Slashdot Mirror
How the PS3 Hit $600
Joystiq has up an interesting article today, gathering together information from a couple of places to discuss why the PlayStation 3 is so expensive. From the article: "Kutaragi was demoted after being passed over for the role of CEO and, when former Sony Pictures head Howard Stringer assumed the position, the relationship between the content and technology divisions of Sony became even more intimate. Stringer "quickly dubbed the PlayStation 3 as one of the company's 'champion' products." Kutaragi's desire to stratify the console market with Cell technology in effect wed Sony to the unpalatable prospect of charging an unprecedented price. Coupled with Sony's desire to not only push their own content on HD discs, but to control that medium with their proprietary Blu-ray format, the final price was escalated by two very advanced (and very expensive) pieces of Sony technology."
Sony's plan is simple.
1 - Weaken and demoralize the fat, lazy Americans with the rootkit.
2 - Drain the fat, lazy American's bank accounts with the uber-expensive PS3.
3 - Release Godzilla to feast on the weakened, demoralized, poor, fat and lazy Americans.
4 - There is no four after Godzilla you morons.
Ken Ku^H^H^H^H^H^H Bill
Try $500?
You people bitch that you don't want HD and you don't want Blu-Ray, but you choose to focus on the console with HDMI?
The simple fact is that the low-end PS3 is not worthless as a gaming console like the low end 360 is. It is just as capable in gaming terms as the high-end PS3. That means the legitimate comparison is between the $400 360 and the $500 PS3. The $100 price difference isn't even the cost of two games. The differences in the libraries of the two systems will basically wipe out that price differential.
The XBox 360 still has the problem that its library is uncertain. It's still missing entire genres (eg: RPGs), and still suffers from playing second-fiddle to PC ports. If Microsoft doesn't fix that problem, the PS3 is going to win anyway, $100 price difference or not.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
You fail to realize that they lack the ability to think logically... ("They" being anyone with enough money to actually do these things us mortals dream of.)
If that was true then everybody would be using a Mac.
A Mac is no more intuitive to someone who's never used one than Windows is. (I tried looking at a mini a few months back.) But I think you'll find the real reasons that more people aren't on macs are the same as they've always been.
A) They want to run Software Package X (and not necessarily because their job does)
B) They don't want to pay the Apple Tax amounting to a 50-100% increase in price/pc. (Which could explain why fewer business use Apple, leading to A.)
Ease of use IS a priority. The reason Mac isn't a solution is because Apple doesn't want it to be.