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

Aww.

[DrEldarion]

Everyone Still Rumbling About PS3

Unfortunately, the PS3 is not going to be doing any rumbling of its own.

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:Aww.

[Deathlizard]

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

As for Japan, if it says Sony, it sells regardless of what it is. Those Aibo robot dogs were a great example since they were selling those for $1000+ and still couldn't make them fast enough.

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.

Re:Aww.

[Firehed]

I'd like to point out that those same early adopters were the ones who bought the first HDTVs. The ones that weren't HDCP-compliant. I figure that unless HDCP dies entirely, neither format will have much success. The first movies aren't being flagged to use it (or so is my understanding) because they know they'd alienate and screw over their initial target market, but chances are that if they've sold enough units to declare a winner, they'll be to a point where flagging movies as originally planned would cause a massive outcry and an effective boycott.

I agree with the OP that HD-DVD will probably win for that reason - it's cheaper. But considering how consumer-unfriendly both of the formats are, I can't imagine either one faring too well.

For the most part, people aren't going to pay a big premium for a product marginally better that'll cause more headaches. Consider standard DVD players - a $50 player is going to have cheap DACs and no optical audio or digital video output, while a $200 player is going to have optical, HDMI and quite possibly HD upscaling. The picture quality difference is there, but not that noticible. Now consider that (ironically, due to the cheaper parts) the $50 player has a much easier time dealing with scratched and dirty discs than does the $200 player. I work at a video store, and whenever someone says that the disc didn't work, I ask if they have an expensive player. Unless the disc took some nasty damage, the answer is universally 'yes'. What's the outcome of this? More expensive stuff gives you a lot more headache for marginal improvement. HD players are no different, and that means that more people are going to stick with the cheap stuff.

Also, regarding the general PS3/Blu-Ray and PS2/DVD argument. DVD didn't have a competing format. Blu-ray does. The PS2 helped DVD adoption, but it had a fairly substancial improvement over tapes and no format that was going against it. Both HD formats are competing, with PS3 supporting Blu-Ray and the Xbox360 likely to have an (external?) HD-DVD drive by the PS3's launch. The 360 already has market saturation, while the PS3 has the whole Sony ignorant cult following that ensures the system will move once it's released (meanwhile, the Wii is looking quite appatizing to most relative to both of the other systems, according to numerous polls and outright common sense). So, there will be players for both formats out there in decent quantity in a few months (the HD-DVD players being marginally cheaper than the Blu-Ray, assuming a $100 external HD drive for the 360), thus the battle will be about which is cheaper to buy your movies on, not to mention who has better movies.

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

[PFI_Optix]

And it will hit $1000 on Ebay

I was wondering how I'd pay for Christmas this year.

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.

Re:Yes

[Guppy06]

Dad? I didn't know you had a Slashdot account...

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

[duranaki]

I had the same thought, but you beat me to the punch. My dad paid $4500 for our original IBM PC. By the adjusted dollars, that'd mean computers should cost $7000! Wow!! That $5000 system seems like a bargain.

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:Inflation-adjusted Insanity

[MikeBabcock]

Inflation is inflation -- its a reflection of how things cost more on average with time. 2% more per year right now in Canada. That is to say, if you save $1000 and make 2% interest on it, you've gained nothing in spending power.

Inflation is a fact of life these days with current economies.

A loaf of bread costs more right now than it did 20 years ago too. So do houses.

Electronics are slightly different in that the quality for a given price point increases dramatically with time (Moore's law and all that). In that sense, consumer electronics tend to hit a good selling price then stay there.

A $1500 computer 10 years ago would do for you then what a $1500 computer will do for you today, but you'll get a lot more (relative) computer out of it. Its still about the same point on the Bell curve of quality though compared to its peers.

I would assume the PS3 will sell out at $500 and $600, allowing them to continue manufacturing, driving the price down until they're profitable (very quickly, looking at Sony's sales history in this regard), at which point they'll start dropping the price (probably 8 months after release). I'd expect it to be a full $100 cheaper by next Christmas, and have a lot of games available too.

history isn't very good

[prockcore]

Except for the 1st generation systems (Atari), no system that has cost as much as the PS3 has succeeded... even taking inflation into account.

That and he's got the $500 PS3 on there, comparing with the highend 360. He should really have the $600 PS3 on there.

Re:history isn't very good

[voice_of_all_reason]

That and he's got the $500 PS3 on there, comparing with the highend 360. He should really have the $600 PS3 on there.

Come on, everyone knows you have to buy two copies of every system. One to open and play, the other to keep in the sealed box as a collectible.

Re:history isn't very good

[nutshell42]

Except for the 1st generation systems (Atari), no system that has cost as much as the PS3 has succeeded... even taking inflation into account.

Except for the 1st generation systems (Atari), no system that has cost as much as the Playstation 1 has succeeded... even taking inflation into account.

Sony's doomed! Doomed!

That and he's got the $500 PS3 on there, comparing with the highend 360. He should really have the $600 PS3 on there.

You're wrong. He's comparing both the $300 and the $400 360 to both the $500 and the $600 PS3.

Re:history isn't very good

[DianeOfTheMoon]

That and he's got the $500 PS3 on there, comparing with the highend 360. He should really have the $600 PS3 on there.

Really? Looking at it, feature by feature:

• The 360 Premium has a 20GB hard drive, and so does the base PS3
• The 360 Premium has component out, and so does the base PS3
• The 360 Premium allows for wireless controllers, and so does the base PS3
• The 360 Premium does not include a wireless adaptor, and neither does the base PS3
• The 360 Premium does not allow for HDMI or 1080p, and neither does the base PS3

So, why should the most expensive get compared? From what I can tell, the PS3 has a web browser, the 360 has memory card slots, and the PS3 is $100 more. (am I missing anything, feature wise, to bump my comparison to the $600 model?)

However, to play online, you pay $59/year with the 360 and $0/year with the PS3. Now, I know that there are a lot of people that have no interest in playing online, but I'm not one of them. So, over time, the PS3 actually becomes a better bargain for me, starting at year two.

Kinda strange to think about, huh? Putting a wireless adaptor on the 360 to compare to the upper-end PS3 makes the situation even worse, since you now have HDMI and 60GB worth of space to play with.

In addition, if Sony does not increase their licensing fees, keeping the games at $50 per, you could see another $150 or so difference after that same time frame, with it only getting better...

Pre-E3...

[bluemeep]

I had every intention of purchasing this console. Now there's a snowball's chance in hell of that ever happening. Nintendo is going to be my camp for this generation of consoles now.

Re:Why Zonk? Why?

[voice_of_all_reason]

Because news for gamers IS stuff that matters!

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.

Even adjusted, still expensive

[tengennewseditor]

That chart doesn't really make me feel any better about the PS3's price, the only consoles more expensive on the adjusted chart are stuff like the Neo Geo (rich, niche market), the failed "multimedia" consoles like the CD-i, and the pre-1980 stuff that was ahead of its time. The only comparable (meaning, not niche) console that was more expensive than the PS3, even after adjusting price for inflation is the Saturn, which failed in the US.

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

Sony's Boardroom

[imsirovic5]

Not written by me(quoted from the inquirer) but kinda funny:

Sony boardroom last June. Welsh wizard, Howard Stringer, is in the chair for the first time.

(ACT ONE)
The Sony boardroom. SONY EXECS seated. STRINGER pacing.

STRINGER. OK, moving onto the PS3... what is the easiest way for us to lose the ball on this one?
SONY EXEC ONE. Price, if we make it too expensive then Nintendo and Microsoft will screw us to the wall. Most people will not pay more than what the XBOX360 costs.
STRINGER. Great, anything else?
SONY EXEC TWO. We could delay it for ages until box Microsoft has established itself in the market. That would make it harder for us to claw back our lucrative European and American base.
STRINGER. Not bad, need a few more here.

SONY EXEC THREE. Well it is a bit tricky but we could make two versions of the PS3. One will have all the wi-fi gubbins and other bits that people want and will make it different from the XBOX360 and the Revolution. But make this version even more expensive than the base unit.
STRINGER. Nice thinking. It would also split our marketing budget between two similar products and the punters wouldn't know what we were selling.
SONY EXEC ONE. We could also make a really low key launch of all the details while our competitors are all over the games press like a hot rash.
STRINGER. Interesting how do we do that? There will be a lot of people interested in the PS3.

SONY EXEC ONE. We could go to E3, lock the demonstration models in a glass box and be evasive about crucial things like launch dates.
STRINGER. I like it... we will do all those things.
Sony Exec Two: Are you nuts?
STRINGER. No I am Welsh, we have a long history of being shafted by everyone from the Romans, the Normans, the English and the European Union but singing beautifully while it is done. I have no intention of winning against Microsoft or Nintendo. Now about what is happening with that Blu-Ray thingee. How are negotiations going with the HD-DVD crowd? µ

"far from the most expensive console in history"

[The Outbreak Monkey]

"far from the most expensive console in history." They say it like it's some sort of accomplishment or something.

What's next...a different study showing that the Sony Rootkit was "far from the most invasive rootkit in history?"

Whatever.

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.

Comparing to the Neo geo is rather unfair...

[Vthornheart]

The Neo-Geo (which if I remember correctly had CARTRIDGES that sold for almost 1000$ let alone the system itself... granted, it's been a long time and my youthful memory might be decieving me... and no, I'm not going to bother to take the time and look it up, someone else go do that and report back =) ) was that expensive for a couple of critical reasons.

1) It was a console that had technology far exceeding any capabilities available at the time. When Neo-Geo was selling to the elitist rich kids, the masses were just beginning to poke their heads into the SNES/Genesis market. A system of comparable power to the Neo Geo was at least... what? 4 years away? Possibly 5?

2) It was a console that was not marketed for the masses. Its advanced technology was marketed only to the few that could afford it. They felt that point (1) justified that marketing. Sony cannot claim that for the PS3, because no matter how many processors its core system is equivalent to, the end user is not going to see a dramatic difference between it and, say, the XBox 360. It's not like it was back then, when gamers who were used to 2D pixels suddenly had a system powerful enough to render 3D scenes. THAT was a significant jump... the jump between the Neo-Geo and its peers at the time was infinitely larger than the jump between Sony and its peers in technology.

If Sony wants to market to an exclusive lot, that's fine and entirely their perogative. But they won't sell many copies that way, and they're not going to make a lot of money that way. Where's SNK right now? I think last I heard they went bankrupt. Sony could learn from that example.

Of course, in order to actually appeal to an elite few, you have to offer them a truly elite product. They're going to need to beef up those system specs if they want to hit a market like that... and beef it up in such a way that an actual end user could visibly tell the difference in each and every licensed game they purchase.

Re:Comparing to the Neo geo is rather unfair...

[drinkypoo]

They're going to need to beef up those system specs if they want to hit a market like that... and beef it up in such a way that an actual end user could visibly tell the difference in each and every licensed game they purchase.

Yeah well the only way to do that is to release a PS3-only dick-sucking peripheral because unless the thing fucking blows me every time I play, it just doesn't have enough to differentiate itself from the competition (given that I don't give one tenth of one shit about Blu-Ray.)

Let's face it, a 50% improvement in graphics on the system (I just made that number up, let's just run with it for the duration of this comment) is not going to translate into a 50% improvement in graphics, let alone gameplay.

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.

Re:I MUST PLAY MGS4.

[Babbster]

One weekend aught be more than enough.

To watch the cutscenes? Maybe...

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.

Actually, you know.

[oGMo]

Step back a minute and think about it. A few weeks ago, Nintendo announced the name "Wii". Everyone was doom and gloom for Nintendo, nothing but lamenting, ...but they were the talk of the town.

This week, Sony says "$500"! And everyone is doom and gloom. But they're the talk of the town.

From a marketing perspective, it's far better for people to be passionate in either direction (love or hate) about something than for them to be indifferent about it.

Grumbling or grassroots?

[SuperKendall]

For the conspiracy minded, there are a lot of negative stories floating around forums about the PS3, and Microsoft has been known to astroturf before... something to think about.

It's pretty funny to hear people complaining for example that the console is "really" $600 and not $500 (base model) because it lacks HDMI and therefore you'll not be able to play games in HD. Except that the 360 lacks an HDMI interface on ANY model...

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:Grumbling or grassroots?

[trix7117]

A summary with several links to more info can be found here. And another report on it here. Don't know if that's the "proof" you want, but it sure looks like MS was/is astroturfing to me.

Nintendo Pricing Always $200?

[IanDanforth]

Looking at these graphs I didn't realise that Nintendo has always released its new console at $200. It seems odd in all the speculation over the Wii's price, this is never mentioned.

Furthermore looking at the inflation adjusted model I have to say thanks to the big N for bringing us newer and better systems cheaper each time!

Sony can go jump in a lake.

-Ian

Nintendo getting cheaper and cheaper

[oscartheduck]

Another interesting statistic to note is that Nintendo's console's have become less and less expensive as time goes by, even though they're getting more and more powerful. Let's hope the trend continues and see a $200 Wii.

$500 US dollars....

[Duncan3]

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

$600

[Seraphim_72]

$600 And comes with not one but TWO games that dont take advantage of it's processor either.

Sera.

Re:Why Zonk? Why?

[joshsisk]

Also, let's check the front page:

Games: Everyone Still Rumbling About PS3
Posted by Zonk on Tue May 16, '06 02:04 PM

IT: Wireless Security Attacks and Defenses
Posted by Zonk on Tue May 16, '06 11:49 AM

Science: Baby Meets Big Brother For Science
Posted by Zonk on Tue May 16, '06 11:23 AM

IT: Microsoft to Become Mobile DRM Standard?
Posted by Zonk on Tue May 16, '06 10:38 AM

Your Rights Online: U.S. Supreme Court Deals a Blow to Patent Trolls
Posted by Zonk on Tue May 16, '06 09:39 AM

Linux: Microsoft Flirts with Open Source
Posted by Zonk on Tue May 16, '06 09:02 AM

Apple: Apple Unveils New Macbook
Posted by Zonk on Tue May 16, '06 08:23 AM

All of those were user submission except this one. Which is about Games, Zonk's editorial specialty.

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:Neo Geo was NOT a console

[Gulthek]

Eh? Are you saying it wasn't a console because of its capabilities?

Is the XBox a console? After all, it can run Metal Slug 3 without any slowdown (a problem that hindered the arcade and Neo Geo releases).

You should head over and fix Wikipedia's article on Neo Geo, it's listed as a console there. In fact, this whole console vs. arcade recreator "debate" isn't even being discussed!

Notice...

[Quaoar]

How ALL of Nintendo's consoles, from the very first one, sold for $200. The Wii might be the first to sell for a bit more, but still, that kind of fortitude is impressive.

Re:*cough*ASTROTURF*cough*

[Trigun]

Okay, like the wii is going to be all fun and stuff, and I'm like totally going to play it and be all like 'WHEEEE', because that's the name of the thing, well, not exactly the name, but they sound the same and that's what nintendo is going for with the name, and like dude, you're going to have actual light saber battles and you'll hear like the totally cool doppler effect if you play the new Zelda, and omigod I'm so going to run right out and get one and be like all 'WHEEEE!!!one!' but I think that I mentioned that already and this is totally a run on sentence as I haven't used like any of that lame ass faggy punctiation, except for the comma splice that overweight fat bitch of an english teacher warned me about, but she's totally an ex-box chick so I don't have to listen to a goddamned word she says, cause I'm going to be rocking out to my new Nintendo console while she's busy overheating her ex-box power supply and Mr. Schmidt, the P.E. teacher is sitting there with a totally kickass PS3 and no games to play because they couldn't get a dev kit out to all those homo developers, and for the price of one PS3, I've got the wii (remember: WHEEEE) and like six or seven great titles with plumbers and shit.

There, is my UID low enough?

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: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?

And the IBM 7094 cost more in constant dollars...

[dpbsmith]

...than a Dell Optiplex GX520 does today.

So, what exactly is the point?

In 1962 an IBM 7094 cost $3,134,500.

Does that mean that $19,356,198.10 is a reasonable price to pay for a Dell Optiplex GX520 today?

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.

what about the price of the games?

[The_Rook]

unfortunately, the article ignores the price of the games. factor in the cost of the games, they arguably cost much more than the console.

in my opinion, the success of a game console hinges as much on the cost and availability of games as well as the console.

what i'd like to see is a development cost comparison of games for the different consoles and a comparison of the average retail cost of the games for the different consoles.

as i understand it, the reason why sony was able to break into game consoles was that the original playstation was not only competitive with sega and nintendo (remember that at that point, sony had virtually zero experience selling game computers) but was very simple and cheap to develop for. sony even offered a development platform for hobbyists. hobby programmers were responsible for a number of significant games on the original playstation (i think parrapa the rapper was one of these). paradoxically, sony, microsoft, and nintendo have been making a habit out of making it hard and expensive to develop console games so as to force developers to be exclusive to one or another platform.

Re:Quick Poll

[Chris Burke]

Personally, $600 for a console is an outlandish sum in my household, and if my boy asked for one, I'd tell him he's nuts and he'd better get a job (thankfully he's only 2).

Yeah, if he was older it'd be much worse. I hear the labor market is really suffering now for the five to nine year old demographic. As it is he shouldn't have much trouble landing a job.

Re:*cough*ASTROTURF*cough*

[lgw]

(I say "Wii consoles", because there is no way to pluralize "Wii" that doesn't sound totally fucking stupid.)

The plural of Wii is clearly Uss (pronounced usses). Yes, I'm agreeing with you.

I don't quite think people get it...

[OldeTimeGeek]

It seems to me that there was much the same sturm und drang about the price of the PS2 when it came out. It doesn't seem to have hurt sales much.

Yes, it's more expensive than the XBox360 and will almost certainly cost more than the Wii, but face it: game consoles are luxury items and luxury items don't usually follow the same rules of supply and demand that non-luxury items do. If they did, why would anyone in their right mind buy a Hummer H2 when it's almost exactly the same as a similarly-sized GMC? Or a $200 pair of running shoes that are indistinguishable from a set that goes for $50? Or an iPod. Or Revo sunglasses. Or anything that's "more expensive than it needs to be."

Sony is used to this. Trinitron TVs have always been more expensive than their competitors. Their digital cameras, which also tend to be more expensive than most of the competition, are second only to Canon in sales (per IDC). Sony's customers have always appeared to be comfortable with Sony's prices and I don't see that changing with the PS3.

What everyone seems to ignore about the price...

[cmeans]

is that the PS3 is also a Blu-Ray disk player.

We just saw a Toshiba HD Disk Player debut at $500 (and it apparently sucks in general, though renders well - this is from a different review).

Yes, the $599 USD price is a lot in one bang, but I think most first adopters see the reality that they're getting two systems. Two first generation systesms, a $500 Blu-Ray disk player, and a $99 next gen console. (You can move the numbers about to taste.)

If you're a scrimping College kid, then yes, this system is a little pricey for you, but I think many will pony up.

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.)

I've debated...

[Net_fiend]

whether to pre-order the PS3. There is enough time before launch to save up the cash. If I don't (get enough cash) I can always bow out of the pre-order and get the $50 bucks that is put down. I have not pre-ordered yet as the stores where I shop aren't taking pre-orders quiet yet.

Quiet frankly I'm not too surprised. I had a strong guess that the price point would be around $500 (US). Future consoles aren't going to go down in price, they're going to go up. You are a fool to believe that the more bleeding edge tech that comes in these things is going to come cheap.

For instance look at gaming video cards for the PC. The more advance they get the more expensive they are becoming when they first come out. As it has been all the people wanting to be first in line and on the bleeding edge will suck up the cost for the rest of the populace. After they've paid back to the company what it was losing then they normally drop the price. I remember when the latest graphics cards were around $200(US). Now bleeding edge cards cost around $500(US). Oh wow look at that $500 bucks just for a video card. Now compare this to the PS3 that is going to be a full system. If you were to build a PC that would be anything near the PS3 then you would be plopping down over $1k for sure.

Granted Blue-ray did up the cost on the system by a lot. Say $200(US). So with that in mind the system should cost somewhere around $300(US) for the core system. And the argument that was suggesting Sony shot themselves in the foot with the Blue-ray was interesting. I belive it made a good point. Which is why I'm still shaky about pre-ordering. But that is assuming all the stand alone Blue-ray players are going to be above the $500/$600(US) mark. And why is this any different from MS offerring a HD-DVD drive for the xbox for a price that is also cheaper than an HD-DVD player?

I believe in the end gamers will choose based on the games that come out for each console. And from what I've seen of the E3 information PS3 looks to be a winner in that area. There were maybe a total of 3 games that looked like complete winners for the Xbox 360, whereas I saw about 5 games for the PS3. And it seems some games you can actually get for the PC; Halo? As I recall a port of Halo2 is supposed to come to the PC unless they've decided to nix that idea. Xbox's ability to play some Xbox titles is a step in the right direction. Although they require a downloaded emulator.

It was a console.

[YesIAmAScript]

It hooked to your TV. It took cartridges.

It was and is a console.

You might be able to argue a Super Gun (JAMMA to TV adapter) wasn't a console.

But Neo-Geo? It was.

And it was a ripoff. It had a 16MHz 68000, and an 8 MHz Z80 in it. That's the same hardware as a Genesis, which cost $150.

Was Dreamcast not a console because it used the Naomi hardware, which was the same as some of Segas arcade machines?

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.

Re:silly conjecture

[EmperorKagato]

It's not common knowledge just because you say it is.

Both formats have strong support. What I find hilarious (which may be due to inaccuracy) is that Warner Home video supports Blue Ray when Warner Bros. supports HD-DVD.