? This is frankly crazy. Ok, maybe some of the fan boys that read these kinds of sites every hour of every day will sink $600 into something like this, but the majority of people will never touch something that costs this much. What made the PS and the PS2 successes was how affordable they were to everyone. This allowed the rich kid down the block to have one, and even the poor kid delivering papers could save up and get one relativly easily. $600 will blow away a huge percentage of the Sony's install base. Less owners means less game sales. Less game sales means less games.

[Christopher Hall]

On one condition, I would

I'd shell out this much (and possibly more) for the PlayStation 3 or any game system on one and only one condition: Give me the games.

I didn't buy a PS2 until games came out that I wanted to play. I held off on the GameCube until Resident Evil came out. I'm holding off on the Xbox360 until something worth my money gets released, and I'll likely do the same with the PS3.

I can't speak for all the hardcore gamers out there, but I speak for myself when I say that I'm not phased by the $600 price tag. If they have the games to back it up, I'm there. (As a Sony stockholder, though, I'm shaking in my boots, but that's another story entirely.)

[techned]

PS3 price is right.

If you compare the prices between 360 and PS3, between the package deals, there is a $200 difference, which emphasizes the next generation components inherent in PS3.

Definately, the price is going to hurt PS3, as well that gamers will wonder about the advantage of having the Blu-Ray device since both 360 and PS3 seem to be equal in terms of capability. In the old days, the amount of data that can be squeezed into media (cartridge, CD, etc.) determined the wow factor in a game but with DVD technology that is a thing of the past since even the current format can still hold more than 40 hrs of gameplay, including cinematic cut scenes. I think the only way that Sony could justify having games on Blu-Ray discs is if that Sony cuts every game as though it was a "Special Edition", with the usual junk - "behind the scenes" info, commercials, trailers, deleted scenes, comic book (if its a comic licensed property), etc. - with Blu-Ray tech, Sony can put a lot more value into their games than what is normally put into a regular DVD; of course this will cost a lot, but Sony has to eat the "bitter pill" if it wants its format to succeed.

Otherwise both the PS3 and 360 seem somewhat equal, still it remains to be seen what advantages that the Cell processor gives over 360, since part of PS3's high price also comes from the R&D of the Cell, which many people tend to forget. From my understanding, Cell (which is a customized PowerPC CPU with 7 processing cores/DSP) in the PS3 controls every aspect - memory, sound, network (not only broadband but any other Cell-base product, like a HDTV), videom etc., except graphics, which is generated by the Nvidia chipset; according to previous media, Cell will actually generates the sound - music,special effects, etc., all in Dolby stereo and THX, while it will also be able to control all of PS3's other funtions, including online gaming, in real time - this is not a cheap chip.

If you consider these two items, PS3 is pretty much cutting edge state of the art tech - the price is definately comparately cheap when you think what the actual machine really costs. But what sits in my mind is if it is worth it, considering that 360 seems to be able to offer the same type of performance now but at a lower price with "off-the-shelf" parts?

I guess we'll see after Nov.17 then.

My two cents,
Ned

[dewalt25]

360 is not off the shelf

The 360 is not made from off the shelf parts. That was the original. Last I checked, the 360 does have a custom-built PowerPC processor (ironically made with IBM)

[aabcdefghij987654321]

Price is high, but...

...Sony is following MS's lead in overpricing their console, and probably closing the gap a bit more between sell price and manufacturing cost at the same time.

If you complain about the PS3 price, blame Microsoft first. I blame them for THIS, as well as the multiple-versions trend that MS started that Sony now has to follow suit.

Sony made the right moves in these two respects, and although I agree these prices are high, Sony knows people will pay them. One look at what losers are paying for the old technology in the xBOx 360 explains Sony's decisions.

[imkain]

question for you

Explain to me how it is Microsoft's fault...would love to read, or hear the facts on why.

[mmukalian]

C'mon folks, let's try and look at this somewhat reasonably...

OK, so the "stripped down" version has a smaller HD...ok...20GB from 60GB...to me, 20GB's a lot of space to have. But that's just my opinion, there are those that may (re: may) need more...

no Wi-Fi...easily remedied via a USB wireless adapter...ding ding...you're now wireless...

no card reading...again, easily remedied via a USB card reader...ding ding...you now have card read/write capabilities...

no HDMI...ok, this is the "grey" area, as it's not been officially confirmed that the hardware will limit resolution of HD over component...but, for the sake of argument, let's say it does...well, Sony now has given the consumer a choice, if I don't have an HDTV that's capable of going up to 1080, and I just have SD, I'm good...I can still watch my movies. If I do have an HDTV, the images, while not "true" (that whole 1080p thing), will still be great looking.

Personally, I'm opting for the $600. It's got all I want, it fits within the HD scheme of things, and if you add up the peripheral cost (from above), it's the right way to go.

My .02

[ackmondual]

but will the PS3 support those USB devices?

Just b/c the plug fits, doesn't mean the device will work. The peripherals you pointed out I haven't thought about. That sounds promising, but the skeptical side of me predicts that Sony may make its gamers buy PS3 branded card readers, etc. to try to bank more $$ off accessories.

Any1 have any info whether or not it'll be that straightforward to add these extra functionalities?

[techned]

Why the fuss about the controller.

When I went to my first E3, it was when the N64 was being brought out, with its unique controller - the first with an analog joystick and the rumble pack.
I was simply amazed about the innovation of the analog stick but I hated the rumble pack- and I wasn't the only one but guess what, both Sony and Sega copied both innovations in the next set of controllers for their system; imitation is another form of flattery.

I have to admit the reporter here is not very knowledgeable on the subject on what he is reporting but why nitpick - as long he is giving the information about the PS3 accurately and not being biased about it, then it's ok.

As to Sony using the sensor control on a regular PS controller - I'm not sure if I like it that much, not because it's definately a copying of Nintendo but that it will probably invite developers to try to incorporate this feature into their games unnecessarily - the idea of moving the controller in a FPS game is going to be distracting, maybe enough for me to drop it during maybe an important part like getting ambushed; it seems more of a waste of money and tech to incorporate the motion detection feature in a standard controller, whereas Nintendo put such a unique feature in a specialty made controller and made it into its primary feature making it comfortable and natural - like another part of your body.

My honest opinion, it's a mistake to put motion control into a standard PS controller, which has both analog and digital control, and then the the plethora of buttons - it's going to be clumsy and not as refine an experience as the Revolution (I'll never call it Wii) controller is. I also find it hard for Third Party hardware makers, like Mad Catz, making a Revolution type controller for PS3, without actually violating the trademark design of the controller and without including all the numerous controls of the PS3 - making it a mess.

I really don't think Sony thought the design of the controller in regards to adding the motion detection stuff.

My Two Cents,
Ned

[ackmondual]

they may make it a secondary feature

I had the same thought you had as well with the motion sensor detracting from gameplay and not contributing to it. I know some ppl really didn't like the rumble pack, but luckily, most if not all games with rumble gives you the option to turn it off. And that's acceptable too since no game requires you actually use it. A pseudo exception would be in Zelda Ocarina Of Time. With the right item, rumble pack would go off if you're near some secret entrance, but that wasn't req to finish the game. Just to explore extra areas and maybe some useful items which again, were not req at all.

If they require motion sensing for some PS3 game, maybe leave it only for practical situations. Else, give ppl the option to simulate the motion sensing alternatively like say.... with the L2 and R2 buttons instead.

[Tomcat Adam]

So much for the "HD Advantage"

With no HDMI for the poorer console, AND no room for expansion, then how does Sony expect to put their Blu-ray root in the ground? Really, they can't honestly expect the average homeowner to sink 600$ (well beyond that in AU and CND) into what almost all of them will view as a "second betamax" or "vidya-game", whether it is or not.

[Tomcat Adam]

Oops, overlooked.

I guess I overlooked the USB ports. I suppose they could pull an MS move and give out USB expansions, but I don't know if that's possible with an AV signal.

[P_S_J]

Ever hear of.....

component cables? They also deliver HD to a HDTV. HDMI is not the only way. HDMI is a means to get the best quality.

[KTLA_knew]

Sony & Nintendo copy MS again

MS had the motion sensing controller back in the 90s, I still have my MS Freestyle which does exactly what Sony's talking about, but probably better because it isn't Sony.

I'm not saying MS invented this, someone else probably had it first.

however, Sony and nintendo are just now experimenting with MSs technology from a decade ago.

[freemarket--2008]

Yes it must be better...

It's use is so common and widespread...and yet, I've never heard of it. Oh yea, I forgot. I don't buy anything from Microsoft.

[techned]

There was a reason why Freestyle was forgotten.

Seriously, what was the use of this controller besides motion detection? On what game?

It didn't sell well (if at all), no software really was there for it or its feature, and like most game controllers from MS during the 90's - it was ugly and was of poor design quality.

I have no idea if Sony is just trying to punk'd Nintendo for having such a good innovative product and properly supporting it. It's Sony's money to waste.

So MS had it first - back then there was no Xbox and Sega was probably figuring out how Windows CE would work in Dreamcast.

- Ned

[P_S_J]

ha ha ha

And MS invented the mouse too, right? MS invented the browser too? MS invented the firewall? MS invented Spyware protection? MS invented the DVD-based gaming console? Please refrain from talking. I can't stop laughing.

[HalfEmptyGlass]

Same price as XBOX 360 if you need wireless

If you need wireless then this console costs the same as the XBOX 360. The wireless adapter for the XBOX 360 costs $99 so it brings the price up to $498, same as the PS3.

[mrpeabody3119]

Re: Same price as XBOX 360 if you need wireless

How do you figure out your comparison?

You took the premium XBOX and added wi-fi to it, then you took the cheaper of the PS3 (which DOESN'T have wi-fi) and compared the pricing.

[Don Key]

The $499 doesn't ship with wireless

This would make a little sense if it wasn't for the fact that the 500 dollar unit doesn't ship with wireless in the box.

No matter what way you try to spin it, this thing is freaking expensive.

[grangerfx]

No Force Feedback

A lawsuit by the tiny company Immersion has forced the mega corporation Sony to take a step backwards in video game technology. Buried in Sony's press release is the mention that force feedback was "removed" from the PS3 controller because it interfered with the motion sensing features. Nintendo has proved that it is possible to have both force feedback and motion sensing in the same controller. The real reason why force feedback was removed is that Sony is about to lose the Immersion patent infringement lawsuit. One wonders if games like Gran Turismo will be any fun to play without force feedback? Sony?s own Warhawk demonstration showed just how difficult and unnatural the controller will be to use. The game?s producer flailed with the controller overcorrecting left and right until he eventually crashed at the end of the demo. This is no way to introduce a new controller concept. I think most players would prefer to keep the well liked force feedback feature instead of swapping it for the unproven motion sensing.

[imkain]

I agree

There is a big difference between $1000 and $1600. The Xbox360's lineup is basically plagued by both the botched release last year, as well as the delayed launch of the PS3 since most developers want to get that profit of the same game title on all three consoles...so the red-headed step child Microsoft was spanked. However, towards the end of the year, once the Wii and the PS3 arrives the 360 should take off like the rocket it was intended to be...also this will be helped since many parents will rethink plunking down half a grand on a system when they can get the same technology (if not better) for far less.

[blue-eyed-bohemian]

With Blue-Ray movie playback, price is cheap

Don't forget this will have Blue-Ray hi-def movie playback support with full HD 1080p output, among its many features. I movie player alone is $1000, even HD-DVD player is $600 alone. Go over feature by feature, what you get in PS3 vs. XBOX (HD movie support, wirless LAN, HDD size, etc...) and PS3 is a bargain against XBOX and HD-DVD/Blue-Ray movie players. You won't have to go buy a separate movie player.

[georgemark]

Re: TalkBack: With Blue-Ray movie playback, price is cheap

Hehe now why is it that whenever someone slings at me the argument it has Blu Ray on it so it?s cheap I almost fall off my chair laughing?

I don?t know is it because that their games will cost loads more to buy BECAUSE of Blu Ray ? (proprietary Sony format) ? Yeah every game made for the PS3 will be on BluRay DVD whereas the Xbox equivalent is on standard DVD?So guess what every game made for PS3 WILL cost more than the Xbox port?

Also the DVD format has been around for 10 years or so and the tech has only managed to pick up pace in the last 4-5 ?When the first DVD players were marketed they cost a lot of money and people stuck with their old VHS players it was only after DVD players went below the threshold of 100$ that DVDs really picked up pace ( you can still watch your movie on VHS if you?re a masochist hehe)?

Now Given the fact that we have another format war with HD DVD and also considering that Sony and the rest of Blu Ray association have pushed back the release of blu ray players and movies (you got that right there are NO BLU RAY movies available anywhere) for sometime in 2006, and people will not switch to a new format for at least 4-5 years (presuming that HD DVD suffers a fatal blow and goes down the pooper fast at mach speed) and there is an overwhelming support by the public the studios won?t abandon the DVD as their preferable format for at least 4-5 years? So I am not going to hurry and land my self on another betamax

So go ahead be my guest buy a machine which for the time being is a console through and through (you will have a hell of a time finding your favourite movie on Blu Ray even after it?s release) which has no significant differences from an Xbox for double the money on hardware and who knows how much more expensive software?

Plus every time I tried watching a DVD on my PS2 I ended up cursing the moment I inserted the disk..So in the end what do you have?
A crappy overly expensive Hi Def Player (provided you dish out 600$ ) which plays overly expensive games which can be played on another console which costs cheaper and the look just as good on either one?

[Craig Stevenson]

Too Rich for My Blood

I bought a PS2 when it first came out and have bought only 6
games for it, 3 of which were Final Fantasy titles. At $600, a PS3 is
just not worth it for me, just to play Final Fantsy every two to three
years. Nope. I'm out.

[mantisxgp]

I agree with u there guy

Though sony has an impressive machine and can wow the fans and audience, it is the priceing point that will hurt the company hugely. I know im not going to buy a ps3 for about a year or 2 after its launch (hopefully the prices will drop by then), I barely had enuff cash for the 360 (it was an impulse buy, and also the numbnut at gamecrazy rung the premium pack up as the core pack by accident). I guess time will tell if sony made a good move by trying to cram a "super" computer into a plastic contaner.

[techguy83]

anyone else noticed the spec differences?

I'm not sure if anyone posted it or not.

The $499.00 20GB HDD version will not have some of the specs the 60GB HDD version will have. I have a link at home that links to the spec sheet Sony released yesterday to the E3 attendees.

Also, Sony totally copied from Nintendo, and their excuse that the rumble technology would interfere with the tilt sensor is bull. Its just a way to cover up that they cant have rumble due to losing that lawsuit.

[techned]

It's confusing.

It doesn't make sense that Sony would actually make two different types of PS3 - one with the media ports and one without.

Think about it. The media ports are definately for something other than saving your game data, if PS3 is to have an extensive online service, including store to download media content, like games, wallpaper, etc.

It's counter-productive and it doesn't also justify that the 20Gb unit is only $100 less than the 60GB unit. And I would think that making two different PS3 systems could also be cost prohibitive.

My two cents,
Ned


I've been to the Sony website and they have not even updated their PS3 portal yet.

[malkier]

Microsoft says "Thank you!"

Sony has aimed for the very top end of the gaming community. In the long run, if Blueray wins, that gamble could pay off handsomely. But it is a huge gamble making your customers invest in all this new technology up front.

In doing so, they have ceded the gaming middle ground to Microsoft, which will be a very very costly mistake. As long as Microsoft creates more compelling content for the 360 (a given in my mind), they will have a $200 headstart in the race for the Christmas dollar. I don't know many parents who would not chose to save $200 when the end products are generally seen as comparable.

And how long will it be before programmers figure out the cell well enough to reap the full power of this system? They haven't yet come close with the 360, which is a relatively simpler architecture. The theoretical power of these system is not relevant. What matters is how that power is used to create amazing games. If Microsoft focuses on that, with their price advantage, they will win.