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

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.

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.

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: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.

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.

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.)