$499 PlayStation 3 Confirmed

Gamespot is reporting that the rumoured price drop from earlier this week is a reality. Starting on July 10th, the current 60GB model will sell for $499. Coming to US shores in August is the 80GB version only available in South Korea at the moment, which will retail for $599. They're bundling that unit with Motorstorm, so it's not just another 20 gigs for $100. "The price drop further indicates that, after a slow start, Sony is now aggressively trying to expand its customer base in the US. The move comes none too soon. According to the latest figures from industry-research firm the NPD Group, the PS3 only sold 82,000 units in the US in May, compared to the Xbox 360's 155,000 units and the Wii's 338,000 units." So, is this it? Will this price drop make you buy a PS3, or are you still holding off for the big games this fall?

Comments

Blu-Ray

[Brad1138]

I want one for the Blu-Ray player. I have a 61" DLP set that is just screaming for Blu-Ray or HD DVD, Personally I like Blu-Ray. Currently stand alone Blu-Ray players are $650+ (from a quick Google search). From the reviews I have read it holds up fairly well against them. Plus an awesome gaming machine.

Re:Blu-Ray

[wawannem]

As a parent of a child that *really* wants a PS3, I can say that the price has been the biggest barrier. It's hard to justify this sort of expenditure for a twelve-year-old... I sort of feel like he'll grow up like his gaming-geek old man if I give in and buy one. I'm glad to see that they are coming down in price. -W

Re:Blu-Ray

[ryanw]

I gotta say, the PS3 as a blu-ray player is excellent. I've talked with several retailers, they want this war to end quickly. They're sick of stocking both formats. They say the blu-ray products move a ton more than the HDDVD stuff. They're fairly confident in a bluray victory.

When I had learned that Microsoft was entering into the video game industry I had several predictions, and they've all happened and we as the consumers are the ones who suffer.

Microsoft has enough cash to drown out any compitition. I felt that they'll come out the gate (no pun intended) with easily hackable hardware and piracy will run rampad. They will show attempts to squash piracy so their 3rd party developers won't be "as pissed' when they realize their software is out in the wild without anyone buying it. Microsoft doesn't really care about piracy, they more care about domiance. Once a market is dominated then they no longer have to focus on anything in particular to keep the customer happy.

Back in the day there were lots of exclusive games for specific consoles. Now between Nintendo, XBox and Playstation, nobody wants to choose a side and miss out on potential market sales. So now they make their games so it's most friendly with all platforms. Exclusive titles is really what the consumers should want. When a game goes exclusive they tailor the game to the console it's being written for with all the extra bells and whisles. When they're developing for all consoles, there is lots of console specific programming that gets lost, so in the end, the consumer suffers.

Sure, sony is evil .... So is microsoft. Bluray rules, the next gen PS3 games coming out are amazing! The PS3 is very smooth and looks better than all the other consoles (in my opinion)...

Re:Blu-Ray

[lucas teh geek]

so bluray is good? so what? I dont want a hd video player right now, I want a video game console. I have a perfectly good upscaling dvd player that sits there unused because basically everything I watch is kept in digital formats on my home server and then streamed to my TV via HTPC. sure, the upsampled picture doesnt have the definition of bluray, but seeing as it's only being played back on a 26" 720p tv the difference is ignorable. it seems impossible for sony apologists to say why the ps3 is good value for money without resorting to it's wonderful "blue rays", something that most consumers neither need or want.

microsoft may be evil but at least they arent trying to jam their stupid hd format down my throat, and charging me more for the privilege.

Re:Blu-Ray

[White Flame]

I've seen a few places like the Fry's Electronics store near me that had 2 identical Sony 1080p displays next to each other, playing the same HD movie, one in HD-DVD and the other in Blu-Ray, both stand-alone players. The HD-DVD version always had MUCH less compression noise and blockiness than the BR one. Then again I'm a real pixelophile and am far more offended about such things than the average person (I think that the visual quality of both suck dung and aren't worth the money; don't get me started on digital cable vs analog ;) ). I haven't seen BR movies on the PS3, but I suspect it'll have the same or worse quality than a standalone player.

Re:Blu-Ray

[donaldm]

The PS3 can do so much more then play Blu-ray movies although I do have to admit a Blu-ray movie played to a HDTV looks great. Even DVD movies are upscaled via the PS3 to a HDTV via HDMI and the result is impressive. My son has a PSP and he can put MP4 movies onto his 2GB Memory Stick, ripped from his DVD's and play them back via his PSP though the PS3 and the output is also upscaled with impressive results. We have not played with this much so although I think it is possible to put the MP4 directly to the PS3.

As many know you can put Linux on the PS3 and this means you have all the Linux emulators (NES, SNES, Mame ... etc) to play your old (cough!) rom games. In fact what you can do with linux you can do on the PS3 although you don't have full access to all the hardware yet.

The PS3 can act as a media server although you may be better off using your PC as the server and the PS3 as the display device. You can even upgrade the PS3's 2.5" disk disk with a standard 2.5" disk without voiding your warranty. If you like you can use SD, Memory Stick or Compact Flash cards to transport your data, which could be from a camera, music files or even MP4 files. I have not played with MP4's yet so I cannot advise.

I do have the Australian 60GB PS3 that has WiFi which works well with my wireless router (Netgear WTG624). Took me 5 minutes to setup and makes it easy to do on-line gaming or surfing the web (worth getting a wireless keyboard and mouse but you should get one that has a 3+ meter (approx 3 yard) range) if you are interested in that. You can even print your photographs to a printer (limited support at the moment) if you want.

What else? Well you can play games on it. What's this I hear there aren't many PS3 games yet, well there are thousands of PS2 and PS1 (if you can get them) and more PS2 games are coming out unlike other later release consoles and although I have an Australian PS3 I can play between 85% and over 90% of games and newer games do work. In fact I only have one game (Wizardry - sigh!) that does not work. What is really nice is the fact that most games (PS2 especially) are upscaled to 720p, 1080i or 1080p (configurable) via component or HDMI and the result makes a good game even better. As for PS1/2 memory cards you can create as many as you want as well as the ability to save your PS1/2 game saves to your flash cards if you want. You want rumble? you can use your existing wired or wireless PS2 dual shock controller (you do need a PS2 to USB adapter) with PS1/2 games if they support rumble.

I have only touched on the parts of the PS3 I have played with, for more information see the forums (caution some rabid fan-boys) and make up your own mind. If you think the Wii or the Xbox360 offers the best bang for your dollar over the PS3 then it's your money. IMHO the PS3 offers the best value for my money but it may not be the same for you.

The only downside of the PS3 I have found is my wife likes the ability to play HD and upscaled DVD movies and my son likes Oblivion (it is lucky he is also an avid PC gamer as well) so we have to time-share the HDTV. I have a Linux laptop that my wife can surf the web with so she does not need to use the PS3 to do this.

Re:Blu-Ray

[Wdomburg]

Thing is ... both formats support the same codecs and have ample transfer rate for 1080p in both MPEG-4 or VC-1. Side by side comparisons tell you about the quality of the encoding and of the player, not of the capability of the format.

If I were in the market, I would personally go HD-DVD on price alone (about $250 last I looked). The theoretically superiority of Blu-ray (in capacity and transfer) means fuck all in the common case. To exceed the practical limit of HD-DVD you've to do something like encode the video at an exceptionally high bitrate, encode your audio in DTS Master Audio (an optional part of the standards, no players on the market actually support it) and try to cram more than four hours on a disc.

Re:Blu-Ray

[phpWebber]

I agree with you. I'm not a "hater", it's just when I look at the rack of games, nothing jumps out at me yet. I am fine with that and bought my system regardless.

I just don't want a parent to plop down that much money to have it collect dust. If your child can pick up three ps3 games that you approve of, then it is worth it. If one of those appeals to you, all the better.

As to the original topic, Blu-Ray movies do look really nice :)

Re:Blu-Ray

[poot_rootbeer]

It's hard to justify this sort of expenditure for a twelve-year-old...

A twelve-year-old boy is probably old enough to mow lawns, run errands, etc. to earn his own income.

It shouldn't take him much of that to understand how much money $500 actually is.

Re:Blu-Ray

[FatherOfONe]

So you have a multi thousand dollar PC sitting there holding your ripped DVD's. I have a 24" LCD and I can tell a HUGE difference between 720P and 1080P. Now having said that, it appears that the PS3 isn't for you, nor is it for anyone who has a standard def tv at the moment. However, if you have a HDTV and a large library of PS2 games then this isn't a bad buy at all.

Now for your argument that Microsoft isn't trying to "jam" something down my throat with the 360... Well I don't want or need another freaking DVD player, so why did they include it? Wasn't CD good enough... It is for me :-) Some people don't have HDTV's so why are they trying to cram HD down EVERYONES throat? You see the argument can go both ways... Sony included Blu-Ray in the PS3 and basically killed any chance of HD-DVD becoming the standard, but the cost of it may cause Sony to come in 3rd place with regards to console sales. Then again, some development shops are starting to fill over a 9GB DVD and like the 50GB of extra space that the PS3 provides, so in the next 3 or four years when the Xbox 720 or Wii 2 or whatever needs to come out, people can still use and buy a PS3. It is a tactical decision and I honestly don't know if it is the correct one, but I am not about to fault a company for pushing new technology.

As far as your argument of a streaming server... How many content providers are up for you doing that? I don't see many jumping at putting their HD content on iTunes, and ripping a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD disk is illegal so I imagine your HD content selection pretty much sucks now. Also, not that you care but you can use your PS3 to get that media off of your server and display it to your TV and then also stream it to your PSP over the internet if you wanted. Just to clarify, you can at this time download movies to your PSP OR have them streamed to your PSP. That to me is much cooler than say an iPod because I don't have to carry some 80GB ipod around with all the movies I "may" watch. I can keep them on a PS3 with some huge HD on it and then stream those to a PSP when I want to watch them. Granted, much like the iPod I could download them to the PSP and watch them locally, but I am not locked in to syncing. Again, not that you care but you could also take remote control of your PS3, download some new movies and then stream them to your PSP also.

Ok, enough for video crap. You may or may not care about that. The game lineup for the PS3 is poor, but there are some great games out. Motorstorm and Resistance fall of Man are two very good titles. The downloadable games Calling all Cars and Super Star dust and very good for under $10. Home looks to be a great way to interact with users online and if done correctly it will be (in my opinion) the best online experience of any of the new consoles. Little Big Planet looks to be a great game that may be out this fall. Ninja Gaiden Sigma (also on 360 but not as well done), appears to be a very good game, and Oblivion (also on multiple platforms but well done on PS3 with very low loading times... nice to have a HD in every system). Obviously future games like MGS4 and FF will be system sellers but those are not out yet and probably won't be out this year. In short there are quite a few very good games and some are on other consoles (primarily the 360). What I have found out is that the games developed for the 360 first and then ported to the PS3 look bad (not Wii bad), but bad, however games developed for the PS3 first look fantastic and play very well. I will also add that playing PS2 and PS1 games works very well. Seeing that the PS2 is still selling like mad, and developers are not going away from it, that is another nice option for "kids" games.

So I just laid out some very good games and there are quite a few more. Sony had and has some major issues but they are addressing them somewhat quickly. Would I love a PS3 for $200? Yes! But at the expense of quality (less than 1% of PS3 consoles are defective as opposed to another m

Re:Blu-Ray

[Kelbear]

Or perhaps, Guitar Hero: Acoustic version!

You can give the kid a cheap acoustic guitar for just over $100 and he can learn off tablatures, tutorials, and perhaps a vid here and there. (Though certain companies have doing their best to make sure nobody learns how to play guitar...)

I don't ascribe any special importance to music, I just found the guitar to be a thoroughly enjoyable "game". Easy to start, but difficult to master with lots of levels and tons of replay value. The add-on for the singing version is free too. It's a game that seems to lack the same social stigma that the electronic version has.

Re:Blu-Ray

[wiggles]

A guitar! Perfect! Hours of entertainment, and chicks o' plenty in college! It truly is the gift that keeps on giving.

Waiting for Metal Gear

[rolfwind]

It's the only game I need that's only for PS3. I might even wait until they port it though. $500 for one game is too expensive.

Also going to wait to see what Wii games are out this Christmas. With the immense popularity, I expect Wii will get a surge of games - but knowing that games take time to make, I wonder when it will happen. Perhaps Fall of '08.

Re:Waiting for Metal Gear

[Fallen Kell]

I was going to wait as well for Metal Gear. However, I might pick one up. I have a 46" 1080p Sharp that would love to have BluRay to watch on.

As for the Wii and new games, I would love to see more games on the Wii, being that I have had one since release day (was up in line at 5:45am). My only concern is that the games will be horrible ports from other systems. The uniqueness of the Wii controllers is not something that makes it easy to slap on any old game that was designed for something else. You need to have really thought out what you can do with the controls and have that in mind when making the interface. I dread the thought of simply swinging the wii numchuk around in circles to make my character get up after falling down or some other non-intuitive, tedious motion to make something happen. For many actions in a game and button is just a better idea. However, there will be places and times to use the movements and sensitivity of the Wii controllers have to offer. Things that are intuitive, like using it to control a swords movements or turn a door nob, or grasp an item (yes, you can do this very will with the combination of the buttons on top and bottom of the remote, plus force feedback, this is very possible). But don't have me randomly shaking the remotes just to do something like push back someone who has grappled me in "Call of Duty", or shake the numchuk to change weapons, etc., etc... Use your brain here and use motions where they make sense, not just to add motions to your interface. You shouldn't have to read the instruction manual to figure out that you have to shake the numchuk up and down to make the character use a grenade, it should just be intuitive...

Re:Waiting for Metal Gear

[Zantetsuken]

Its not a whole lot more number-wise, but heres a few more that are set to be PS3 exclusive, and these are series highly reputed for the game play, not just graphics.

Of the exclusives on this list, I know the following to either be historically good franchises or good games for a new franchise (or at the absolute least have heard a few of them to be good):

• Castlevania (not much into it myself, but its a longstanding franchise)
• Genji: Days of the blade (I've played the demo, which made me rent it - its a great game with gameplay like the Onimusha series if you've played those)
• God of War 3 (never played 1 or 2 myself, but since just about every review site gave great critiques for months on end, it can't be too bad)
• Gran Turismo 5 (not a fan of racing games, but I know enough to know its big)
• Gradius (the latest in a great line originating with the side-scrolling NES space shooter)
• Haze (sounds decently fun, even if it only turns out to be an average FPS)
• Hot Shots Golf (if you like playing golf or other casual party games like this)
• Killzone 2 (I found the first to be fairly fun as even as a somewhat generic FPS)
• MGS4 (as you 2 have listed)
• Mobile Suite Gundam: Crossfire (looks like a fun clone of Armored Core with destructable buildings)
• Resistance: Fall of man (rented it, is extremely fun and is hard enough to suck you in and make you at least try)
• SOCOM (personally only the first was nothing short of spectacular, the second was mediocre, and the 3rd was just horrible - hopefully this will remedy that)
• Tekken 6 (not a fan of fighting games, but the only one I know of more popular than Tekken is the Guilty Gear franchise)
• Time Crisis 4 (everybody's favorite Peter Piper rail shooter with a guncon, this guncon model is supposed to have analog sticks and allow the player to roam freely the level)
• Warhawk (never played the original, but it sounds like there are legions of people waiting to sell their souls when this comes out)
• Zone of the Enders 3 (now I thought this series was finished, so the existence of this is news to me, but the first 2 were great fast action with superb mechanical designs on the mecha - this is definitely one to pick up if you like fast action that makes you have to really pay attention to where you are, not to mention where the enemy is)

Re:Waiting for Metal Gear

[LKM]

I read your post until the part you called Genji "a great game." What???

Re:Waiting for Metal Gear

[TheSciBoy]

Hear, hear. But even Nintendo fell into this trap with Twilight Princess. They used shaking as another button which triggers attacks, since the Wii game is more or less a direct port from the Game Cube.

To date, only a few game actually use the controller in a proper game (I'm not counting Wario Wares and Mario Party 8 type games): Wii Sports, Tiger Woods golf and maybe one or two more that I've forgotten.

Also disappointing to me is the fact that there aren't any RPG's for it yet. No, I'm not talking about WoW or somesuch, I want Final Fintasy or an RPG along those lines. Wii control optional. :)

Re:Waiting for Metal Gear

[Cutriss]

That article referenced on Wikipedia is *incredibly* optimistic. I was quite surprised to see Castlevania on the list, and then I opened the Wikipedia reference. It's a singular article on IGN saying that IGA said he wants to make a Castlevania game on *a* next-gen console. Also, that article was two years old. Needless to say, Castlevania should not be present.

Further, Zone of the Enders 3 is just a rumored game based on one magazine printing.

Also, aside from the Sony games on the list (which is the majority) and the two I just debunked, none of those aside from MGS4 is a "confirmed exclusive". TC4 was announced for the PS3, but given Namco's recent support/announcements for the 360, it is likely to show up there as well. Considering that SC4 is going to both the PS3 and 360, I would not be surprised to see Tekken go there as well. Haze *is* announced to the 360. So, really, you kinda need to go back to the other usual "fanboy list" of Lair, Warhawk, Home, etc etc etc.

"aggressively"?

[TheSHAD0W]

Calling a $500 price "aggressive" may not be appropriate, really. Realistic, perhaps; it's still $200 pricier than an HD-DVD player or a basic XBox 360. I'd call it barely reasonable, but not aggressive.

Re:"aggressively"?

[TheSHAD0W]

Not considering the original price, and not considering they've been staying on shelves in droves.

Re:"aggressively"?

[Rosyna]

And you know that $299 is the price of the 360 core. But you wandered off like PS3 fanboys always do. What you (and Sony) forget is that some people buy a game console just to play games.

And you did what MS fanboys always do. You assumed someone can play games on the $299 Core. The Core system doesn't have a hard drive or memory card, which is necessary for online play or to play original Xbox games. So you have to pay extra for either of these if you want to play online games. A hard drive is required to play Xbox games.

So yes, you can play games on the Xbox 360 Core system for $299, assuming you don't want to play online and don't want to play original Xbox games.

Re:"aggressively"?

[Osty]

Why wouldn't I want to buy one now that not only supports HD games, but I can also get the advantage of HD movies

If you're looking for something to play games, you have to compare what's available for the system and what will be out in the short term (in the long term, you can wait for another price drop). That's the biggest problem with the PS3 right now -- there's no system seller game that makes any price worth it. If you're buying it as a Blu-Ray player, $500 is competitive to stand-alone Blu-Ray players and may be worthwhile. If you just want generic "HD movies" rather than following certain studios to one of the two formats, the Xbox 360 without HD-DVD is a better deal (online downloads of HD movies, streaming video and media center functionality at a lower price than PS3) or you'd wait until the HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray issue sorts itself out.

With bad press on Xbox 360 system reliability right now

A 3 year warranty for ring of death issues is pretty generous. Reliability would not be my biggest concern about buying a 360 right now. If I was in the market for a 360, I'd be wondering whether or not Microsoft will respond to Sony's price drop with a cut of their own. Sony might succeed in making some people wait on 360 purchases to see if there's a price drop coming, but I doubt they'll convert many of those people to PS3.

Sony willing to at least listen a little from it's consumer base about price issues

This feels more like Sony being pressured into a price drop due to poor sales more than anything else. If it was a "listening to the customer" deal, Sony would be shouting it loud all over the place. As it is, there's no mention of the price drop on the official PS3 blog, which would be the first place I'd expect this to show up if it was Sony "listening to customers".

while MS after having their system out for 2 years now almost only was willing to drop their price because a competitor forced their hands (that is if they are even wiling to drop the price).

Why should MS drop their price? They're still priced below the PS3 even with their top offering (the Elite at $480). People are still buying, there's no credible threat from PS3, and there's no way for MS to drop prices into Wii territory. Maybe this Sony price drop will cause enough of a stir to force MS to drop prices as well. Maybe not. At this point, it's pure economics -- if demand at the current price is too low, Microsoft will drop the price. If it's not, they won't. There's nothing "good" or "bad" about it.

I will admit that I briefly considered buying a PS3 with this new price drop, but I've ultimately decided against because $500 is still too much for the available games and I don't care about Blu-Ray yet (I'll wait for a clear winner to emerge). Another $100, bringing the 60GB down to $400, and I'd probably buy it. For now, I'll wait until there's a system seller that I have to have. From here on out, I can only save money by waiting.

Re:"aggressively"?

[hawkbug]

Exactly - the damn thing was too expensive in the first place. They are only now coming back to reality. Not completely, but they are getting there. $100 off is a good start. Get the thing to $350 and I'd start to think about it. $600 was just ridiculous.

Re:"aggressively"?

[cHiphead]

You are rooting for Sony? Betamax? Minidisc? Sony Memory Stick Pro Duo? Sony is the KING of proprietary hardware, I'm glad MS has spanked them a bit on PS3, Sony is the one company that can take a Linux based game console with so much potential and fantastically fuck it up.

Cheers.

Re:"aggressively"?

[_KiTA_]

Calling a $500 price "aggressive" may not be appropriate, really. Realistic, perhaps; it's still $200 pricier than an HD-DVD player or a basic XBox 360. I'd call it barely reasonable, but not aggressive.

Personally, I'd use the word "desperate" not "aggressive."

It's not really aggression when the entire game retail industry comes to you and says "either you drop the price on these pieces of crap or we will do it for you / or we're taking them off the shelves."

Re:"aggressively"?

[Lost Engineer]

How is that shady? Anyone who looked at the differences between the models would know this already. If they didn't, then who's fault is that? What's wrong with giving your customers and upgrade path?

Re:"aggressively"?

[ggKimmieGal]

All of my guy friends wouldn't listen to me when PS3 and the Wii came out last year. I kept saying the Wii would do really well and that the PS3 was doomed to failure. They were all like, "The Wii is okay, but PS3 has this and that and this and that..." I was like, "Look. You're a small portion of the market. Parents are only going to see two numbers. The cheaper Wii and the $600 PS3. Which do you think they are going to buy for a Christmas gift for their younger kids? The Wii. You may have a lot of money, but what about guys in high school. They are working a minimum wage job. $600 for a system just isn't going to be worth it to them. No, I'm sorry, but the PS3 is too expensive, no matter what features it has." And I was right. $500 is still way too much for a system. They really need to get that number under $400 if they want to sell a bunch this Christmas. What they really should do is drop the price to $350 just for Christmas time. Like starting mid October, drop the price really cheap, and then bring it back up after New Years. Then you'll have moms who see that the system is on sale. And come on, what woman doesn't love a good sale.

Re:"aggressively"?

[Moochman]

Bluray isn't a proprietary format like those other ones you listed. It's got the support of most of the major consumer electronics manufacturers as well as almost all the studios http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_corporations_ supporting_Blu-ray. So please stop trolling.

Good day

Why should it?

[falcon5768]

It wouldnt make me bite when it was this much for the 20 gig... why should the 60 dropping 100 buck matter, its till more costly than a 360 which atm has more games.

And honestly looking at FFXIII despite being a huge FF fanboy doesnt make me bite at all, not for 500 dollars. As for the other PS3 killer apps right now, more than a few are actually out or coming out on the 360, which I already own.

Im sure a bunch of people are going to jump on me with bluray this, and HDMI that, but quite frankly Sony really think about what made their PS2 a huge seller. They though it was the diehards, and built a system perfect for them. What they forgot was the casuals, of which the 100 dollar PS2 became a big seller not the 300 dollar original pricetag version.

Re:Why should it?

[WasterDave]

Sony really think about what made their PS2 a huge seller.

They did, it had a DVD player in it. Critically the PS2 came out and was cheaper than a DVD player, meaning that guys like me could get approval from the domestic commandant with the words "but you wanted a DVD player, right". So they thought they'd pull the same trick again - make the PS3 cheaper than a standalone BluRay player and you either get a free games console with your BR player, or a free BR player with your games console ... depending on how you look at it.

As far as I can see it, Sony have made two big mistakes with the PS3:

* Nobody wants a BluRay player.
* Nobody wants a PS3 either.

Because both value propositions only make sense if you drop $2k on a new telly at the same time. Furthermore, where the PS2 was a giant leap from the PS1 and where DVD was a giant leap from VHS, the same cannot be said of this new generation. Consequently they're stuffed.

FWIW after the dead 360 debacle it's becoming clear that the only winner from this round is Nintendo. Who'dve thunk it?

Dave

So is this it

[rhendershot]

So, is this it? Will this price drop make you buy a PS3

no.

or are you still holding off for the big games this fall?

no.

Panic Time

[MeanMF]

This just confirms that Sony is in full-blown panic mode... They keep talking about the long-term viability of the PS3, and I can see why since it is a pretty nice piece of hardware. But they're obviously very worried about their near-term prospects so I could easily see how they'd cut another $100 before the end of the year if things don't turn around quickly.

Re:Panic Time

[Just Some Guy]

This is the first price cut since it was released.

...just eight months ago. The PS2 waited 19 months before its first cut.

They have reduced the price of making the PS3. They have gotten a higher price from those really keen to get one.

The same is true for the Wii (also 8 months old) and 360 (15 months old), but neither of them are dropping.

You have clearly had no experience in marketing at all.

Yeah, that must be it.

Those that fail to learn from history

[Orion Blastar]

are doomed to repeat it.

Anyone remember the NeoGeo?

Well anyway it was set to debut at $599 want to know why it didn't do so well? Due to the price. $500 and up game consoles don't sell that well. Sony needs to find a way to lower the price to $299 on the base model and $399 on the advanced model or else the Wii and XBox 360 will eat their lunch.

Re:Those that fail to learn from history

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"Well anyway it was set to debut at $599 want to know why it didn't do so well? Due to the price. $500 and up game consoles don't sell that well."

a.) $600 then is a LOT more than $500 now, and I don't just mean the $100 difference. The PS3 has already way out-sold the Neo Geo.

b.) The Neo Geo was NOT a mass market device. It wasn't built to be one, it wasn't marketed as one, and the games weren't designed that way. It was a niche device built for a small number of people that wanted to play arcade games at home.

c.) The GAMES for it were over $200.

The Neo Geo comparison isn't fair at all. You would have been far more apt to point to 3DO.

It won't help

[realmolo]

The PS3 is still too expensive. But the bigger problem is, there just aren't any "must have" games. I was at Wal-Mart the other day, and just for kicks I was looking at the PS3 game selection. There were about, oh, 25 titles or so, and fully HALF of them were crappy movie tie-in games. That's nuts.

The Wii is slightly better off, in that there are at least 3 or 4 really fun games. But in my opinion, it's not worth buying yet either. But the good Wii games are fun, and they are nice and "console-y". Which brings me to the 360-

Well, it has the most games, of course. But am I the only one that finds the 360s selection of games really dull? It seems like there are a lot of FPS and sports games, and not a heck of a lot else. I expect this will be the case with the PS3, also. It's almost like they are trying too hard to cater to the "hardcore" crowd. Lots of "heavy" games, not too much stuff that's simple to pick-up-and-play. Well, I guess the Live! Arcade games are. But all of those games could be done on the Wii, easily. Never mind the emulated games, which I refuse to pay for because I've been playing them for free for almost a decade now via PC emulators.

Re:It won't help

[Osty]

But am I the only one that finds the 360s selection of games really dull? It seems like there are a lot of FPS and sports games, and not a heck of a lot else.

When someone says this, I can't help but ask, "What are you looking for?" Sure, there are a fair number of FPS and sports games on the 360, just like on nearly every platform (even the Wii). There are plenty of other games as well. A sibling poster mentioned Oblivion, which was excellent (while many people prefer it on the PC due to modability, it plays perfectly on the 360 without forcing me to upgrade my PC). If you're looking for role-playing games, you're not going to find Final Fantasy, but there are several upcoming games that you might really like, such as Blue Dragon and Eternal Sonata (both JRPG-style games), Mass Effect, Fable 2, Fallout 3, Two Worlds and more either out now or coming soon. If you want racing, Forza 2 out-does Gran Turismo and DiRT is great as the latest in the Colin McRae series. There are RTS games (C&C3, BFME2, the upcoming Halo Wars, etc), action/adventure games (I'm currently enjoying Overlord), rhythm games (GH2 is arguably better on 360 rather than PS2), and more. And that's before you really get into the XBLA games, where you can find puzzlers, board games, and card games alongside classic arcade games and original platformers and shooters.

Well, I guess the Live! Arcade games are. But all of those games could be done on the Wii, easily. Never mind the emulated games, which I refuse to pay for because I've been playing them for free for almost a decade now via PC emulators.

"Could be done" and "have been done" are two different things. Geometry Wars is coming to Wii (and DS), but I question whether or not it'll control as well without two analog sticks. I never thought that would happen, so maybe Catan, Carcassone, Boom Boom Rocket, Pac-Man CE, and others will eventually make their way over to the Wii with the new WiiWare program. I'm not holding my breath, and instead will enjoy the games available on XBLA right now.

As for emulating some of the games on XBLA, that's true. I'm not a big fan of many of the classic titles on XBLA, as I much prefer original titles or full-on remakes (the new Prince of Persia, or Pac-Man CE). I did enjoy Symphony of the Night on XBLA, as I never had a chance to play it on PS1. XBLA's strength going forward will be in original games or re-imagined classics, not the "old game with a splash of new sprites" we've seen so far. And with XNA picking up steam, the whole community will be able t

I only like groundbreaking online games

[CrazyJim1]

My opinion isn't indicative of your average gamer. I bought an Xbox just to see the Halo 2 phenomena. I learned that voice chat lets you know you're playing with 12 year olds who get mad whether they win or lose. I learned that Halo 2 had no depth besides a couple insta-kill moves. I had my fun with it though. I won't buy a next gen system until I find a game that breaks ground with online play because that's all I like.

Great News

[Dr Kool, PhD]

I already have a PS3 but I'll be picking one up for my brother for his birthday because of the price cut. You really can't argue with the value the PS3 provides. You get an awesome game machine, free online gaming forever, a fully capable Blu-Ray player, an upscaling DVD player, HDMI output, user-upgradable 60GB hard drive, and a Cell processor computer capable of running Linux all for just $500. Motorstorm, Resistance and Ninja Gaiden Sigma are three great exclusives already out. More awesome exclusives like Gran Turismo, Heavenly Sword, MGS and Hot Shots Golf are just around the corner. Looks like the PS3 is really rolling now.

Those who fail to learn from economics 101

[Pap22]

Get your facts straight, according to your own wiki link:

However, this plan was quickly scrapped and when the system had its national launch it debuted at $649.99

$650 in 1990 dollars is $1120 in 2006 dollars. Not to mention the fact EACH neo geo game cost $200 in 1990 dollars ($313 in 2006 dollars).

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi

Compared to the neo geo, the PS3 is a flippin bargain.

Re:Those who fail to learn from economics 101

[freeweed]

And $3000 in 1990 dollars, what a half-decent desktop PC cost back then, is $5169 in 2006 dollars. Except a half-decent PC is 1/10th that price. Could you imagine spending $5000+ on a PC these days? Yet they're faster, have more storage, massive improvements in graphics hardware...

Technology gets CHEAPER. Far out-pacing inflation. The PS3 pricing is a joke when compared to any other modern consumer electronics - then again, game consoles pretty much have been for a while now.

This may be it!

[JoeCommodore]

I've been debating getting a Game Cube or PlayStation 2, now maybe I'll seriously look at the PS2. :-) Prices are soo much better at the trailing edge.

Doing business in 21-st century

[suv4x4]

"$499 PS3 rumored"

"$499 PS3 denied by Sony CEO"

"Sony rejects $499 PS3"

"Sony Spokesman says $499 a hoax"

"$499 PS3 confirmed"

Re:Doing business in 21-st century

[PoderOmega]

What's the 21st century have to do with it? There is a very simple answer that is always pointed out with price drop rumors. PEOPLE WILL NOT BUY THE GAME SYSTEM TODAY IF THEY THINK/KNOW IT WILL BE CHEAPER TOMORROW. Stores want you to buy things now -- they don't want you think about your purchase. Even if you can do a price adjustment at Target (or wherever), stores would always to prefer the money NOW and not later (see gift cards).

AU prices

[Nazlfrag]

I doubt we'll see anything like this. A typical price, ie. on 'sale' at Big W here w/free game is $987. That's around $847 USD. This is also the European model where they ripped out the hardware backwards compatibility.

Or I could get this one imported for $582 AUD but have no warranty. Both options are bad, but the fact I could almost get TWO from America at the same price makes the warranty issue not look so bad after all.

Sony doesn't stand a chance against the Xbox or Wii(which is still regularly sold out) in Australia any time soon. Even with the best damn games on the planet $1000 is a ludicrous price, next to $350ish Wii or $500ish 360. I could in fact get both consoles and some games for the same price... Bluray doesn't even enter into consideration.

Lex Luthor to Kaz Hirari: WRONG!

[Bushido Hacks]

Yes, I know, Kaz quit. Still, this YTMND is still good. I still won't by it for that amount.

Crappy poll

[suv4x4]

"So, is this it? Will this price drop make you buy a PS3, or are you still holding off for the big games this fall?"

That's it? Where's the third option, "neither of the above". I want my third option, god damn it!!

Let's see, what does $499 PS3 change. XBOX360 is $399, Wii is $250.
For your extra money, you get poor list of games, $65 a pop, and Blu-Pending-Disaster support, at around $45 a pop.

I'm about as excited about all of this, as I would be if Epson released $50 cheaper printers. It's about the ink, people!

Re:Crappy poll

[bigstrat2003]

For your extra money, you get poor list of games, $65 a pop, and Blu-Pending-Disaster support, at around $45 a pop. Whoa, dude. Slow down there. Blu-Ray movies are not $45 each, they're more like $25 each. That's not even close to what you said.

Anyways, depending on what games are out (or you anticipate coming out) for a console, that can be more important than the price. There's nothing out for the 360 that could inspire me to buy one. Not for $50. The only game coming out that I want to play is Halo 3... well, that's not enough to inspire me to spend $400, either. I'll just go out and rent a 360 this fall, or borrow one from one of my friends.

The PS3's library is similarly anemic at the moment (well... ok, Ninja Gaiden Sigma is sex, but that's an Xbox port so I'm not sure how much it counts), but at least it has FF13 coming out, almost certainly more games after that, God of War 3 (rumored), AND it plays my PS2 games. That works great for me, and I'm happy with my PS3. Money is a consideration, to be sure, but games are at least an equally big consideration. Ideally, you want both, and now the PS3 is within $100 of its games-deprived competitor. Hell, if Sony hadn't dropped the ball and abandoned the 20-gig PS3, PS3s would be the same price as 360s. If I were at Microsoft, I'd be quite thankful.

Incredible

[corby]

This is absolutely fantastic news.

It will now cost me $100 less to not buy one.

Re:Incredible

[Chuck Chunder]

Yeah but the downside is that you won't be saving as much by not buying one.

Re:Don't know about you

[iminplaya]

That may be the picture they present to internal revenue to dodge taxes, or to the FTC to avoid monopoly charges, but to me, Sony is Sony. And if Playstation can't say or do much about the DRM issues the others decide on, then that just means they're not so separate after all.

To buy from Sony or not to buy from Sony

[merc]

Sigh. I know I'm going to probably get modded "Flaimbait" for this, but here goes anyway...

It's only been two years since the CD rootkit scandal and already it seems the consumers have either forgotten or forgiven Sony. So please bear with me while I just take a moment to point out that there are probably still holdouts like me out there who *really* meant it when we said we would never buy from Sony ever again.

We now continue with your regularly commercial sheep-like programming existance where electronics are mass-marketed to you as shiny new objects.

Re:Announcing a Price Drop Actually Dropping It

[Eivind]

I wondered about that. "announcing" a price-drop tend to make no sense whatsoever. It'll only ensure that sales (at current price) drop to near-zero since everyone who wants one, but are *not* desperate for one (if they where desperate for one, they'd have it already) will hold off buying atleast until the price actually does drop. I guess when the price-drop is only a short time off this effect doesn't much matter.

Sony should be terrified of you

[Namarrgon]

You're about their least-favourite kind of customer - you like their heavily-subsidised hardware, but for running Linux on, not for the games. You'll cost them $200-300 with no hope of making back even close to that on game licence fees.

leat

I never really understood why Sony went to the trouble of making Linux available for the PS3 (at least, not why they did it for free). I can only think it was Krazy Ken's engineer training overriding his good sense. Yes, they got some good PR from it, but only in a small segment of the market, and that segment almost by definition isn't interested in buying games for their new toy.

They also ran the very real risk of universities etc buying up thousands of PS3s to build cheap HPC clusters, which would have been a financial disaster far outweighing any kudos they gained.

No "large future performance increase"??

[Namarrgon]

Wow, that's the craziest "advantage" I've ever heard anyone cite :-) "PS3 is slow right now because it's hard to program for, but you should buy it anyway because one day hopefully they'll figure it out" - where do I sign?

Here's a thought - why not just wait until when/if they do figure it out, and then buy it? It'll be cheaper too.

Another reason for the 80Gb bump

[DrXym]

As posted on the PS3 blog - "In short, we're introducing a new PS3 model with a 80GB hard drive which will include a free copy of MotorStorm, all for the retail price of $599. This 80GB package will be available starting in August, just a few short weeks from today. The larger hard drive will give players more of an opportunity to take advantage of all the downloadable games and trailers on the PLAYSTATION Network, including the content from our forthcoming download service which will include videos, movies and other entertainment content."

In other words expect a full video / music download service and possibly IPTV to be announced at E3. It's been a long time coming seeing as it was such an obvious and natural feature for the PS3 to have.

Basic rule of capitalism

[realinvalidname]

"Stuff is worth what people will pay for it."

Clearly, the PS3 isn't worth $600 to very many people. I'll be surprised if it's worth $500 either. Despite all the technology they've crammed in there, the games library has almost zero appeal. Boring, joyless games plus Blu-Ray does not equal $500.

With the Wii outselling PS3 6-to-1 in Japan, there's little reason to think third-party software makers will turn this around.

You're right

[Fross]

You're right on many counts. The PS3 is certainly:

Blu-ray player
Upscaling DVD player
HDMI out

I'm pretty sure when I want a Blu-ray player, I'll buy a PS3. Right now, I don't, so to me the PS3 is an exceptionally expensive game console, that plays about the same as the Xbox 360, but has fewer decent games. And it looks like the vast majority of people feel this way about it as well - there just isn't the demand for Blu-ray / HDDVD, which is crippling the PS3 sales.

I mean look at this: http://www.vgchartz.com/hwcomps.php?cons1=Wii&reg1 =All&cons2=PS3&reg2=All&cons3=X360&reg3=All&weekly =1 the only thing "really rolling" is the steep decline the PS3's sales are taking.

Please mod parent funny

[xtracto]

Sir, your post is really funny, stupid funny.

You start with:
And you did what MS fanboys always do. You assumed someone can play games on the $299 Core.

and after a random anti-Microsoft rant you finish with:
So yes, you can play games on the Xbox 360 Core system for $299, assuming...

So, your rant is completely out of place, if someone wants to play the new Xbox-360 games he just have to pay the $299 + a memory stick which as someone else state is about $20...

Not that I care about the systems being discussed in this flamewar... I am a happy Wii user which only plays each odd weekend

probably won't help...

[Churla]

I'm not waiting for a specific price point, I'm just not enamoured with the product. They have generated no "need to own that" within me for it. And therein lies the failure.

If there was just one really revolutionary , fun game for it then I might be swayed. The problem is for me to believe that I would want to play said game somewhere, maybe at a friends house, in order to seal the deal and get me to buy one. And to this point besides one gadget and gaming accumulator where I work I don't know a single person I socialize with who owns one of these things.

Where is this generations Katamari?

Re:Maybe - do they last in the field?

[MikeBabcock]

I've had a 60GB PS3 since March and it hasn't done anything stupid yet. The fan speeds up sometimes, slows down others, but is otherwise rock-solid. I did manage to have it get upset with me during a Blu-Ray movie I rented from Blockbuster but then kicked myself after ejecting the disc and realizing it was covered in smudges I should have cleaned off in the first place.

There is no lesser evil to choose

[why-is-it]

Sony's arrogance on the whole matter has made me reconsider the XBox 360 as my second machine.

No offense intended, but I don't follow this line of reasoning. It's not like microsoft has ever been a paragon of virtue or humility. They are both self-interested corporations that look out for their own interests at all times, regardless of consequence. In the past, Nintendo has demonstrated similar behaviour. None of them are angels, they are all the basically the same.

I don't have a Wii, PS3 or 360 and I'm not likely to own any of them any time soon. I could afford to buy all three if I wanted, but I what I have today is enough for the forseeable future. I expect that I will get a next-gen console at some point, but my decision will be based on the games. I will get the system that plays the games I want to play.

Sony's behaviour does not alter whether the PS3 is a good gaming system or not. It provides value for the money or it doesn't, and the same goes for the Wii or 360. It's only entertainment and the vendors are equivalently malevolent. So go out and purchase what you want and have fun. There's no need for mental gymnastics to persuade yourself or anyone else that one decision is better than the alternatives.

(However, the fact that a slashdotter would sooner do business with microsoft than Sony is more than a little amusing!)