PS3 - Price Is Right

[CoreyNJ]

I'd just like to point out that every system priced over $400 to ever be released has failed. It doesn't matter how powerful they were or how much potential they had, they all failed.

I tend to agree, no matter how powerful once you hit PC price range the rules change. Would I spend $600-800 bucks on a BlueRay DVD or HD DVD Player, sure when the standards have been worked out. Would I spend 600-800 on a video game machine just because it can play BlueRay or HD DVD, no. Generialized hardware never does as good of a job as dedicated hardware and if you are nuts about your home theater then you wouldn't buy a PS3 for your DVD player. Now you might use the argument that well the PS3 is dedicated hardware for gaming so it's better than a well configured PC. I would say no to both the Xbox 360 and the PS3 with that arguement. They are all running a variation on PC operating systems so they aren't even really dedicated hardware for gaming. A PC can do everything a 360 or PS3 can do if you plug the right stuff in.

 

[vagrant]

No offense, but if you are willing to spend $600-$800 on a blu-ray player during a format war....youzadummy.

Especially considering within months you can probably get it for half that price.

 

[CoreyNJ]

as I said I would spend it when the standards are worked out. When DVD became a standard I paid more than 2k for a DVD player when my PC could have played DVDs for $500 bucks in HW. My point is no-one who really wants a blue-ray player and has hardware that can really display 1080p in true resolution (not scaled) is going to buy a PS3 as a Blue Ray player or an Xbox360 as an HD-DVD player. They can afford the real thing now and not wait. The smart ones just are waiting to see if Blue-Ray or HD-DVD becomes the standard. They don't want another beta-max.

 

[sagema]

What the hell? I bought my NES and SNES for $100 each. I bought my PS1 for $150. The most I ever paid for back in the day was a Turbographix 16 at $189. Where are you getting these prices? I still have the price stamped on the boxes. I also agree. Any system in history ever priced for $400 or more has failed. Aside from the comp, and the PS3 isn't even close to what a computer can do.

 

[Orion1364]

Bah, that's ridiculous. If Nintendo can make a system lower than a lot of those launch prices without inflation even added, that's the right price.

 

[NeMeZyZ]

i remember my older bro bought a 3do (from panasonic, for u non gamers lol jk) and it cost like $700!! the console died...it DIED i went to the funeral and everything, games suck (like ps3), console was overpriced (like ps3) and it was huge (like ps3)....so where am i going with this?...i'm going to subway restuarants....

 

[jamesjw]

I cant wait till the Australia/New Zealand launch of the PS3 which has now been pushed back to March, By then the Wii will be well established - probably bundled with even more stuff for the same price as it is now..

May even be available a few dollars cheaper

Thats gonna hurt Sony

Dont get me wrong, PS3 will be a damn good machine but the AUD cost will be prohibitive to alot of the market (at least in the first year of its release.)

-- Jim.

 

[5010]

Pardon me if someone already mentioned this..

Let's not forget to factor in the exponential drop in electronics prices on the whole since Atari.

 

[vagrant]

The dreamcast was more badass during it's time than the ps3 even is now. I mean online web browsing, downloadable game content, Virtual Memory Unit that you could actually play game stuff on.

Yet it failed.

 

[JoonKimDDS]

If you look at what the I POD can do for you vs what the PS3 can do is the reason that they sell for half the price of a PS3.

I think it's a great comparison and prove that ps3 is not expensive.

 

[Bizzle7]

I think it's a great comparison and prove that ps3 is not expensive.

lol Sorry if you were miss informed but the main reason a I POD is half the price of a PS3 is size. I believe another person in this forum stated that "you wouldnt by a stand alone 100GB Memory Tower if you were traveling, instead you would buy the 2-10GB Flash Drive and for the same price. The PS3 is over priced.

Would you rather pay $600.00 for a PS3 or mabey $399.99 without Blue-Ray. Or mabey with some other pointless feature that you dont need. Bottom line everyone in here that is buying and Video Game Consule. I buying it with one purpose in mind.... to play Video Games. And regardless of all the Bells and Whistles that are absolutley irrelevent to the Gaming Exp, we all want the Game Consule that will suite to our own interests. I can tell you I bought a 360 when they came out. Bought the Premium. SO i got the 12GB Hard Drive with it. Since I have had it I recentley deleted all my music, and to my surprise only had used something like 4.5GB. Was there a real need for the Hard Drive then??? I could have backed that information up on to a DVD/CD and uploaded it via Flash Drive when I needed to load a game. Now yes i know the convience factor was there with the Hard Drive, but the same can be said with the PS3. Why does it do all of this when we only need it to do this? What if Sony/Microsoft didnt spend so much time designing what else the system can do and just decided to do what we really want it to....Any one thing the Graphics would be Better?

 

[wiifreek]

While he may be right about the price not being so bad in comparison to older consoles, he's ignoring one simple fact- it doesn't matter what some console cost back in 1985 or whatever. What matters is here and now, and here and now there is a competitor (the Xbox 360) which has most of the same games and same features as a PS3, but is available for half the price. They have no new big ideas, nothing that makes it stand out from its rivals.

By the way, three of the consoles he mentioned (Neo Geo, 3DO and Saturn) were complete disasters, which should say something about the dangers of setting the cost of console too high.

Amen !!

 

[vagrant]

I think it's a great comparison and prove that ps3 is not expensive.

He was making the exact opposite point actually.

 

[Bizzle7]

He was making the exact opposite point actually.

Thank you Vagrant. I was waiting for somebody to pick up on that.

 

[Themadnun]

Sure, the processing power isn't as great as the 360 or PS3, but they're still making great games for it. The core machine is better than a regular Gamecube though. On a Gamecube, could you connect wirelessly with networks or the DS (or other handheld)? The Broadway and Hollywood chips are also better than the Flipper chip. Besides, complete with the Wii comes a game, controller and Nunchuck. With the PS3, you don't even get a game. Sure, Nintendo are already making money out of it, that's because they're playing the game, not trying to dominate it. More and more the industry has been colliding with the PC market. Who would pay for a PS3, when they can have a decent PC? At least in a PC, you can upgrade it. Wii on the other hand is purely a fun machine, and was meant only as that..

But with homebrewers going the way they are, and people asking nintendo for a channel development system, the Wii could be so much more than just a fun machine, just imagine it, it can do practically anything you think of, and it's the comfortable interface that would grab people by the balls if they released it as a home-in-one machine. I for one know that i wouldnt like to scroll through an endless amount of possibilites using a "last-gen" controller. Would you?