You know, the "high price = quality" argument has rarely worked in the gaming industry. 3DO, anyone? Neo Geo, anyone? TurboGraphx anything, anyone? Game Gear/anything else that tried to challenge the original Game Boy, anyone? Hell, PC gaming, anyone? And at least with PC gaming, there's SOME legitimacy to the idea - there is SOME hardware superiority. But even still, the average gamer has moved far away from PC gaming and its price tags.
Hell, the PSP is being outsold by the DS, even though the PSP is definitely the superior piece of hardware (software-wise, it's arguable depending on what you like). Sony's approach to being the "premium" item with premium pricing isn't working now, and it's not likely to buck history.
1) The hard drive's already been dropped (now only to be available as an add-on purchase)
2) Sony has a long history of doing this - promising big, then cutting feature by feature until they come back down to reality.
It's amusing and almost appalling how blatent Sony will simply lie and cook things up for a trade. I mean, with such quick cuts, there isn't even a pretense of them having at one time seriously believed they were gonna get that in their box.
I wish I could get Edge Magazine, but the price tag for getting it in the States is insane.
Hell, even the subscription price tag you UKers pay for it is insane, though someone's told me magazine subscriptions can be expensive like that in the UK. I mean, £39.99 (~$70) for one year? I don't think I can find a gaming mag in the US that costs more than £11.49 (~$19.99) or at worst £14.50 (~$24.99).
The rumor (at least the only real legitimate rumor) about the PS3 price tag has been $399.
From, among others, the site that this article is on.
And alas, no debunking of the $399 tag.
Instead, there's a nicely created straw man argument that the PS3 is going to be "the most expensive console ever", and the straw man is beaten down by name-dropping the 3DO.
As if any of this changes the real issue - distinct possibility of the PS3 being a full $100 more expensive than a $299 Xbox 360.
That does NOT include hacking the game, which is exactly what this is - a mod/hack to access something that was locked away and completely inaccessible through normal, non-hack usage.
I bieelve it was proevn that as lnog as the frist and lsat lettres do not chnage, our brians can aoutomtacalily rearragne tehm and we have full comhenpresion.
It's possible MS will release a sort of "Halo 2 Reloaded" near the X360 launch, to give people online Halo play on the X360... and then wrap up Halo 3 and launch it when the PS3 hits.
Remember when they were talking about selling 3 different versions of the Xbox 360 at launch? They backed away from that fracturing of the market too.
Also, if they DID sell an HD-DVD version down the line, it wouldn't mean that games would make use of it. Game developers are not so quick to turn their back on millions of installed base users. Notice how nobody made use of the PS2 hard drive peripheral? Game developers are not so stupid about their bottom lines.
And I don't know what you're talking about when it comes to developers shifting from PS2->PS3 compared to Xbox->X360. I'm guessing you're not a computer programmer. What are you talking about by "familiar world"? Familiar API abstractions? X360 developers will continue to be in a DirectX-derived world, something that's been around far longer than Sony's kits. Familiar hardware? The PS3 is far more radically different from the PS2 than the Xbox 360 is from the Xbox - the PS2 didn't have a GPU, programmable shaders, etc. So I'm not seeing what you could possibly be talking about.
Given that the 360 is including a HD it's likely to cost more to produce.
Nope - analysts predict a $75 loss per Xbox 360 sold at $300 (so, a price of $375 to manufacture). While the article in this story is saying just a hair shy of $500 to manufacture a PS3 unit.
Keep in mind, not only did Sony sink a ton of money into Cell R&D, but they're also packing in a Blu-Ray drive, and those easily spank the cost of the hard drive at this point in time.
You're right that Sony could end up pricing right alongside Microsoft - I even said that. I also pointed out that doing so means taking MASSIVE losses per unit. It could happen, but the losses won't be so easily sneezed off.
Microsoft has already confirmed that they're targeting the $299 price point, and have said that it will definitely be "in the neighborhood of $300" (translation: definitely shooting for $299 but not yet ready to commit to it).
Not only is that $100 less, but by the time the PS3 launches, the Xbox 360 will be out long enough to cut its price. It could conceivably go down to $250-275.
For the casual gamer that isn't necessarily married to the Sony brand label, the 360 price point will certainly look much more attractive. To the slightly more technical buyer, one would note that the PS3 price doesn't even include the damn hard drive (sold separately!), while the 360 does.
I don't see a really good "win" scenario for Sony here. If they do price competitively with the Xbox 360, then they'll be taking losses per unit that blow away the losses MS was taking with the original Xbox (and those were crazy enough that MS built their new console with keeping losses in control - and apparently have succeeded).
There's still plenty of Sony faithful that want their Final Fantasys and Metal Gears, but Sony could stand to lose a huge share of the massive casual fan base that made them the #1 console seller this past gen.
(This post was written by a decidedly non MS cheerleader - he likes Ubuntu, Gentoo, and Apple)
Slashdot Mirror
Hell, the PSP is being outsold by the DS, even though the PSP is definitely the superior piece of hardware (software-wise, it's arguable depending on what you like). Sony's approach to being the "premium" item with premium pricing isn't working now, and it's not likely to buck history.
1) The hard drive's already been dropped (now only to be available as an add-on purchase)
2) Sony has a long history of doing this - promising big, then cutting feature by feature until they come back down to reality.
It's amusing and almost appalling how blatent Sony will simply lie and cook things up for a trade. I mean, with such quick cuts, there isn't even a pretense of them having at one time seriously believed they were gonna get that in their box.
Hell, even the subscription price tag you UKers pay for it is insane, though someone's told me magazine subscriptions can be expensive like that in the UK. I mean, £39.99 (~$70) for one year? I don't think I can find a gaming mag in the US that costs more than £11.49 (~$19.99) or at worst £14.50 (~$24.99).
From, among others, the site that this article is on.
And alas, no debunking of the $399 tag.
Instead, there's a nicely created straw man argument that the PS3 is going to be "the most expensive console ever", and the straw man is beaten down by name-dropping the 3DO.
As if any of this changes the real issue - distinct possibility of the PS3 being a full $100 more expensive than a $299 Xbox 360.
Vonba?
C'mon-shake-yer-body-baby-do-the-Vonba
I-know-you-can't-control-yerself-any-longa
That does NOT include hacking the game, which is exactly what this is - a mod/hack to access something that was locked away and completely inaccessible through normal, non-hack usage.
It's not little kids doing this.
Geeks without dates.
Where on earth is there written such a rule that computing has to be broken into such arbitrary boundaries?
If you need more than a PDA, but not everything a tablet or notebook offers, then there ya go. Don't get so hung up on how things have been before.
Only for the parents that weren't the ones taking drugs in the '60s and '70s...
Funny for teh win!
hevewor, rnidaeg tihs pevors ellaitnessy ilbissopme dtipsee fniwollog yuor eelpmax's relus, bsuacee tehy are bihsllut.
(translation: However, reading this proves essentially impossible despite following your example's rules, because they are bullshit)
Uh, no sir. How stupid do YOU have to be, to....
uhm... I've got nothing. I just like the pattern.
This has to be one of those, "Step 2: ?????", "Step 3: Profit!" things...
Remember when they were talking about selling 3 different versions of the Xbox 360 at launch? They backed away from that fracturing of the market too.
Also, if they DID sell an HD-DVD version down the line, it wouldn't mean that games would make use of it. Game developers are not so quick to turn their back on millions of installed base users. Notice how nobody made use of the PS2 hard drive peripheral? Game developers are not so stupid about their bottom lines.
And I don't know what you're talking about when it comes to developers shifting from PS2->PS3 compared to Xbox->X360. I'm guessing you're not a computer programmer. What are you talking about by "familiar world"? Familiar API abstractions? X360 developers will continue to be in a DirectX-derived world, something that's been around far longer than Sony's kits. Familiar hardware? The PS3 is far more radically different from the PS2 than the Xbox 360 is from the Xbox - the PS2 didn't have a GPU, programmable shaders, etc. So I'm not seeing what you could possibly be talking about.
Nope - analysts predict a $75 loss per Xbox 360 sold at $300 (so, a price of $375 to manufacture). While the article in this story is saying just a hair shy of $500 to manufacture a PS3 unit.
Keep in mind, not only did Sony sink a ton of money into Cell R&D, but they're also packing in a Blu-Ray drive, and those easily spank the cost of the hard drive at this point in time.
You're right that Sony could end up pricing right alongside Microsoft - I even said that. I also pointed out that doing so means taking MASSIVE losses per unit. It could happen, but the losses won't be so easily sneezed off.
Not only is that $100 less, but by the time the PS3 launches, the Xbox 360 will be out long enough to cut its price. It could conceivably go down to $250-275.
For the casual gamer that isn't necessarily married to the Sony brand label, the 360 price point will certainly look much more attractive. To the slightly more technical buyer, one would note that the PS3 price doesn't even include the damn hard drive (sold separately!), while the 360 does.
I don't see a really good "win" scenario for Sony here. If they do price competitively with the Xbox 360, then they'll be taking losses per unit that blow away the losses MS was taking with the original Xbox (and those were crazy enough that MS built their new console with keeping losses in control - and apparently have succeeded).
There's still plenty of Sony faithful that want their Final Fantasys and Metal Gears, but Sony could stand to lose a huge share of the massive casual fan base that made them the #1 console seller this past gen.
(This post was written by a decidedly non MS cheerleader - he likes Ubuntu, Gentoo, and Apple)
Yeah, I forget about that sometimes. :)