PS3 Price Up In The Air, Demos In 02/2006

Gamespot is reporting that the price for Sony's next-gen console is still something being worked out. Additionally, we're not going to get the chance to play demos for the system until February of 2006. From the article: "When asked why there were no playable PS3 games at the 2005 Tokyo Game Show, as previously promised by SCE president Ken Kutaragi, Saeki revealed that there was a long discussion inside Sony before the show opened. While many executives argued that it would be good for the public to play demos, eventually the decision was made to only show E3-style trailers, as it was the first time the PS3 was being shown publicly in Japan. When asked if there would be any changes to the February PS3 event where playable demos will be on hand, Saeki did not respond directly. However, he did say that SCE is planning something for the event that is sure to be a 'major' surprise. "

Comments

Like a Response

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, probably a surprise in response to the Revolution and the new controller. I honestly don't know what other kind of suprise Sony could have. Both Sony and MS have had all their information out in the open for some time, so for there to be anything completely new coming out would be a real shocker.

Re:Like a Response

[Skeezix]

I honestly don't know what other kind of suprise Sony could have

That's why it's called a "surprise."

Re:Like a Response

[rishistar]

Could be...but only if it uses something the Big N hasn't patented, and I'm sure they've got defensive patents in place.

Re:Like a Response

[the morgawr]

Most of the stuff in the controller is off the shelf parts and there's plenty of prior art. It'd be really hard to have a general patent that would prevent MS and Sony from using a similar idea.

Re:Like a Response

[KDR_11k]

The gyros, the most important part of the thing, are patented and Nintendo pretty much bought the company holding those patents.

Re:Like a Response

[Anonymous Coward]

This?

Re:Like a Response

[the morgawr]

Those particular gyros are patented. Gryo's and 3D motion sensors in general are readily available. One could build a functionally identical device without the patented part.

Re:Like a Response

[TuringTest]

...except for the part of making it extremely precise, which would take more that throwing in stock pieces. I don't know what's the overall precision of 3D motion sensors, but it surely would take a lot of testing to make them work properly.

Re:Like a Response

[the morgawr]

You can buy sensors that get down to millimeter. I have difficulty believing that more precision would be nessessary. As for testing, you are entirely right. Making the device easy to calibrate, getting the sensitivity just right, and getting the correct filter on the sensor signal are all very challenging parts of development. I in no way meant to imply that this was trivial, just that it could be done without running afoul of a patent.

Re:Like a Response

[TuringTest]

...the main problem then being "on time to compete with Nintendo Revolution"?

Major surprise

[PenguinCandidate]

A boomerang shaped wireless remote that senses movement of the hand and distance from the console in 3D sapce, entitled the Sonylution.

Re:Major surprise

[Parham]

As soon as I saw that controller, my hands started shaking from the Carpal tunnel syndrome I'd develop while playing the PS3...

Re:Major surprise

[Gogo0]

It also destroys the competition if they are placed close.

The Final Sonylution

Re:Major surprise

[hobbesx]

Sonylution? I'd always heard Revalony, but maybe that was just a working name that they don't want confused with pasta.

I know what it is...

[sehryan]

"However, he did say that SCE is planning something for the event that is sure to be a 'major' surprise."

Its a new controller that looks like a remote control. However, rather than just one remote control, you get TWO! Plus, each one has 7 face buttons and 4 trigger buttons! What innovation!

Re:I know what it is...

[PenguinCandidate]

Surprise! We figured out gamers will spend half a grand to play a slick new version of GTA!

Re:I know what it is...

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to half a grand for a new version of Perfect fucking Dark.

Timing...

[RUFFyamahaRYDER]

They will release the price right before the 360 is released and I bet it will be cheaper than the 360. They are going to release the spec's of the system at the same time as the price so people will see a cheaper machine with better spec's and they will hopefully (for Sony) get people to wait.

Either way, games are more important than spec's and I'll be waiting for all three new consoles to come out before I make a decision.

Re:Timing...

[Turken]

Somehow, I doubt that the price is going to be any cheaper than the 360. If Sony knows that they can price the PS3 for significantly less than the 360 without losing too much money, they wouldn't be debating the pricing internally, but would rather be trumpeting their lower price publically.

My gut feeling from all the news bits read here and there is that Sony is really having a hard time even _matching_ the 360's price, hence their hesitation to say anything publically.

But regardless of the price, I have to agree with you that it's the games that will most influence my decision.

Re:Timing...

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

Or maybe they're planning on doing the same thing they did when Sega announced the price of the Saturn.

Both the parent post and the grandparent post are speculating but the grandparent post is speculating a turn of events that Sony has taken in the past.

Re:Timing...

[KillShill]

the specs aren't better than the 360.

the cpu alone isn't the only factor in determining the "specs".

the graphics solution in the 360 is far superior to the rsx (g70 derived core).

the companies involved are both shitheads but the hardware overall is approx. equal in terms of processing throughput.

4x antialiasing will come standard and will be "free" on the 360. and given sony's bad rep with regards to AA, this is yet another hit. sure the rsx can do AA but it'll divert significant resources to add AA to an already complex game. that's what 256 GB/s of bandwidth on the eDRAM buys you...

the 360 also has 3 cpus, each with 1 vector unit.

overall, i prefer the 360 hardware because the gfx core far more than makes up for the anemic paper specs of the 360's cpus. it's a truly next-gen part with a unified shader approach (the new r520 from ATI is still not DX 10 ready, and neither is the g70...).

the cpu won't be doing gfx work, that's why each console now comes with a discrete gfx processor. so the cell will do supplementary work, not gfx directly.

but it's all a moot point. because when you purchase any console, you are merely being given a "license" to use a crippled product. and if you cannot access your own property fully, all these DRM consoles aren't worth a damn.

that and the fact by the time ps3 comes out, PC graphics processing will already eclipse it. and so far you can own your own property (pc's), but not for much longer...

Re:Timing...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no such thing as 'Free AA' as it will always come at a cost; if ATI could actually produce a graphics processor where there was essentially no performance hit involved from using anti-alaising they would have already brought it to market on their latest graphics cards. Believe it or not, the PS3, XBox 360 and Nintendo Revolution will all be at about the same performance (with each making trade offs in one area for increased performance in another).

Now the question you SHOULD be asking is how many games will even bother to take advantage of even the weakest of the next generation games. The fact is that (much like in previous generations) the cost to develop a 'Next Generation' game will be approximately four times the cost to produce a current generation game; being that a pretty average game's development costs are in the $5 million range currently (and need about 1 Million game sales world wide to break even) I suspect that the majority of developers are going to produce pretty modest graphical improvements inorder to keep costs down. This means that regardless of the system you choose the graphical improvement over current generation games will be pretty minimal and disapointing.

Re:Timing...

[Anonymous Coward]

games are more important than spec's

Why do you pluralize the words "game" and "spec" differently?

Re:Timing...

[YOU LIKEWISE FAIL IT]

Arguably, the apostrophe here denotes the removed letters from specifications. Amirite?

Re:Timing...

[Rancidlunchmeat]

Not to mention the fact we already know that the PS3 costs Sony $100 more to manufacture than the X360 costs Microsoft.

If the PS3 is the same price, Sony is losing $100 more per unit sold than MS is. The question isn't whether or not the PS3 will be more expensive. The question is HOW much more expensive it will be.

And with MS's already announced planned price reductions, expect the X360 to cost less than the $399 in costs now when the PS3 launches. So the PS3 won't be just competing against a $399 competitor, they'll probably be competing against a $350 competitor. So even IF the PS3 launches at the same price of the X360 launch, it'll still be more expensive by the time it comes to market.

Intentionally not setting a price yet?

[Turken]

I would say that Sony's best bet is to not release any official numbers until after the Xbox360 comes out (but of course keep the rumors of affordable hardware flowing) so that they can keep as many people "on the fence" for the first weeks or so after the Xbox launch. That way they can take as much wind as possible out of 360's sails upon launching. After all, once the prices for both systems are set, it will galvanize many gamers to one side or the other on price alone and Sony needs to keep as many people as possible from comitting to the 360 early on.

Price and innovation?

[AndreiK]

Of course, they don't release a playable version after the Revolution was announced. What are the odds that the PS3 will now have a gyroscope or something similar?

Also, the games are more important, but I'm most looking forward to the first RPG.

up in the air?

[justforaday]

I take the phrase "up in the air" to be synonymous with "sky high."

Re:up in the air?

[justforaday]

Ahhh, yes. Making a comment about the price of a game console in response to an article about the price of a game console is now considered "offtopic." Way to go mods!

Does Sony even consider Nintendo as competition?

[Turken]

So far, everyone replying here is interpreting Sony's "surprise" as some sort of response to or knockoff of Nintendo's controller. I thought that Sony and Microsoft had pretty much written off Nintendo as a competitor at this point, especially since the companies have such a different focus on markets and hardware strategies.

However, the way the original article was written, it implies that the "surprise" is in regard to PS3 demos... such as a fully playable game, or some sort of software development beyond what we're currently expecting for demos.

Re:Does Sony even consider Nintendo as competition

[Kazzahdrane]

I'd mod you up if I had points. I'm getting a little sick of the stuff I've been hearing about Sony and Microsoft being scared of Nintendo's new controller. Just because it might be great and exciting doesn't mean it's some kind of beacon of justice that will strike down the nightmare creatures that run the two console giants. (Chances of this being the general plot of the new Zelda game?). A "friend" who is a huge Nintendo fanboy has been telling me that he's "heard" that Sony are redesigning the PS3 controller and copying the Revolution one. I call BS, if Sony change the design it will be because so many people hated the "boomerang" design when it was unveiled. Just for the record, I have a gamecube as well as my PS2. I'm looking forward to seeing the Revolution in action but just think this idea that it's "good" and the other two consoles are "bad" is stupid and childish. On topic: I agree about the "surprise". The fanboy in me says "FFVII remake as launch title" but more likely a big PR stunt with a demo of a hot franchise making its way to the PS3.

Thank you for the laugh

[Strell]

Cheaper than the Xbox 360.

Ho ho! The hilarity!

But seriously, I have some land in Florida I'd like to sell...

Re:Thank you for the laugh

[dtfarmer]

Cheaper than the Xbox 360.
Ho ho! The hilarity!

Actually I wouldn't be surprised if it's cheaper than the XBox 360. (I'm also not convinced it *will* be.)
Now, cheaper than the XBox Three-Shitty at $299 isn't gonna happen.

Sony has launched in the US for $299 for both the PS1 and PS2, I suspect they are still weighing the pros and cons of trying to keep to that price point again for the PS3, no matter the cost, vs some other point up to and including $399, I seriously don't think Sony will breach $399, as there has never been a successful console launch in the US over $299 yet, let alone $399, but with MS upping the stakes, we may be looking at the first $300+ generation of *successful* console launches. That or Nintendo will make out like a bandit.

Despite buying most previous consoles within months of launch, I am not personally looking to help usher in the $300+ launch price point and will not buy until the PS3 or the real XBox 360 is under $300, so I'll get to see all three launches and decide which to buy first (I'll eventually own them all) based on games available that I want to play.

Re:Thank you for the laugh

[sdhankin]

Perhaps you are right. Not being privy to the future as you clearly are, I can only speculate.

But consider: you are a major company coming out with your next generation console, and know you will be releasing it after your closest competitor. What do you do? One approach would be to continually make noise about how expensive your product will be (without actually revealing any figures) and hope the competition will take the bait. They will hazard a guess as to what your selling point will be, price theirs somewhat lower, and hope to undercut you before you've even come out.

But what if it the speculation of a high-priced PS3 is just that? If Sony decided to announce theirs for less after the Xbox 360 debuts (even if that means what the Xbox 360 base is selling for) then they can indeed influence those buyers who think they'll be getting a better system for less.

Time will tell.

Re:Thank you for the laugh

[Thrakkerzog]

Your comment made me think of another scenario. Sony could not release a price, but make it suggest that it may be expensive but they are doing their best to control the cost.

If someone is torn between the 360 and the PS3, they may hold off on the 360 to make sure they have enough $$ for the PS3. If Sony can make people think that the difference in value between the 360 and PS3 is more than the difference in cost, people may hold out for the PS3.

Re:Thank you for the laugh

[Strell]

The inclusion of Blu-Ray alone will drive up the price of the PS3, I think that much can be easily concluded. It's hot technology, it will have it's early run share of malfunctions and poor manufacturing, little support at the beginning until it picks up steam and becomes standard technology in households (which is a HUGE *if* at this point, given the media war gearing up between MS and Sony, HD-DVD and Blu-Ray respectively), and basically just the crux of a company spearheading a new movement that will have serious competition (cough cough Betamax).

Given that, the inclusion of several other "hub" technologies that are not primary to gaming, and the fact that it is supposed to be able to render things like Toy Story in real time (the second time we've heard that), I really, really doubt that the system can afford to debut for a price less than Xbox's core system, and hardly less (if even possible) for the premium package. At best we can hope for a system that comes out and screams "look at us, we have better graphics, but we cost the same" and hope that it has the software to back that claim up. And at this point, without any real solid evidence of games running (I don't call the FMV demoes that are getting put out anything honestly representative of the PS3's power) to suggest it's honest-at-end power, we're left with Sony telling us "oh don't worry, it won't be too expensive."

The speculation is speculation for a reason. If someone had showed demoes of Doom 3 running 5 years ago without any sort of hitch, complete with all the jaw dropping lighting, shadow, and texture effects, don't you think people would look at the technology at that time and make an honest guess how much it would cost? A console can't go down in price like computer components - it is an all in one deal, it has to be profitable. Sony sitting back and telling us "oh MAN, this thing can simulate 1 hojillion polygons every second!" showing us some demoes, talking about truly insane technologies and internal architectures that may or may not make any impact on gaming AND, and this is a guess based on my talks with people who know more about this stuff than me, running multiple processors, all that is supposed to be able to outdo the 360 and still make us toast at the same time...

And you think there's nothing to back up any sort of price estimate?

It comes down to games, pure and simple. If Microsoft is smart they are giong to have a truckload of quality games out by the time the PS3 looms near, and will damn sure make them known, blanketing out the PS3's availability by forcing their product into the public eye with software, a lower price point, and a host of online options to show that their system is more of a value. By the time the PS3 is out, regardless of it's price, MS is smart enough to know it will need to drop price of the 360, throw in some extras, and sit back and point how "yea, so you get Madden on the PS3, but it's virtually the same, plus we've got Halo, all for much less money."

The problem with the PS3's pricing is that 1) Sony as company is taking terrible loses right now (both in and out of their gaming division), which is forcing them into a position where they can't afford to sell at a loss, and 2) they will be competiting with someone whose technology is probably a fraction inferior to their own. Meanwhile Nintendo is sitting in the wings eating popcorn and hoping the Rev is finding itself nestled next to whatever console Average Joe ultimately buys, because it costs less and is more unique.

It's been speculated it would cost upwards of $500 at cost. Bumping it to $400 and taking a 100 hit each time isn't exactly something Sony can afford to do, with all the financial woe it's currently in.

You people forget that if anyone is arrogant in this industry, it's Sony, hands down. Microsoft comes in a distant second, and that's only because of Balmer and because of the money hats they cram down throats. All of a sudden, Kutaragi and everyone else

Re:Thank you for the laugh

[sdhankin]

Japanese businesses have always been better at thinking long-term than ours. Yes, Sony is suffering losses right now, but they are in it for the long haul. I don't think selling at a loss is beyond their abilities, and their shareholders tend to be more understanding of short-term losses. It isn't about the next quarter if you're thinking long-term. Even Microsoft (who admittedly has fairly deep pockets) has sold the Xbox at a loss throughout it's life. The question then becomes whether Sony is willing to do the same.

Your proposed Microsoft response has numerous "If's" in it. Time will tell if they will have "a truckload of quality games" and "a lower price point" (that's the point of this discussion, right?) The fact is we really don't have a clue what the PS3 will cost. Or more to the point, what Sony is willing to sell it for. Yes, we can easily make estimates based on the technology required to do what it does, but that doesn't take into account how consoles are priced; the five-year profit on the PS3 may well include a loss in the first two years.

Blu-ray is the most probable loss-leader of all the technologies. Sony has a vested interest in seeing it succeed, not just in the PS3. They may well be willing to eat the cost of that technology in order to make it back in their home entertainment line. Long-term thinking again, coupled with broader corporate interest.

It's fun to speculate. It's frustrating not to know. Last generation I bought all three consoles at different times, and you're right - it's all about the games. When each had sufficiently compelling games, I bought them. I'll likely do the same this generation, and it isn't clear at this point when that will be. But it's going to be fun, considering the power of all the next-gens.

Re:Thank you for the laugh

[apoc06]

yes, expensive was the word used. but then again, sony has tradition that they dont like to break from easily. if they like a certain price point then they will bend over backwards determining how best to make sure they hit that same sweetspot they found with the consumers. if they can get the technology into the homes this generation too, they will have the budget and finance department working overnight moving money here and there to make sure they can afford to take the hit. its been well publicized that sony is reorganizing itself, but the ps3 and psp are at its prime focus. thats company wide... the gaming sector is sonys only real money maker. sony may not have the money that microsoft has, and sony has taken a hit by selling its systems at a loss, but its gaming division isnt in the red, and thats due to its ability to sell/ license games. sony will try to follow its current working model, and change the things that hurt them this generation [going wireless, higher capacity drives, HD compatible games, hard drives inclusion, networking options...]. microsoft is playing it safer this go around. maybe they can afford it, but no company can keep taking a 4 billion dollar hit on the chin.

as for what sonys surprise will be, my guess is [and you heard it here first] they are going to drop their price point, maybe a controller redesign [maybe] and finally reveal their "sony network" or whatever its called; basically their answer to xbox live. theyve been really quiet about that, and i think that will be the big secret that they will use to their advantage when they feel they need something to take the wind out of microsofts sails.

as for the revolution, i dont foresee sony even competing with nintendo. sony doesnt see the consoles really fighting for the same marketspace, and im not sure i see the revolution launching before the end of next year. the controller has been under wraps, so developers really havent been able to start working on launch games. it will take them a while to get up and running with at least some form of library. sony developers on the other hand have been working on launch games for almost two years. now their main task is porting the ideas and demos over to the dev kits and tweaking them to work with the cell.

finally, im really getting annoyed with the toy story comment. bill gates claimed that the xbox would be able to deliver "toy story in realtime"-level graphics. not sony. if you find the quote; it will come from some other gamer, or some copy and paste journalist. gates' quote was directly out of his mouth in an interview. so please please please, lets leave the toy story graphics misquote alone. no one [from sony] has said that about this generation either. they said they can animate a million rubber ducks in a tub and they can give a million leaves each their own audio channel using software only; no mention of toy story. besides, why would they even bring up one of the highest grossing films of their film divisions' rival?

FF7 Remake

[Strell]

What better way for both Square AND Sony to admit "....we really don't have shit, here's a remake of a game that's older than your grandma."

500$ says

[DeadMilkman]

The "surprise" involves a company partly named after a shape and partly rhymes with Linux, releasing a "Final" RPG game that is anything but final. :p

Re:500$ says

[blueZhift]

Heh heh, that would be a surprise and it would certainly explain some of the delays in releasing FFXII. That game has been practically MIA for quite some time now. If it were to become a PS3 launch title exclusive, it would move some consoles. But how unoriginal that would be. A real surprise would be if Sony announced that they were buying Square-Enix and it would stick it to Microsoft and Nintendo simultaneously by forever making the Japanese RPG giant a Sony company.

Re:500$ says

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's going to be speculation, there are enough rumors going on about a FFVII remake for the PS3. After all, they've got the opening scene as a tech demo already. And guess what, THAT will move consoles fast.

Re:500$ says

[mikek3332002]

The surprise is a useful homebrew sdk. or a pc emulator that can run windows so you can play pc games on it.

One Word, Financing!

[blueZhift]

The big surprise will be that Sony will provide low interest financing for the purchase of new Playstation 3s and two games! Low low rates, and everyone leaves with a PS3 regardless of income! Bad credit? No problem! No job? Now problem! Everyone plays!

Seriously, I'm expecting that first, the PS3 release date in Japan is going to slip into Fall 2006. Not having playable demos at TGS says to me that there is no way they'll have good solid games ready by Spring. As for their surprise, I'm going with a new version of the popular Eye Toy being part of the basic PS3 bundle and perhaps being touted as an intrinsic part of the PS3 experience.

Re:One Word, Financing!

[PenguinCandidate]

This comment is ingenius. It's so funny because it's true. I've heard they also give you swift kick in the balls too upon signing, but rumors are so rampant these days who knows.

Re:One Word, Financing!

[TuringTest]

As for their surprise, I'm going with a new version of the popular Eye Toy being part of the basic PS3 bundle and perhaps being touted as an intrinsic part of the PS3 experience.

Actually that's not far fetched at all - the eye toy is the kind of controller which could compete with the one of the Revolution. It provides for new gameplay mechanics (something that a classic controles won't do), its only hardware requirement is just a cheap webcam, and it has been already quite tested on the market. It even was rumored on early designs to be bundled with the PS3, so it is quite possible that they take again the idea.

Re:One Word, Financing!

[incom]

Wow, if the ps3 were released in japan in fall '06, and let's say spring '07 in USA, the 360 may very well fall into a half-step generation like the dreamcast(which isn't a safe place to be). Even moreso if the revolution gets delayed until around then to add beefier specs to beat the 360(hardware prices go down with time). I'd be pissed though if I don't get a ps3 in '06.

Sony Promises.

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, nobody should have expected anything playable at TGS -- because Sony promised there would be. That right there is the biggest evidence against something you can have.

Maybe the major surprise will be a promise that, when released, the PS3 will actually be a spaceship.

Controller, Price

[MBCook]

I'd like to know what the final controller looks like. That boomerang thing looks terrible and they have said that it was not the final design (I wonder if they were waiting for Nintendo to tip their hand?).

As for the price I think they NEED to launch at $300. While they will probably lose some money, it will help it sell (especially against the XBox 360). If they go above that, then I'll wait until the price drops to get one (something I'd rather not do). Of course, supply and demand says they could probably change $450 and still sell out of the opening shipment, but I don' think that'd be wise. The PS was $300, the PS 2 was $300, the PS 3 should be $300 (based on my memory, but I think it's correct).

Re:Controller, Price

[Winterblink]

Do you buy them based on form or function? Because the Dual-shock was one of the ugliest controllers ever devised by man, yet still being comfortable and simple to use.

Just my thoughts. :)

Re:Controller, Price

[snuf23]

The dual shock is a good controller but the boomerang PS3 one doesn't look ergonomic. In fact it looks like the design concentrated on form rather than function. It looks stylish but uncomfortable. Of course without holding one in your hands, that's pretty much speculation.

Re:Controller, Price

[KDR_11k]

Except the left analog stick was placed incorrectly and the dpad sucked so bad it hurt.

Re:Does Sony even consider Nintendo as competition

[supabeast!]

I think you're probably right to assume that Nintendo doesn't consider the Revolution to be much in terms of competition (Although they're probably scared to death that the DS will win the portable war), and I doubt that Sony has any surprises in the sense that the Revolution controller managed to surprise a whole lot of people. It seems likely that Sony's surprise will be a bit noisy marketing campaign targeted in whatever region Microsoft looks most likely to do well in, and maybe a few exclusive game announcements.

Re:Does Sony even consider Nintendo as competition

[dtfarmer]

I'm getting a little sick of the stuff I've been hearing about Sony and Microsoft being scared of Nintendo's new controller.

Yeah, I don't think it's scary for them, but I think you're missing the point most Ninentdo fans are getting - Nintendo plans to launch this new controller design as a standard pack in. Think about what that means - very much like the original XBox and the hard drive vs Sony and it's hard drive add on. In order for something new to catch on, it usually has to be a standard feature or it fails (dual-shock and N64 mem expansion being the exceptions to the rule, although dual-shock did quickly become a pack in proving the rule).

The second part of this is that Nintendo has not said they won't be packing a standard controller attachment or a Gamecube controller for use on standard games as well - I wouldn't be surprised if this were the case, and I actually expect it to be the case. Alternatively, they may decide not to do either knowing that they can count on most people either having a GC controller or being willing to buy the attachment separately to play "regular" games.

So despite the fact it probably isn't that scary to MS or Sony, you have to admit it is both different and exciting, especially in light of both Sony and MS releasing machines that feature speed upgrades (which to me seem more incremental than exponential) and the "new" feature of wireless (not standard on the XBox Three-Shitty of course) which Nintendo already perfected and proved. (Yes, third parties did it earlier, but the WaveBird is the first *good* implementation I've owned.)

Blue Ray

[JokerToTheTheif]

I'm really surprised that no one's already mentioned this, but at the beginning of this week it looked like Sony's Blue Ray disk format was going to be the hands-down victor in the up and coming format wars. Then, a day or two ago both Microsoft and Sony announced support for the competing HD DVD format, and suddenly Sony has real competition in a fight that looked to be a foregone conclusion in their favor. Loss in the format war would be horrifically expensive for Sony. As such, I really don't think it's too great of a stretch to assume that they'll be more willing to take more of a loss on the hardware than they otherwise would have. Cheap PS3's ensure that millions of homes will be equipped with Blue Ray players (PS3's will play Blue Ray movies out of the box), giving Sony an instant customer base for their Blue Ray movies. Couple this with news this week that MS's X-Box division is currently 4 Billion dollars in the hole after its 4 years of existence and is experiencing increasing pressure both internally and from shareholders to turn a profit, and it starts to look reasonably likely that the PS3 and its superior hardware could retail for less than the 360 throughout the consoles' lifecycle. I don't think that a PS3 launch price point of $349 or even $299 are at all out of the question.

Re:Blue Ray

[Anonymous Coward]

Then, a day or two ago both Microsoft and Sony announced support for the competing HD DVD format uhhh it was MS and intel

Re:Blue Ray

[Anonymous Coward]

Or it could be that sony has developed the first Blue Ray/HD-DVD hybrid drive for the low-low cost of $1000.

Re:Blue Ray

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft funds their Xbox division off of the sweet, sweet profits of their Windows and Office products. Sony's PlayStation division is their *biggest* division, bringing in the majority of profits for the company. Sony's music, TV, etc., businesses have all been faring rather poorly as of late. Long story short, Sony wants to win, but it wouldn't be financially wise for them to dump trucks of money out with the PS3, as MS has done with the Xbox (but refuses to do with the 360).

Re:Blue Ray

[ivan256]

Then, a day or two ago both Microsoft and Sony announced support for the competing HD DVD format, and suddenly Sony has real competition in a fight that looked to be a foregone conclusion in their favor.

This crap gets propgated because the trade rags love a format war.

The Microsoft/Intel announcement was meaningless. It didn't sat "exclusive" in there. Windows will support both. The whole story was a cover so they could slip that fact that the release date for HD_DVD devices was getting pushed back again under the radar.

As such, any speculation based on this announcement is bogus.

I think your conclusion about the prices is exactly correct, but the reasoning is suspect.

Times have changed

[MMaestro]

Except for the fact that Sony was only able to use the 'tech advantage' with the PS2 for a number of reasons. DVDs were the way of the future and everyone knew it (CDs held too little), the Dreamcast still used CDs, and Nintendo was doing its own thing with cartridges. The Gamecube wasn't out yet, Xbox wasn't even announced at this time, and DVD players were still expensive. The PS2 was basicly marketed as, 'buy a DVD player and get a video game system for $100 more!'

On the other hand, Blu-ray has competition with HD-DVDs and theres no clear winner. Go with blu-ray and get better quality but risk alienating all those DVD owners who don't want to switch formats. Go with HD-DVDs and lose quality but consumers don't have to buy a new Blu-ray player. Throw in the fact that Sony is using a lot of iffy hardware (the Cell processor) and Xbox360 is launching before the Christmas season and you've got a whole world of financial hurt.

Re:Times have changed

[Anonymous Coward]

Go with blu-ray and get better quality but risk alienating all those DVD owners who don't want to switch formats.

this sounds marvelous however the current PS3 spec states that the PS3 will play the currently standard DVD format as well as CD's. their old content will still play in the PS3 and they can continue to collect media in the newer format

Storage
Blu-ray Disc: PlayStation 3 BD-ROM, BD-Video, BD-ROM, BD-R, BD-RE
DVD: PlayStation 2 DVD-ROM, PlayStation 3 DVD-ROM, DVD-Video, DVD-ROM, DVD-R, DVD-RW, DVD+R, DVD+RW
CD: PlayStation CD-ROM, PlayStation 2 CD-ROM, CD-DA, CD-DA (ROM), CD-R, CD-RW, SACD, SACD Hybrid (CD layer) SACD HD

Again?

[thebdj]

Didn't Sony pull this crap before, by not having playable demos and repeatedly telling us that everything we were seeing was in game? I mean word is the Blu-Ray drives are going to be costing them an arm and a leg. They may be able to take a shot at undershooting Xbox 360, but remember being first means M$ can price drop before PS3 launch and maybe even post holiday '05. There is such a big gap in time that I think the pricing war will actually benefit M$ more then Sony, because M$ will have more and better opportunity for pricing.

But like the theories go, expect Halo 3 and a price drop just as PS3 is coming out. Like I've said, I am waiting for a Revolution and I will probably dig up some poor saps Xbox when they are dumping it for the nextgen, or just dumping it in general (unless there is a nice price drop in the originals).

Re:Again?

[ivan256]

But like the theories go, expect Halo 3 and a price drop just as PS3 is coming out.

If so, expect a Microsoft shareholder revolt shortly afterward...

Xbox was allowed to lose billions of dollars over the console's lifespan to prime the market for version 2. You really think Microsoft can get away with not turning a profit on the 360 too? Why are they in the business then?

If Microsoft had even the least little bit of flexability in the pricing, you wouldn't have seen them fuck themselves by releasing two versions the way they did. I'll be extremely surprised if we see a price drop on the 360 before Christmas 2006, and even then I'd be surprised if it was more than a $50 drop.

As it is, if they don't make every game work flawlessly without the hard drive, they'll be lucky if the thing still exists after this Christmas. Parents are going to buy their kids the cheap one, and every time a game doesn't work right because they didn't get the expensive one, Microsoft is going to have to eat the cost of a return.

Re:Again?

[dtfarmer]

I mean word is the Blu-Ray drives are going to be costing them an arm and a leg.

Before the PS2 launched everyone said the same thing and Sony ended up undercutting nearly every major namebrand DVD player on the market at the time including their own players, no $30 playback kit purchase necessary! It's all hype and rumor at this point, so don't believe it until Sony gives us a price.

Re:Again?

[thebdj]

Actually they do have a good deal of flexibility in pricing. Don't forget that basically every present console is selling at a loss and I am pretty sure they have been from day one. All the money in recent years has been made on games which are insanely priced. Everything I have heard so far seems to point that Microsoft is making a nice profit at the prices listed and the only reason for two price points is to entice people to purchase the Xbox 360 at the lower price if they do not want to drop the huge amount on the expensive one.

And what games do you know of that require the HDD? My understanding is that without it you will have no backwards compatibility, but the only real purpose it had in the original was storage, which can easily be taken care of with memory cards. BTW, it will be retailers who will most likely be eating return cost not Microsoft.

Re:Again?

[ivan256]

Don't forget that basically every present console is selling at a loss and I am pretty sure they have been from day one.

I'd love for you to show proof, but you can't because there is none.

Word is that the PS2 hardware is profitable now, and was within a year, and that the GameCube was profitable on day 1. Microsoft, however, has not only lost money on the hardware for Xbox, but they haven't come close to making it back on game royalties. They've lost billions. I'm fairly certain that they won't let that be the case for the 360, or if they do they'll have to answer to their shareholders and respond to anti-dumping lawsuits from Sony and Nintendo.

Even if they are breaking even, their long term pricing flexability is incredibly low, because unlike Sony, Microsoft has to buy all the parts for the 360. That means when manufacturing costs go down there's another player that takes a cut of the cash. Manufacturers that control the entire supply chain, however, get all the benefit and flexability of increased manufacturing efficiency.

Everything I have heard so far seems to point that Microsoft is making a nice profit at the prices listed

It would be surprising if they were doing better than breaking even. Those graphics chips and processors aren't free, you know, and they're buying them from a third party. A third party who *is* turning a profit on the hardware.

And what games do you know of that require the HDD?

None. But that wouldn't really be the kind of thing they'd advertise. We'll have to wait and see on this one. I can think of some that will have trouble without it... Or will at the very least use TONS of memory card. I'm also certain that some of the games that have been announced were designed under the assumption that the hard drive would be in the default configuration. Imagine playing a game like Oblivion with no hard drive. It can't be pretty.

BTW, it will be retailers who will most likely be eating return cost not Microsoft.

That's funny. You do know that Wal-Mart could crush Microsoft like a bug if they wanted to, right? Nearly zero retail profit margin, and they have to eat the loss on returns? Not likely. Not if Microsoft wants Wal-Mart to sell any of these things (And guess where 80%+ of them will be sold...). I bet Wal-Mart doesn't even have to eat the losses when they mark down the games. I'm sure they have deals set up that would turn places like EB green with envy.

PS3 Controller Design Final...

[RoadDoggFL]

It's an old link but...

"When asked if the there was a possibility the design of the prototype PS3 controller--already derisively being called the "batarang"--might be changed before launch, Chatani replied that there may be some "minor changes." However, he said that its form factor will probably stay the same."

Second paragraph.

Um.. That's not what the article said.

[ivan256]

Additionally, we're not going to get the chance to play demos for the system until February of 2006.

Actually, the article didn't even come close to saying that. It said:

When asked if there would be any changes to the February PS3 event where playable demos will be on hand, Saeki did not respond directly. However, he did say that SCE is planning something for the event that is sure to be a "major" surprise.

That could mean there will be demos sooner, or that you won't even get demos in February. It doesn't mean what the summary says.

Can we mod this article as "Troll"?

YOU FUCKING WIN

[Hitto]

At least three internets.

Hey, I think I know what the demo will be...

[Hitto]

Gran Turismo 5 Prelude : You were stupid enough to BUY the demo?
BWAAA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HAAAAAAA! Excuse me... *gasps for air* BWAHAAAA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!
We'll do it again, since you voted with your bucks!
Hey, this one's got only one level and its mirror mode, and two cars, BUT IT'S GRAN TURISMO!!!ONE!

Re:Does Sony even consider Nintendo as competition

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop posting the same link over and over trying to get cheap +funny mod points.

I could see Sony changing the specs

[aka_big_wurm]

For some reason I could see Sony changing the specs of the PS3 to really out do the 360. Then the 360 would be a half gen behind kinkda like the Dreamcast

Re:I could see Sony changing the specs

[Rancidlunchmeat]

Sure! There's no reason why Sony can't completely change the PS3 specs still. It's not like they actually have any GAMES already created for it anyway!

If I remember sony's PS2 launch...

[marcybots]

They said the PS2 would push 100 million polygons, but it actually only pushed about 10 million, so I wouldnt be shocked if that were the real surpise. So nobody bought the dreamcast because the thought sony was acutally telling the truth when they claimed it would be like 10-20 times more powerful.

Re:Does Sony even consider Nintendo as competition

[Anonymous Coward]

Add something +1, Interesting to the discussion, or fuck off, troll.