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.
PlayStation 3 will sell for between EUR 499 and EUR 599...
There. I think that says it. The rest of the article that is about ps3 prices in europe talks about xbox prices in the US. wtf.
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
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 same is true of Blu-Ray as a whole. Numbers like $1000 and $1500 for simple players have been thrown around.
Either Sony bite a very big bullet and swallow hundreds of dollars in cost (which they probably are already at $599), or accept that it would be a minority console for several years until prices could fall - giving XBox 360, Revolution and HD-DVD a massive headstart.
Maybe this will be a nail in the coffin of Sony. I can't see any easy route out for them that will be acceptable to the stockmarket. Maybe they will be worth more in bits and someone will force that on them?
For those too lazy to read TFA...
499 Euro - 599 Euro
Out of my price range...
Viva la Revolution!
Read my blog posts on usability.
Yes, for those who don't know I do mean approximately between Sorbitan monopalmitate and Ferrous lactate.
Not really, my keyboard is not cut out for all these fancy new characters, I have a symbol for 'ovelos' on my keyboard. but not euro. or a shift key it appears.
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
This, of course, is really bad for sony with it's apparently much higher price, lateness to the game, and DRM shenanigans. The only way for the PS3 to come out a winner is because of anti-microsoft mentalities, sony fanboyism, or a really killer exclusive title. One of the big reasons Sony came to the forefront of consoles is because it effectively stole the Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest franchises away from Nintendo. Unless they can invent a breakthrough franchise a-la GTA or Halo that will be exclusive to them, they're essentially dead in the water.
Nintendo, on the other hand, has essentially re-invented the console for the Revolution. Not only is the controller revolutionary, but also the game distribution and game compatability platforms. The idea that I can buy one console, play both new games and old games, and not even have to go to the store to buy many of the games is going to put both the Xbox 360 and PS3 to shame. Because of this Nintendo doesn't compete directly with Sony or Microsoft.
Nintendo has more exclusive franchises, more backwards compatability, and will cost less. Even when you compare the 360 and PS3 directly Nintendo comes out ahead. Screw polygon count and cpu speed; give me my Revolution.
><));>
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!
In other news, a deck of playing cards is still a dollar and change.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
because they usually include VAT (in Germany you can't advertise prices without including VAT) and you may also have a mandatory warranty period (2years in Germany) which some companies use as an argument to increase the price. That's why you often have differences to the simple currency conversion. Of course some companies just arbitrarily set a different price in Europe depending on what they think the market may yield.
Especially for CDs, DVDs and games the prices a arbitrary and they try to artificially seperate the markets via region codes and other such things.
***Quis custodiet ipsos custodes***
Xbox360 non-gimped version is $399. Seeing as how the PS3 is throwing in blu-ray and better specs, I could see $499 as being somewhat reasonable, but still on the high end. But there is no way I'm paying over $500 for a console. I could get a revolution and a 360 for that price. And who cares if the PS3 has blu-ray? In a couple years (when more than a dozen HD movies are out) dual HD-DVD and blu-ray players will be out, and most TVs only have one HDMI slot.
If this is true, it means you can purchase a 360 and a revolution for the same price as a PS3, which seems a much better deal than a PS3 alone. Honestly, the revolution seems gimicky to me, but it will be aweseome if Nintendo can pull it off. I think I'll feel more optimistic once some videos come out of people playing actual games on it. I also wish they were doing HD, maybe at least they will support widescreen 480p. If they pull it off and add widescreen support, I'll pick one up. The 360 looks interesting to me because of the downloadable arcade games and achievements. The only thing that interests me about the PS3 is the better hardware and greater game base, but I don't think that is going to be worth shelling out over 1/2 a grand.
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.
Suddenly the inclusion of Blu-Ray doesn't seem like such a great idea. I know I'll be thinking twice when I look at the price tag and realize that a lot of that will go to recoup the loss on the drive and not towards gaming goodness which is primarily what I will buy the console for.
Twinstiq, game news
but don't worry, you can have mine
For months the only way to buy a 360 in our local stores here in the UK *was* to go for the premium pack. The retailers couldn't get the console on it's own, and due to the "worldwide shortage", people were naturally prepared to pay the extra if that's all that was available. Microsoft could advertise the console as costing £299, but you couldn't in fact buy one on its own, or therefore for that price.
You need to remember that Microsoft were, and still are losing money on the 360 base units, so it's not difficult to imagine they took the opportunity to reduce this loss by pretty much forcing consumers to buy specific games and extra controllers as part of a fixed pack. The "shortage" was a way to justify only making available the premium packs on which they were just about breaking even.
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.
15 years ago, when I was 10, everyone hated Nintendo and how their stuff was overpriced, and how Sega was better. (Remember $75 for Mario 3?) Now it has turned around and everyone on Slashdot (then, BBS's) is praising Nintendo and badmouthing Sony.
Melissa
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
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.
Actually for those following the "PS3 saga!" this one is no surprise, even with Sony eating part of the costs, due to the "Cool!" (tm.) expensive components the PS3 uses, like BLU-RAY, 1080p capable 3d card, more USB ports you could shake a stick at and Blue tooth wireless net support, The PS3 is easily going to be the most advanced and most expensive next generation console . (sort of like the PSP of consoles)
The big problem though, is that even with those expensive changes, the PS3 titles havent managed to look all that different from those of their competitors (specially without a HDTV) and I can almost bet most (if not all) first generation titles will be released in regular Dvd's not blu-ray's.
This is the real reason why Sony decided to delay the launch until the costs could be reduced and more interesting launch titles were available, unfortunately the console launch can only be delayed for a time and although the price has dropped quite a bit (From $700 to ($600-$500)) it still manages to top the rest, additionally first generation titles still dont seem to use the PS3 hardware properly. (check out the gameplay videos at youtube.com) and I specially dont expect EA titles to do any different.
To make things worst Sony PR has been bombing fans with "target renders" and "realtime demos" of suposedly "possible" images for the PS3 (they even carried the tradition in the GDC with Motorstorm and a clearly prerrendered Ratchet and clank "preview") far, far beyond the capabilities of the earlier generations titles (KZ2, Motorstorm and maybe even MGS4 itself, etc.) IMO Big mistake, eventually all fans will realize the PS3 is not capable of delivering at THAT level at the time, they probably wont be very amussed.
High price, fraudulent imagery and advetising, no Killer apps (unless MGS4 is ready for deploy of course) and dissapointing First generation titles? the PS3 has a lot of work cut out in front of it. Lets see how the final launch goes in November (my birth month!).
Go ahead MOD my day!
More opinions here