Slashdot Mirror
PS3 Prices in Europe Revealed
fistfullast33l writes "Ars Technica is reporting that the VP of Sony Computer Entertainment Europe revealed pricing for the Playstation 3 on a French radio show today. From the article: 'Strict currency translation suggests that American pricing may be in the range of US $605 to $726, but currency exchange alone can't tell the story. Case in point: the Xbox 360. In the United States, the Xbox 360 retails for $399, which is only 320 [euros] in exchange. Yet the Xbox 360 is priced at 399 [euros] throughout most of Europe.' The article goes on to speculate that 'the days of multi-console ownership may be coming to an end for many gamers' based on the Xbox 360 and the PS3 prices."
If I get just one of the next generation consoles, I'll still be a multi-console owner; I just need to buy the Revolution.
><));>
That is way higher than I expected. Even with the console Euro-flation seen by the Xbox 360 ($399 vs. $460), that means a $500+ PS3 here in the states.
Goodbye, PS3 marketshare.
What do y'all think? Is this price point as huge a blunder by Sony as it appears to be on the surface?
They act like the only way to own multiple consoles is to buy them both right when they come out. They will both eventually drop in price, so even if someone doesn't pick up both at launch, down the line they could quite possibly pick up the other.
The article goes on to speculate that 'the days of multi-console ownership may be coming to an end for many gamers' based on the Xbox 360 and the PS3 prices.
This is why I think the Nintendo Revolution will really take off. I've come to the conclusion that I am done with consoles and moved 100% to the PC. If I'm going to spend a lot of money on something that will entertain me I want it to have something that I can use for other then entertainment. Which is why I'm much happier buying a PC. Yet Nintendo's game consoles are cheap enough for me to pick-up and not feel like I wasted a ton of money on it if I only play it once a week at most.
The PS3 price is probably what I thought it would be. It was never going to be cheap. In some respects, if I can get 3 good years out of the console, then the price is OKish. But the real problem with the next-gen for me is the price of games. I love gaming. I earn a decent amount. But at this rate, I'm not going to be buying many next-gen games. They will be at least 25% more expensive than titles from this generation. That much is clear from the 360 games that are out already. I'm only going to be able to buy a handful of games a year at that price. Or I'm going to have to wait until they come out on budget. Pfft. Great.
I'm more worried about this generation transition than any other before. The cost of games is going to mean fewer games sell. And of course, games will cost loads more to develop. That means that publishers/developers focus on "guaranteed" sales, which means more sequels, more licenses and more cynically marketed crap. And less innovation and risk. Yeh, yeh, I know we've heard it all before, but I'm feeling pretty down about it. Maybe I'll just stick to mariokart on the SNES.
If this is true, I honestly can't see the PS3 being a player in the current gen console wars. Sitting next to the sub-$200 Revolution or the re-release of the Xbox360, the pricetag will scare many people away regardless of the games they offer.
Indeed, their only justification seems to be that "it's not an expensive console, it's a cheap Blu-Ray player that ALSO plays games." While that may have worked for DVD and the PS2, when America was just beginning to move en masse to DVD and the jump from VHS was dramatic and simple, it's a recipe for disaster with the PS3 and Blu-Ray.
I remember a story not too long ago that showed fewer than half of Americans with HD capabilities had it hooked up correctly. Market penetration for HD in general is stagnant, and a multidude of ever-changing standards exist. Couple this with the fact that, while Blu-Ray is better than DVD in many ways, it's not better enough. This is nothing like the jump from VHS to DVD, and there's no way Blu-Ray alone will drive sales.
Not to sound like a fanboy, but Nintendo stands to hit the ground running and comein second or even first this round. (A lot depends on how well the Revolution controller works, what games come out for the 360 in the coming months, and if/when Microsoft releases a cheaper or updated 360).
GeekNights!
Late Night Radio for Geeks!
Unfortunately this means that Microsoft definitely isn't going to feel compelled to drop 360 prices anyways. I have a couple of friends who were hoping for a bump down to $299 for the premium versions in a move by MS to get more of an early lead on the PS3.
Or maybe this is all an elaborate play from Sony to keep 360 prices up until they can release the PS3? Get your conspiracy hats on...
the days of multi-console ownership may be coming to an end for many gamers' based on the Xbox 360 and the PS3 prices
That may be true if you are only considering the PS3 and Xbox 360, but with a predicted price as low as 99 USD (although 149 USD is more likely) the Revolution is going to be the second, and indeed "must have" machine for those not wanting to miss out on the novel and exclusive games which it will bring to the party. And this is exactly why Nintedo has repeatedly stated that they are not competing with the Sony and Microsoft. Whilst the press seems to have a hard job believing this, it's very likely true. Nintendo won't care which if any of the other consoles players own, as long as they buy a Revolution.
It's may in fact be difficult for many people to justify paying out for Sony or Microsoft's latest offering, especially when you consider that you can buy a decent PC base unit from Dand just add a good powerful graphics card for around the same money. The Revolution on the other hand is a no brainer. It's a console that's actually priced like console, and people will be much more comfortable paying that kind of money.
Let's be honest, the graphical capabilities and raw processing power of the current generation consoles are largely going unused in most current titles. So do you really want to be paying four times the price just for the extra visual gloss on the same old games? Most gamers can easily see the potential in the Revolution's new controller, and so won't want to be without a Revolution. The question they'll be asking themselves, is do they really need any more than it's offering, and more importantly, are the other two actually worth the money?
Let's face it, with the development costs involved in producing games for the PS3 and 360, it'll be impractical financially for studios to release titles for just one of the two, which equates to very little exclusive content between them. However, with it's significantly lower development costs, both in terms of development tools and the man-hours required to master new hardware and produce games, and unique controller, the Revolution is going to be the only console the studios will really be able to afford to create original games for. It'll be the only console the smaller studios will be able to turn out good games for.
The Revolution is apparently being written off as being underpowered and not a massive leap in terms of power/architecture from their current generation console, but Nintendo themselves aren't stupid, and I suspect things are playing out exactly as they expected. They'll let the other two blow phenominal budgets on competing with each other to sell consoles which they've priced way outside the traditional console market, and then give the people what they want - a good low cost console with an excellent range of games. Add into the picture a massive range of downloadable legacy titles, and they'll clean up. How can they not?
My gut feeling is that much of the apparent "public" disappointment that is apparent from the media is in fact being seeded by Microsoft and Sony, who need to make people feel they need their new shiny consoles. I really can't see the Revolution being anything other than a phenominal success.
Maybe the reason that Sony is pricing so high is they learned a lesson from a basic economics class(or Rollercoaster Tycoon). They saw that the Xbox 360 sold at a relatively low price point, but that meant that more people were willing to buy it at launch, resulting in a shortage of XBox 360's.
Keep in mind that Microsoft is losing money with each console sold (which they expect to recoup in software sales), so they really could have raised the price at launch and still sold out of 360's because of the high demand. Now this may have helped their short-term bottom line, but not without the risk of the strategy backfiring through a loss in brand perception. For example, the public thinks that the 360 is too expensive or trying to screw customers, so only the hardcore buy it, resulting in a season of fair profitability at launch, but at the expense of mass adoption. By avoiding this strategy Microsoft also built the perception that the 360 is a must buy because people are on a waiting list to buy it.
By initially pricing the PS3 at $499 and $599(USD) Sony can control their lossses during the frentic launch season (when their supply will be exceeded by the demand at any sub-$1000 price), and then have room to cut the price later (when manufacturing gets up to speed) and let the mainstream feel like they are getting a deal. Of course, they risk alienating those same mainstream customers that they need to pick up later (so that the whole economies of scale thing works).
My brother and I share a PS2 that he bought used two years ago(probably for about $200 w/ games). And although I like some of the Sony games and the whole variety out there for the PS2, I really can't see myself buying a PS3 until a full version gets down to $299.
I think the better question is this... Do people want the added features enough to justify the console price? More specifically do people really want Blu-Ray? If not, then at that price, they will have only the hard-core gamers buying. If people actually do want Blu-Ray, then the price is fairly reasonable. So ask yourself that question. The gaming point is a given. Do the extra features matter enough to you? If I were Sony, I would start demand by offering Blu-Ray discs for the SAME price as DVDs. If they don't, then I myself am skipping this generation of HD and video games.
Screw them. There really is nothing on offer with the 360 or PS3 that would convince me to part with that kind of money. I'm much happier building up a collection of quality titles for my xbox and PS2 by purchasing them on ebay for £2-£3 each. Maybe in a couple of years when the price drop and my current consoles give up their magic smoke I might think about buying one of them but for now I'm happier to have my bank balance looking a bit more healthy than it would.
To err is human. To forgive is not company policy.