Everyone Still Rumbling About PS3

To put things in perspective, the Curmudgeon Gamer has created graphs showing inflation-adjusted console costs. The PS3 is far from the most expensive console in history (that would be the Neo Geo, at almost $1000 adjusted price), but that hasn't stopped analysts, publishers, developers, and gamers from grumbling about it the week after E3. ABI Research has publicly stated that Sony may have 'hamstrung' itself with the console's high price. Publishers and developers are worried because (despite Sony's protests to the contrary), developers just don't have the kits to make the games. From the GameDaily article: "'A lot of developers have not gotten the kits,' said Sega of America president Simon Jeffrey while attending E3 last week. 'There certainly will not be a lot of titles available.' The result is that publishers that do want to take part in the PS3 launch will have to release games that don't fully take advantage of the power of the Cell processor, added Jeffrey."

Comments

Yes

[AoT]

The fanboys will line up to buy it even at $600.

And it will hit $1000 on Ebay.

No suprises here.

Re:Yes

[Traiklin]

but what if the kid doesn't want a Wii they want a PS3?

you get a whiney screaming kid who no longer belives in santa because he didn't bring the right gift.

Re:Yes

[honkycat]

Then you beat your damn kid for being a greedy little turd and teach him to appreciate the generous parent who gave him anything at all.

Inflation-adjusted Insanity

[LunaticTippy]

If you inflation adjust TVs, vcrs, dvd players, stereos, computers, or ANY other consumer electronic device you will see a violently declining price.

What the hell does inflation-adjusted have to do with consumer electronics? What a completely retarded justification.

Re:Inflation-adjusted Insanity

[Kadin2048]

If you inflation adjust TVs, vcrs, dvd players, stereos, computers, or ANY other consumer electronic device you will see a violently declining price.

That's kind of the point here. If you look at the graph, the price isn't declining all that violently. They declined pretty sharply in the late 70s, 80s, and early 90s, then climbed in the mid 90s, collapsed with the debut of the N64 and Dreamcast, and are now going back up again in inflation-adjusted (real) dollars.

From a perspective of someone interested in a PS3 is that Sony has priced its product into a range previously occupied over the past 20 years by the Neo Geo, CDi, and 3DO -- none of which were terribly successful commercially, at least when compared to less-expensive platforms like the NES, SNES, and Playstion.

So while experience in other technology sectors indicates that consoles ought to be dirt cheap right now, Sony is still trying to charge a 1982 price for a 2006 product. It remains to be seen whether consumers will be wooed by the technology into shelling out that much dough. Frankly, I'm skeptical. But then again, I've never bought a new console in my life: I wait until they're one generation out from new and I get can get one used, complete with a mod chip and other goodies that early adopters have to live without.

Re:Inflation-adjusted Insanity

[Rimbo]

You have said perfectly in one sentence what hundreds of bloggers have spent millions of sentences trying to say:

...Sony has priced its product into a range previously occupied over the past 20 years by the Neo Geo, CDi, and 3DO -- none of which were terribly successful commercially ....

I mean, there it is. You can't shorten it any more than that without editorializing or removing vital information, and nothing more needs to be added to it to explain the situation. There's the facts of the case, and from them, you can deduce all that remains.

As a semi-professional blogger, I envy your writing skills, sir.

well

[flynt]

Well this is interesting, I think the price concern is still justified considering the systems that beat it were the 3D0 and Neo-geo. Didn't everyone think those systems were ridiculously expsensive at the time, too? It would be more convincing if the PS1 and PS2 prices adjusted to inflation were in line with the PS3 price.

Re:well

[cowscows]

Yeah, the fact that the Neo-geo cost more back in the day than the PS3 will is hardly a saving grace for Sony. Apple's G4 Cube wasn't the most expensive computer ever, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't over-priced, and the fact that it was basically a flop in the marketplace, despite winning all sorts of design awards is no fluke.

The most useful thing to compare the PS3 to in terms of price is its contemporaries, which are the Xbox360, and the Wii. When you look at the prices of those two systems, and see how much higher the PS3 is, Sony really needs to be clearer about what they're offering to justify that extra expense. They've been rambling a lot about Blu-ray and some sort of nebulous media center stuff that doesn't really mean that much to most people, because it's basically vaporware at this point. The crux of it is that although DVD support helped with the PS2, most people associate the playstation brand with video games, and most people who are interested in it are looking forwards to using it to play video games.

The point is, as many have said before, the games are really what do the talking. Sony's execs can spend as much time and money convincing themselves that a media center is what we're all interested in, but that doesn't make it so. There's certainly a chance that somewhere down the line it will all come together, and the PS3 media experience will be sort of like TiVo, once you've had it, you can't live without it. But there's a lot of potential problems involved there. Can it all come together in a useful way? Is Sony set up to make it work? Will other content developers go along with it? Will DRM make it fail? And possibly most important, even if all of that can work itself out, can it happen fast enough? I'm not sure Sony has the luxury of time in convincing us all that our lives need this. If the video games aspect of the PS3 can't float the system long enough to get a critical mass of units out there, then it'll all implode before it hits its stride.

Re:well

[fbjon]

Also interesting, looking at the adjusted prices for Nintendo systems, they are in a steady decline, going from $364 for the NES to $225 for the Gamecube. Or even better, looking at the remarkable curve for absolute prices: $200 (NES), $200 (SNES), $200 (N64) and lastly, $200 (GC).

I have a gut feeling what the price for the Wii will be.

Re:well

[normal_guy]

I agree entirely. The PSP is much more expensive than the DS, but it plays Sony-formatted movies (which I've generally already purchased for another medium) and is shinier.

I'm concerned only with quality games, and am obviously outside their target market. That's why after one last "local-only multiplayer" game came out, I traded the PSP towards a new DS Lite. I get the feeling that Nintendo understands games and amusement, whereas Sony is only interested in it as far as they can tie in their Hollywood division.

Not the most expensive, but...

[interiot]

It's not the most expensive, but it's nearly as much as the Sega Saturn, which wasn't all that successful. Really, the highest priced console so far that's done really well was the PS2 *, which is 40% cheaper than the low-end PS3. If it turns out that HDTV owners really should buy the high-end one instead, that makes the PS3 70% more expensive than high-priced successful consoles.


* except for first- and second-gen consoles, which were understandably expensive, since home electronics was a new market

More than the console race at stake

[r_glen]

By pricing the PS3 so high, not only are they making the choice easier for next-gen gamers (PS3/Xbox360/Wii), but they are blowing their trump card in the next-gen format war.

It seems to me that a better move would have been to take a big(ger) loss on the consoles for the sake of saturating the market with Blu-Ray. Instead, they've set themselves up to lose both races.

Basically

[American AC in Paris]

...so once you leave the Stone Age of video game consoles, the non-crippled PS3's (inflation adjusted) nearest neighbors are as follows:

Neo Geo
3D0
PlayStation 3
CD-i
Sega Saturn

SONY, if you can pull this one off, you'll easily have the highest-priced success story in the history of video game consoles.

I don't think you can pull it off. $500-$600 is too much to pay for a video game console that, as far as I can tell, isn't doing that much of consequence to distinguish itself from the XBox 360 in the eyes of your average consumer.

Yes, Zonk, we get it already.

[Anonymous Coward]

The PS3 will cost a zillion dollars and not have any games or any online or any vents and the controller was stolen from the Nintendo 64 and the games will be stored on Betamax tapes and you really, really, really hate Sony.

We get it already that you hate Sony and hate the PS3, and everyone agrees with you. This is established. You don't really need to post more stories about it, especially not on the front page, unless there are actual new developments. Can we have some stories about games now?

More Neo-Geo info

[The-Bus]

A bit of a defense for the Neo-Geo...

Neo-Geo like it's co-"competitor" the SNES, was arguably the console with the longest lifespan. It debuted in 1990 and the last game for it was released in 2004, a full four years after the original company (SNK) had declared bankruptcy. And some of the games that came out late in the system's life, including Metal Slug 3, King of Fighters '98, and Mark of the Wolves are some of the best games in their respective genres. Neo-Geo also had two main two systems: the AES (the regular Neo-Geo) and the MVS (the arcade system). Both of these were basically the same hardware, and software could run on either. Even if your favorite arcade game never reached the home system, with some soldering you could easily make a home-version of the game from the arcade one.

The price was always prohibitive, sadly. Old AES systems, even today, command a premium and most new games had an MSRP of $200-$300 each, if not more. Specific versions of old carts can go in the four figures.

Thankfully, the Neo-Geo lives on. There's still a very healthy market for it among collectors (see above), emulation of the hardware is almost arcade-perfect, and the most popular series (King of Fighters, Metal Slug) have been appearing as re-issues for more popular systems (Xbox, PS2, etc.).

Out of all the high-priced systems of the past, Neo-Geo was definitely the most popular and lasting, a credit to the game-centric (but ultimately unprofitable) ideology of its creators.

Oh grow up

[spun]

I like Zonk's stories. He actually writes them. They are for the most part well written and thoughtful with decent spelling and grammer. That's about a million times more than most of the editors do around here ;-) If you don't like it, uncheck Zonk's box and you will never see them again. There may not be as many posts in his stories because they appeal to a narrower audience, but the posts in his stories are on average more on topic and insightful. I know dissing editors is something of a hobby around here, but admit it, you don't really have a beef with Zonk, you just want to hurt his feelings for the fun of it. Probably because you are jealous that he gets to make money from playing games. Well, more power too him! I'd do it if I got the chance.

$500 US dollars....

[Duncan3]

Maybe is the Dollar wasnt going down so fast, they wouldnt need to charge so many...

Neo Geo was NOT a console

[rAiNsT0rm]

The Neo Geo was not a console, I owned one. It was not marketed as a console, it was not *meant* to be a console. It was sold as a true arcade unit that had the ability to play all of the arcade titles without needing to buy individual cabinets.

The Neo Geo did exactly what it was supposed to do, be a 100% exact copy of the arcade unit, NOT a port or a very close remake.

For what it was the Neo Geo was a hell of a deal. A single arcade cabinet would have cost as much as the system and just one game, so after purchasing a few titles you had saved a considerable amount of money over individual stand alone units.

I will say that the Neo Geo would have been much better had it come as a stand up cabinet that allowed the games to be changed, for the money. But then it did not take up the space of a cabinet, so I guess that was the tradeoff.

In any event, this is not a fair comparison. The 3DO, fine, but not the Neo Geo. Everyone likes to use it as the comparison and it is so damn frustrating because it most certainly was not a console, not even close.

Re:history isn't very good

[Anonymous Coward]

That's true, but those high-priced failures all had other significant problems, such as inferior technology (compared to same-gen competitors), lack of established market, lack of titles, or (in the Dreamcast's case) trying to shake off the failure of the previous generation console.

Really, the price is the only strike the PS3 has against it. But it's not really that much more expensive than the Xbox 360. Especially considering it is riding on the success of the PS2, and will also be a way for people to get a Blu-Ray player. It's also coming to market at a time when HDTV technology is dropping very rapidly in price; so people will actually be able to use the system to its potential.

Re:Aww.

[Golias]

It seems that the PS3 is all about using their popularity as a console to push the Blu-Ray market forward. One could even speculate that they don't even care if the high price chips away at their game console dominance, so long as it give a boost to a new media format.

That stragety might actually work in Japan. They seem to jump on board with MD's, LD's, PSP disks, etc.

But here... I don't know anybody that really gives much of a crap about either Blu-Ray or HD-DVD. Even if one format or the other does eventually get adopted, nobody's in any hurry to replace their DVD collections.

I think both Microsoft and Nintendo might have a real window here to gain a little ground. I don't think either of them will become #1 in the US market, but the game might no longer be defined as "Sony and everybody else."

Re:*cough*ASTROTURF*cough*

[Mantrid]

My UID is 250133, and I really and truly think that Nintendo is going to do very very well this time. Sony is going to tank, and 360 will probably do okay.

Now I know my UID isn't as 733T or whatever as yours, but I do have to say I've been a gamer for a good long time, and during my gaming I've generally not been a fan of, or have disliked Nintendo's offerings.

This time around though, I really want a Wii, have zero interest in PS3, and have half an eye on the 360...though my PC is holding up fairly well so I can run stuff like Oblivion. I just think Nintendo "gets it" right now. An evolution in graphics just isn't going to cut it this time around.

All IMO of course...

Re:Grumbling or grassroots?

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

I think your overlooking why HDMI is and isn't important. HDMI is not needed for HD. The Xbox comes with HD component video. This will give you the same HD content and is MUCH more widely available on the HD TVs in circulation today. What HDMI is important for is the next-gen DVD DRM. There is a lot of back and forth on this as far as who will require what, but it is in the specs that the content providers can require HDMI in order to get the full HD resolution.

Now for the 360 this isn't an issue because it isn't a next-gen DVD player and thus is irrelevant. If the PS3 wants to sell itself as a next-gen DVD player than it damn well better support the next-gen DVD specs! As of now, its possible with the base PS3 unit that some content providers using Blu-ray will force your video to be displayed at a worse resolution because it doesn't provide HDMI.

In fact the 360 (both versions) does support HDMI, its just that the HDMI cable isn't included. My guess is it will come with the optional HD-DVD player when that is released or for that matter you can buy it now at many places on the web (the 360 HMDI cable not the HD-DVD player).

Re:Linux is the selling point for me.

[eln]

So after you and the other 10 guys whose only criteria is Linux buy the PS3, where else is Sony going to go for sales?

Re:*cough*ASTROTURF*cough*

[timster]

I'd just like to chime in that it's clear Nintendo has captured the imagination of many people with this new console and it's not surprising that some people are excited. Doesn't mean they're shills.

Re:Aww.

[DragonWriter]

Now, here comes Sony with their BluRay equipped $500-$600 PS3. You know that you'll be selling your Bluray player at a loss if you sell it any less than $800 and you know anyone that wants a Bluray player will just get a PS3 since it's cheaper.

False assumption. Lots of early adopters will likely pay $1,000+ for feature-packed players, just as they did with earlier new formats. That's why there are Blu-Ray players now lining up with prices of $1,000 to $1,800 (just from the ones in the Sacramento Bee article I was looking at in dead-tree form yesterday). Sure, the PS3 will sell a lot more, but the people selling more feature-packed (for features other than playing games) players for more will target a higher-end market and compete to establish their name as the "gold standard" of Blu-ray players, so that as the format becomes accessible, they will be the most sought after, and get to charge the extra price premium that allows.

Re:Aww.

[Microlith]

Your prediction is off.

Sony does not care what other companies build, and will not have to if they flood the market with blu-ray players. If they can get a million or more players on the market within a year or less, movie/tv releases will definitely be on blu-ray because there will be a huge market.

Sony is banking on providing a huge install base to the media companies to get them to jump on their format. And if blu-ray players outnumber HD-DVD players, there'll be no contest and for the good of their shareholders everyone will be making blu-ray players.

This is Sony's swift move to bring an end to this media war, and if they get the numbers out they'll probably succeed.

Re:Aww.

[Chris Burke]

I posted this yesterday, but anyway I though of something when they were taking about how cheap the PS3 was since Bluray was implemented, and it's doesn't look good for Bluray. Basically, the PS3 is going to kill off Bluray, and I'll tell you why.

Then there's the fact that most gamers interested in the PS3 don't care about Blu Ray. Since Blu Ray is both the reason that the PS3 is so expensive and the killer feature that is supposed to make you want it despite the high price, I think it's also fair to say that Blu Ray may kill off the PS3.

Re:Aww.

[jonabbey]

Basically, the PS3 is going to kill off Bluray, and I'll tell you why.

Great, let's hear it.

Lets say you're a manufacture of equipment and are choosing which player to make. The HD-DVD player is easier to build and cheaper, while the Bluray player is more expensive but has more storage and possibly better quality video. Now, when you look at your bottom line you can sell an HD-DVD player for $500-$700 but your Bluray player will sell around $800-$1000.

What's your evidence that the HD-DVD player is easier to build and cheaper? Or that the Blu Ray player will around $800-$1000? I've heard credible arguments that the HD-DVD discs are cheaper to produce, but no one has given any evidence that the player will be, given that both HD-DVD and Blu Ray support precisely the same complement of codecs. What's your reasoning here?

Now, here comes Sony with their BluRay equipped $500-$600 PS3. You know that you'll be selling your Bluray player at a loss if you sell it any less than $800 and you know anyone that wants a Bluray player will just get a PS3 since it's cheaper. You also know you can't compete against it with Bluray but can easily compete with an HD-DVD player and even the XBOX 360 plus HD-DVD will be in that $500-$700 competitive range your player will be in.

The PS3 may have set a competitive ceiling for a single-disc Blu Ray player (let's say at $600, because you want the HDMI output), but there's still no evidence that you've got some cost of manufacturing floor which will force you to compete at that price range.

As a manufacture looking out for your Shareholders, what are you going to build?

The one that will have customers. HD-DVD and Blu Ray players are only equivalent products to the consumer if they have identical content on offer, and you know that they won't, because Blu Ray has greater support among the movie studios.

Basically, the PS3 will be the only Bluray player in the market because it will drive the market away from it and toward the cheaper HD-DVD. That is until Bluray drops in price, and by then, the format war will be over and HD-DVD will be the winner.

Except that there may be a few to ten million PS3 owners who are tipping the market towards production of Blu Ray content. Anyone who wants a PS3 on its own merits will have to be convinced to buy both the PS3 and a standalone HD-DVD player, and what exclusive content will there be from the studios to make it worth their while?

Unless you've got evidentiary support for your argument about the necessarily higher cost of producing a Blu Ray player vs. the cost of producing an HD-DVD player, it's not at all clear that the market will go in the way you suggest.

Why not PS 3 ?Re:Aww.

[aibrahim]

First off... some people do not want a game console. I am sure you know the type: They think games are silly and won't consider anything that might be related.

Second, there are some nice features in dedicated players:

Front panel display
Backlit remote
high quality upscaling of DVD content
high quality scaling to formats other than the discs native format.
lower physical noise levels
lower signal to noise ratio
more picture adjustments/calibration settings.

Basically the PS 3 will be great when your Blue Ray content matches your TV's native resolution. Unfortunately that will be very rare.

A lot of Blue Ray movies will be 1920x1080p on disc. Will your TV handle that ? If you have a TV that is 1366x768 progressive, like most people who have HDTV's, every movie you watch will be scaled, as that resolution doesn't correspond to ANY HD or SD format.

The scaler in the PS2, Xbox and Xbox 360 is pitiful. A $50 USD DVD player outperforms all of them with standard DVD. There is no reason to expect any better from the PS3.

Unless you have one of the new Grand Wega's or the other 1080p TV's most Blue Ray content will look noticeable worse than a dedicated player. Even if you do have such a TV Blue Ray content that is 720p on disc will look worse than any dedicated player.

Now- I happen to be buying both a 1080p TV and a PS3 sometime this year. (probably both together in the fall.) This is less of an issue. I do however expect to get a dedicated Blue Ray/HD-DVD combination player once they fall under $300 USD.

You could also buy a higher end A/V amplifier, many of which include high quality image scaling hardware.

The point is that you do actually get something for your money. (Provided of course that you are shopping intelligently.)

By the holiday shopping season (ugh.. pains me to type that.) we may see a couple of low end blue ray and HD-DVD players, but I don't think so. All the manufacturers are looking forward to the high margin early adopter money too much. Still, despite my opinion, don't rule it out.

Expect to see a huge raft of cheaper Blue-Ray players after the holiday season.

In fact- if the PS3 doesn't sell well enough expect to see a PS2.5 or somesuch. basically a PS3 with a DVD instead of Blue-Ray. It would play PS2 games at enhanced resolution (like you see with Halo 2 on Xbox 360) and PS3 games that fit on DVD media. It will be very aggressively priced- probably debuting competitive with a price reduced Xbox 360. (Yeah I expect MSFT to drop the price after the holidays, like say in February 2007.)

Neo Geo was MOST CERTAINLY a console

[freeweed]

The Neo Geo was not a console

The NeoGeo was most certainly a console. It came in a small form factor, with interchangable cartridges, independant controllers attached with long cables, and was designed to be plugged into a television set. It was the very definition of a video game console, just more expensive. It was marketed as a console, targetted at the wealthy ("play the hottest arcade games at home!", etc). The machine itself was entirely inappropriate as an arcade unit - the controllers alone would have broken given a few weeks in your average arcade. Plus, the whole television thing. It would have looked pretty 1972 to have your arcade running off TVs.

I will say that the Neo Geo would have been much better had it come as a stand up cabinet that allowed the games to be changed, for the money

This happened. It was called the MVS. But if you didn't want to buy a cabinet, you bought the NeoGeo - a home gaming console system.

In short, you either don't know what the hell you are talking about, or you don't understand what a video game console (or arcade game, for that matter) is.