Comments on: Does Sony's PS3 value argument hold up?

Is the PlayStation 3 the most valuable console on the market, or is it all about price?

[epross]

Instead of knocking the PS3, I'd love to hear from Xbox owners. (I have a PS3, but have always wanted an Xbox as well - just waiting for the best time financially to purchase.)

Hey Xbox 360 owners, does Sony's argument hold any truth? Have you all purchased live accounts, accessories, etc. to go with your XBox? Excluding games, how much more have you spent on your Xbox since initial purchase? Let's see some real world examples. Thanks!

I can say, from my PS3 experience, other than a second controller ($50) and HDMI cable ($5) - I haven't spent anything else on my PS3 and have had it for about six months now. But I can see how even with the PS3 you could run up the costs with accessories and the like - even if there are fewer for the PS3.

[1eye1]

I bought my 360 on day one and I have only bought a Guitar Hero Controller and of course xbox live for it. Other than Guitar Hero, I only play games online. I don't need wireless because wired is better serious online gaming. I don't need a blu ray player because I stream all my movies Haven't been to a video store in 3 years. I don't need a larger hard drive because my 20 gb is only 1/2 full and its been like 4 years. The only added value that the PS3 would offer me is rechargeable controllers (the PSN network is so inferior to Xbox live that free is not good enough, they'd have to pay me $50 a year to use it). I know the RROD sucks, but they sent me a a replacement with a the HDMI connector on it. I can't tell the difference, but I had to buy the HDMI cable for $10.

[-fjtorres-]

Nope.
I bought a 20GB Pro in 2006.
I connected by wire from my router so I can stream 1080p HD from my server PC.
(Can't do that with wifi-G.)
I bought two accessories; a VGA cable for less than what Sony charges for their HDMI cable, and a Logitech infrared remote so I can integrate my 360 into my setup.
(Can't do that with PS3, either.)
All my other expenses have been on games, dlc and movie rentals.
(I don't go to Blockbusters anymore.)
Generally, I turn on the 360, scope out the daily Live news and promos, then decide if I'm in the mode for Fable, another round of Fallout, or watching an HD movie rental.
No, I have no interest in BD or any of the Sony franchise games; if they had a game to my liking I might buy a PS3 but so far, the numbers don't add-up; it doesn't offer anything I need and what it offers I'm indifferent to.
Tech demos stopped impressing me back in the Amiga bouncing ball era.

[SteveW928]

The two responses so far seem honest... is that the norm? The only point I disagree on is LIVE being so superior to PSN. It has a few more features.... but isn't as polished. I think I'll put my (and did) my cards on the Sony side here that it has or will have the features I need, and works well at doing it. (I don't have an Xbox at this point, but have friends who have both who have said the extra LIVE features are nice, but don't often work so well.... about the only feature the PS3 is missing IMO is a system-wide voice chat.) What else does LIVE do that I need and am missing on PSN? Maybe ignorance is bliss, but I'm not aware of anything else I'm missing, and my friends who play both haven't brought up anything else.

As for what I've bought.... same thing, $50 extra controller and $5 HDMI cable. I also added really deluxe headset consisting of a Plantronics .Audio 370 and Syba SD-CM-UAUD USB Stereo Audio Adapter for around $30. Try that with an Xbox!

As for games... to each their own I guess. The MAIN reason I bought a PS3 is because the game titles I wanted were available for it (Warhawk, Gran Turismo)... and I haven't been disappointed with others, such as Burnout Paradise, etc. If I ever get sick of playing Warhawk (which I do 90% of my gaming on, even after over a year and several hundred hours of play), there look to be a lot more excellent titles I can pick from. By that time, there will probably be a Warhawk 2. :o) Again, ignorance might be bliss, but the only attractive title for me on the Xbox seems to be Halo. I like Halo (have played at friends houses)... but IMO it is no competition for Warhawk, or more in its genre, Killzone 2.

[Lenman_99]

If you want the best HD gaming it only comes from one place PS3. As far as cheaper Blu-Ray players, the PS3 is and will always be 1 step ahead in firmware because sony owns the firmware changes. If you can't afford the best, sorry, but that doesn't mean it still isn't the best.

[iMaZx]

Without a price cut this year SONY will be gone for good to become #2 as it can never beat Wii.

#2 not just being better rather popularity and more games etc.

[weggemana]

how is it over priced? I just dont understand. look at blu ray players, the descent players are at least $300. you are getting so much for $400.

[Inconnux]

but what if you don't care/want blu-ray?... if I wasn't mistaken, the PS3 was supposed to be a VIDEO GAME CONSOLE... looks like sony forgot that.

[Chimlim]

You also forgot to mention Sony removing backward compatibility. This is what turned me off of the PS3. I still have numerous PS2 games I enjoy and I wanted to keep playing them. I went with an Xbox 360 because it has more games I like and if I need to keep my PS2 hooked up still, I might as well go with the cheaper console . Strike one for Sony was assuming everyone wanted blu ray (Sorry Sony, but blu ray is just not worth upgrading to), Strike two was losing exclusive games like Devil May Cry, Resident Evil, Assassins Creed, and Final Fantasy, Strike three was their stupid decision (imo) to remove backward compatibility..

BTW....Dont listen to Sony, an Xbox 360 Arcade is actually perfect if all you want to do is play games without going online.

[FireyIce01]

Blame microsoft for buying off sony's exclusivity. You throw enough money at a game developer, and of course they're going to develop for your console as well. I truly believe sony needs to release a software emulater that fully supports PS1 and PS2 games (mine is the 60gig PS3 with the emotion chip in it, so I HAVE backwards compatibility, but I paid $425 for a refurb unit to get that backwards compat. Most people won't do that.) I also don't believe that sony thought everyone wanted bluray, rather, they felt that to fully utilize the power of their system, that a DVD wasn't going to be able to hold the required data.

[SteveW928]

@ Chimlim - I bought an 80GB model to get the 'backward compatibility'... but haven't used it in over a year. I should have saved the $100. I haven't really played the bundled game much either (Motorstorm), though it is OK. I actually have now traded most of my PS2 games. If you REALLY REALLY love some of your PS2 titles, I can see your point, but I was able to find replacements for almost all of them, which are just much better on PS3. For example, Warhawk replaced all my 'fighting' and 'flight' games. Gran Turismo and Burnout Paradise replace all my driving type games. etc.

Maybe they just aren't my thing... but those titles you are mourning the loss of aren't all that great. And I'm pretty sure I just played a demo of Resident Evil... so that can't be gone (I didn't like it though)... and I thought FF was coming (though I'm not sure I'd care for it either). If you like FPS or TPS style stuff those titles just don't cut it compared to KZ2 or Warhawk.

"if all you want to do is play games without going online" - then stick with your PS2. Seriously, on-line gaming is what makes these new generation consoles worth it.

@ FireyIce01 - and they wanted to win the Blu-ray vs. HD-DVD platform war... which they did. I like that the PS3 is a Blu-ray player, but that wasn't my main attraction for sure. It actually does an incredible job of up-scaling normal DVDs as well... though I'll buy all my new movies as Blu-ray. It is also an excellent media player in general... streaming from computers, my MythTV (linux TiVo like unit), etc.

[Inconnux]

lol fireyice01... Developers have no problems developing for the 360 because it uses DirectX as the graphics library. Very simple to develop for both the PC and the 360 market. No need to throw money at the developers when you use a mature graphics library... yet another thing Sony forgot with the PS3...

[SteveW928]

@ Inconnux - the problem is that this typically just gets you ports. BTW, PS3 uses OpenGL, which is also nice and standard.... in fact probably even more of a standard.

[stoobush]

I love my PS3. I thought the $470 ($500-$30 mail-in rebate) was reasonable when I bought it, since it was comparable to the XBox available at the time for a similar price once you included the external HD-DVD, external HD, and wireless, and I didn't want to have to pay for XBLive when I could get PSN for free.

It sounds like the same thing is true now. Is this news?

Both systems have media streaming. Both play all the games I want to play (GTA4, Fallout 3, Lego series). Both have games for about $60 new.

I consider the systems basically a coin-flip, but MS has done a better job marketing their unit, which is impressive considering their hardware failure problems at inception.

[worsethannormal]

What should also be mentioned in this article, is that it is cheaper to upgrade the PS3's hard drive. There are some hacks to do it cheaply with the 360, but because of the proprietary DRM they put on their drives it make it much more difficult.

But to change out the HDD in a PS3, simply buy a 2.5" drive, pop the side door of the system out, unscrew one screw and slide the drive bay out. Mount the new HDD and slide it back in. A navice could do it in 15 mins. I've even experimented with hanging and ESATA drive off the side of the PS3. Its nice having 300GB (all I had laying around) of drive space on the PS3.

This allows the PS3 to be upgraded not only cheaper, but with non-proprietary hardware. As someone who runs Linux on his PS3 this was a great value at least to me.

Oh, and you should mention, that. Not many people will do such a thing, but you can also run different OSes on the PS3.

[FireyIce01]

To support that argument, I will add the fact that once you've got linux on your PS3, you can install and use emulators to play all your old NES, SNES, N64, Sega Master System, Sega Genesis, Atari, Turbo Grafix 16, and Arcade games.

[SteveW928]

It isn't just the hard drive upgrade.... the PS3 also lets you connect all sorts of USB and Bluetooth devices.... like headsets, cameras, hard-drives.

[-fjtorres-]

Ah, but the 360 folks get Halo and Mass Effect and Fable and Ninja Gaiden 2 and and Gears of War and Splinter Cell and exclusive DLC for the cross-platform games, all for half the price of PS3. And the Wii folks get Mario and Zelda and Metroid and...
The gaming world did not begin with Sony and it doesn't end with Sony; enjoy the games you get on PS3, dude, but don't for a moment think they are the only games worth having or that they are necessarilly the epitome of gaming.
If you want to believe PS3 and its library is as good as it gets and that everything is is crap then by all means, keep on believing it.
Just don't expect the rest of the world to agree.

[FireyIce01]

I don't believe this to be the argument that's being made. The argument is that Sony's console is worth the price.

[SteveW928]

Halo is the only game there that is really worth anything IMO. The fact that you put GoW in there shows a lack of taste for quality games. On the PS3 we have.... hmm.... Warhawk, Burnout Paradise, Gran Turismo, Killzone 2 (the best FPS if you're into FPS)... just to name a few. If some game you really want is on Xbox only, then I suppose you'll go that direction despite inferior hardware. But don't try to say the PS3 isn't a better value if you consider all that it does and its build quality. The library argument is fine, but is subjective based on what games you think are 'must haves'. For me, Warhawk is a 'must have' and is only available on PS3.

considering that the xbox360 its pirate friendly i think that there it goes all the value of the machine.... lets face it previous generation sony machine did a good job thanks to its pirate friendly platform, they are doing bad now because of blu ray.

[FireyIce01]

Okay, haven't read all the comments yet, but lets just point out something to all the people touting Microsoft's cheaper console as a reason for sony to lower the price: The xbox arcade lacks a HD optical drive, has no hard drive, and comes without wireless. All, for $199. Then, the hard drive kits start at $100, the wireless kit starts at $100, and they don't even offer an HD optical drive anymore. So, if you buy the xbox, and hard drive and wireless, you've spent $400, and you still don't get as much as you get when you buy a $400 PS3. So - if you option the PS3 without the wireless, you could maybe get the price down a little, but the other 2 components aren't optional, as my friend George will point out, he can't play half the games he got for his xbox, because he got the arcade version, and without a hard drive everything freezes up on him all the time. His friend can play the same games with the hard drive model without issue. Seems to me that Value is more important than cost, and as long as you can't afford a PS3, you should just buy some more ps2 games - cause you're going to end up paying just as much for the xbox. As for the HD comments - yea, I bought my PS3 first, and it almost forced my hand into buying a HD tv, as I couldn't play anything that required me to read. So, yes, the HD tv does add to the price of the console, if you factor that in, and HD tv adoption is going to be much slower than color tv, because many people simply can't believe HD is worth it as long as their current equipment works.

[SteveW928]

Don, it isn't exactly big news that most consumers aren't wise enough to consider overall costs; other examples of this abound. KZ2 might be good, but it is hardly all the PS3 is riding on. There are many more expenses to consider for the Xbox (even though you've listed a few of them). For example... how much would it cost to expand the drive space on the Xbox vs a PS3? Or, the pain factor of having to deal with batteries and packs with the Xbox controller, or the lame D-pad, or lesser quality of the controller (or the whole system for that matter) on the Xbox.

As for your overall argument and that of whining developers.... 20+ million of a platform is PLENTY to develop for if you have the ability to create something reasonably good. It doesn't really matter if there were 2x more Xbox or 10x more. If market share were a critical factor, then the developers should skip the PS3 AND Xbox and only develop for the Wii or Nintendo DS.

Just like in response to the last lame article you wrote on this topic..... there are PLENTY of PS3s out there for wise developers... and the platform is doing just FINE, thank you!

[1kingsfan]

These arguments are completely pointless as they bring out the worst in fanboys. I have all 3 consoles and I love them all. Why wouldn't I? For online play, and I don't care what the Sony fanboys say, the 360 has a MUCH better interface. I LOVE X-Box live. I love my Wii for all the classics that I can put on SD cards (though a HD is a MUST HAVE in the future, Nintendo!). My PS3 is used as a gaming device but more or less as an "all-in-one" multimedia player. I'm sure I'll be burned alive at the stake for my comments but if I had to choose just one I really couldn't. You get what you pay for...and in the case of the PS3 you get FREE online play with a passable interface, an OUTSTANDING Blu-Ray player that cannot even remotely be compared with a stand-alone player, and a very decent gaming system. The arguments I read for the PS3 price cuts aren't really warranted when you see just how fully loaded the system really is.

[roachbrain]

What?s so wrong with being a fan boy for a system? I like the Dallas Cowboys does that mean I can?t voice myself in a discussion of how much they rule over the Giant?s and Packers? Does that make me a Cowboys fan boy? Yes, well I am a Sony fan boy that owned both systems and came to my own conclusion that my PS3 is a way better value than my late Xbox. Beside the exclusives on the 360 always release on the PC, so I?m covered.

[Some_One_Plays]

"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."

- Don Reisinger

First of all why video games are only for kids there are mature titles and most cases the mature titles show case what each console can do? With the PlayStation 3 I say the console has quality than value when compared to the competitor. For example the XBOX 360 has more games to choose from because of the year head start meaning the 2005 ? 2006 games are most likely hard to get but still adds to the library. Why I say quality because their games reach a level never seen before on the XBOX 360 even down to the videos the XBOX 360 doesn?t look as good. Now the question, is why does this apply to consumers?

Simple, consumers would rather spend money on something that is reliable and long lasting even if it?s more expensive in the long run. Example buying a used vehicle at $499.99 vs. $9999.99 because one is vastly more expensive it doesn?t necessarily mean it isn?t worth the money. People have to look at the quality of products to determine whether they are getting ripped off or not and the PlayStation 3 is the used vehicle at $9999.99.

With the added features like Blu-ray, Wi-Fi, or internet browser all contribute to gaming in a big part that most don?t realize. The Blu-ray drive allows developers to put game data on a 50GB disc for video games, the Wi-Fi helps for easy access to the free online, and the internet browser is now being used to upload recorded game-play in Tom Clancy?s Hawks only on the PlayStation 3 version. Everything has a double use not only that people can use it for video games but as well for entertainment pastime. To me anyone can have a thousand features with the biggest sale numbers but what is important to me is the quality of the product not the popularity.

Sony has painted itself into a corner. It really needs to find a more compelling reason to get its own customers to upgrade. I am playing my original PS2 on a 27" analog TV, and have been conditioned over the years to patiently wait for that "greatest hits" logo to appear on the game cover so I don't have to pay full price. I love that new games are still coming out for the PS2. I love the plentiful used game selection driving down prices. I've learned to take full advantage of the PS2 ecosystem, and Sony needs to figure out how to get cheapskates like me to open their wallets on a PS3. When the PS2 finally goes away, what's to prevent me from picking up a Wii or XBOX and abandoning the Sony universe altogether? If Sony cannot even keep its own customers on the upgrade path -- despite all this crazy value they keep babbling about -- what chance do they really stand against the other console makers?

[janusinfinity]

omg - This is a lacking article. The math itself lends support to Sony's contention. $15.00 per month x 12 months = 180.00. No BD player. And so on and so forth. I forked out the cash just this past month for Killzone and I havent been able to stay off of the game. Its already saved me from going out and spending money so it's worth all that and a bag of chips if you ask me. I just got MGS4 as well. I deserved it and finally! The game is hella cool.

Please do some research before you post some 360 fan boy article like this! We all know its worth it. This is just a MS tactic to have Sony lose money when there is no need to do it. Wait until the next set of sales numbers come in and you'll see what people thought about a needed price cut.

LMAO

[grilledcharlie]

The next sales numbers are already out, and PS3 sales are still falling. Killzone 2 is overrated. I hate the "realistic" controls. How is sluggish and inaccurate realistic? They were so worried about the controls being realistic, but head shots only knock helmets off and it takes 7-10 bullets to kill one red-eye. That's so realistic. I get frustrated just thinking about that game. Thank God I can take out my frustration on COD.

[Ryan_R]

I think the PS3 is priced quite reasonably considering what you get for the money. It's the PS3 games that are priced way too high for my liking, which forces me to buy them online from Ebay stores in Hong Kong and India, where I can usually save 50% or more, but have to wait a few weeks for delivery.

Maybe game makers should stop complaining and sell PS3 games cheaper. If PS3 games sell cheaper than X360 games by about $10-$20 consistently, more people might buy the PS3 console.

[grilledcharlie]

I've heard this complaint before, and it doesn't make sense. Games were $50 dollars for almost 15 years. Even more on N64. A $10 price hike doesn't bother me considering how long the price for games remained stable. Also, how can Sony sell games cheaper when bluray is a more expensive format, both in physical disk and development of a game that may take up more space than your normal dvd size game?
I agree that the PS3 is priced plenty reasonable, but sales figures and predictions point to a PS3 price cut being the only way for Sony to regain ground.

[Carrick1973]

In many ways, I think that Sony lost their way in that they marketed to the wrong demographic. I've owned both consoles, and took back the XBox because the interface was just a bit too immature for me. I agree that it is a better peer-to-peer communication device as it's easier to find friends and easier to chat, but the PS3 interface is just a nicer, cleaner, more sophisticated interface. Sony should sell it as such, and not necessarily as a competitor to the XBox, but as a part of the home theater experience that it's ready for out of the box.

[classbrandmistake]

Sony's value argument represents a classic brand management mistake. Consumers are clearly telling Sony that they don't agree with the value argument and that the price of entry is more important. Sony either needs to do a better job of communicating value or change their marketing strategy to reflect consumer interests.

Refusing to acknowledge the consumer and his or her perception by reiterating a failing marketing message just won't work. Consumers make purchase decisions according to their perception of value, not a marketers perception of value.

Sounds like Sony brand managers need to revisit brand strategy 101.

[roachbrain]

I got a PS3 for the BLU-ray and MSG4; the value was there. Just becuase you rather get nickled and dimed by the Xbox rather then save from the start with the PS3 doesn't mean your the market focus. It just means your cheap and rather pay for it later. LOL jokes on you Xbox owners will switch over in a few years anyways. LOL

[Tony_54321]

The PS3 failure is due to Sony?s lack of market research and its ignorance. When the PS3 came out about 2 years ago, less than 25% of house holds have HD TV and so how are consumers suppose to tell the difference between 1080 and 480? Sony assumed that everybody needed everything that came with the PS3 and for the original price at $599, if you really do needed them all, it was a great deal. Now at $399, it is even a better deal. But the bigger question is how many people would want/need or could benefit from those technologies (WiFi, Blu-Ray, HDMI, ..etc)? They should had done what MS did, provide everything as add-on and priced it at $299 at release and it would be a different story today. Let?s break down all the extra components and see what it would look like:
1, HDMI add-on - $50
2. Blu-Ray support add-on (keep the drive but maybe have a slot where you can insert a decoder chip) - $100
3. Hard Drive (it should had a build-in 1gig flash memory with no HDD, but can add HDD later) - $100
4. WiFi add-on (Ethernet port would be ok ) $100
5. Wireless Controller (basic wired controller would been ok) - $50

If you needed and were to buy all these, excluding the hard drive because you can use any standard 2.5 sata hard drive, the total would had came up to about $600 (the original price), but yet if you didn?t have the need for them, look how much you would have saved. This scenario would had killed the 360?s momentum and wounded the Wii. They can still do this and price the PS3 at $199, but?.sigh?..I don?t think they care. PS3 is old news, SONY is currently strategizing for the PS4.

[SteveW928]

No, Sony just thinks longer term than most companies. If you think Sony didn't realized HD TV market penetration, you're nuts.

I'm SO glad Sony didn't offer everything as an add-on and create a kludge system because of it. Especially if they did it as you said above.... classic M$, but I'd feel totally 'had' as a consumer. Can you imagine the outcry of... they put a Blu-ray drive in, but just didn't include the 'chip' to make it work? The rest of the ideas are silly too... as they wouldn't have saved Sony enough to offer it at the lower price... they would simply be losing more per unit, giving further fuel to this stupid line of reasoning. Plus, by the time one was done upgrading, they would have bought 2 PS3s at current prices. Sorry, just a dumb idea. Not hard to see why M$ went that route.

If the PS3 is old news, then the Xbox is ancient news. Of course Sony is strategizing for the PS4... but I'm not sure what this has to do with the PS3.

[Tony_54321]

SteveW928,
Well, thinking long term is nice, but just don't expect the consumers to pickup the bills. I know plenty of people who owns a ps3 but could care less for Blu-Ray (except me), HDMI hookup, and WiFi, all they want to do is to play games.

If mass publicreally care about Hi-Def, the Wii would be dead....Oh don't give me "The Wii is just a gimmick and it won't last..". Well after 2 years, it's still selling like hot cakes. Only fanboys won't admit that in this gen, ps3 is at the loser and the game is over.

The on reason, I meantion PS4, is because, in this generation PS3 cannot save them....Their only hope is in the next gen....Be expecting next gen consoles within less than 5 years.

[SteveW928]

@ Tony_54321 - You changed the subject... we weren't talking about the Wii, we were talking about Xbox vs PS3. So are you admitting I'm right about that?

As for the Wii, I wouldn't say it is a gimmick or won't last. It is a very innovative idea in how to interact with games... kind of in a class of its own. It is a neat system, though I wouldn't really compare it with the PS3. It is more of a competitor with the PS2 in technology and capability. Kudos to them for being able to capitalize on a cool UI idea rather than focusing on processing power and graphics capability.

However, I'm not sure what this has to do with the PS3 being a loser. Should I care of Wii or Nintendo DS sell more units? I hear Apple sells even more iPods. I bet Crest sells more tubes of toothpaste. So?

You could be right about seeing a PS4 in the next 5 years.... I really don't know their time plan on that. All I know is that the PS3 currently has, IMO, the best titles, and is without a doubt, the most advanced and well built gaming and entertainment platform on the market.

[Inconnux]

lol the wii is NOT last generation hardware, its processor is 2x the Gamecube and runs a decent ATI GPU. I know it is not as powerful as the ps3 or 360 but to say it is 'last generation' is just plain ignorant. The CPU in the Wii is 2x as powerful as a PS2 and the GPU runs at 2x the speed. Even the Gamecube had far better hardware than the PS2. Developers haven't even remotely tapped the power of the Wii yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playstation_2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamecube
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wii

[SteveW928]

@ Inconnux - Ok... I guess I'll kind of buy that argument.... maybe kind of 1.5 generation sort of thing would be a better way to see it though. It kind of depends on what makes the generation jump.... on-line abilities? graphics? processing power? Media Center capabilities? etc. PS3 and Xbox are kind of big jumps in those respects... Wii, not as much. Wii was a huge jump in UI... and in that respect it is kind of in a class of its own.

[friscoG]

As an owner of both systems, the 360 is the superior gaming experience while the PS3 does at $399 wins the value war. The XBOX does cost considerably more once you add the $99 Microsoft Wi-Fi adapter. Sure, you can use a D-Link, Belkin, etc, but the official XBOX version is much easier to configure. I would rather pay for live vs the free PSN. I don't mind the cost, as I just picked up a 13 month card no long ago for $29.99

Sony still does not get it that even though there system has more value, the entry price is scaring away purchasers. They should look into a PS3 arcade version, or something to the effect.