PDA

View Full Version : Sony Also Says "Go Get A Wii"


greatdevourer
May 16, 2006, 12:53 AM
http://www.gamepro.com/news.cfm?article_id=55089

plinkoman
May 16, 2006, 01:08 AM
"What we have in addition to a great game system is... a network platform...

complete ripoff of xbox live

...a new controller...

if by new controller you mean the same controller you've been using since you started making consoles, just finally getting around to offering wireless(but only on the high end model), and a cheap laughable attempt at copying wii functionality...

...combined in an unbelievably compelling package...

yes, it is unbelievable how compelled i am to buy one

...And frankly I'm amazed that we can do it so cheaply."

consoles have always been in the under $300 price range. xbox 360 stretched this a little bit, but you just blew it out of the water. :rolleyes:


well sony, you want me to buy a wii? ok, i will, and i'll save the extra $400 for something useful. :cool:

MacRumorUser
May 16, 2006, 03:26 AM
WTF planet are Sony's marketing men living on?

Money is obviously no object to them, I think there salaries should be brought down to this hemisphere. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Dagless
May 16, 2006, 06:17 AM
Hahaha.


Wait. Could Sony be performing a scorched earth strategy here? Maybe someone has something on Ken Kutathingy :eek:
I mean really. what on earth has Sony been doing for the past week

MacRumorUser
May 16, 2006, 06:38 AM
During that Article Phil Harrison try to make out that the cheaper PS3 will be able to play BluRay movies and leave you with the impression they will be in HD.... What a con man Sony have hired. No mention of HDCP - a copy protection that they approved as part of the DVD Forum... Tossers..

PlaceofDis
May 16, 2006, 06:50 AM
sony seem to be turning into a bunch of con artists. seriously.

i don't understand that company at all anymore.

he sounds like he works for MS at the end saying they are providing the customers with "choice"

Sea5onS
May 16, 2006, 07:07 AM
he sounds like he works for MS at the end saying they are providing the customers with "choice"

Yup, the choice not to buy a 600 dollar piece of crap.

Dagless
May 16, 2006, 04:40 PM
read a comment on Joystiq that made me laugh.

"Not only are Sony copying Microsoft's online service but PR stunts too"

haiggy
May 16, 2006, 04:50 PM
Is Sony trying to fail?

XNine
May 16, 2006, 07:25 PM
complete ripoff of xbox live
Proof?



if by new controller you mean the same controller you've been using since you started making consoles, just finally getting around to offering wireless(but only on the high end model), and a cheap laughable attempt at copying wii functionality... I want solid proof this was not in development before the Wii. By the way, Nintendo copied that from other places. Motion sensing has been around for years, especially with VR equipment.



yes, it is unbelievable how compelled i am to buy one HEY! So am I!!!!!



consoles have always been in the under $300 price range. xbox 360 stretched this a little bit, but you just blew it out of the water. :rolleyes: Oh really? Atari Jaguar? In the early 90's that system was over 500 bucks.

sikkinixx
May 16, 2006, 07:37 PM
*sigh* day what... 7 of this? obviously you people arent going to buy one so why dont you stop complaining about it?

kingcrowing
May 16, 2006, 07:43 PM
Proof?

I want solid proof this was not in development before the Wii. By the way, Nintendo copied that from other places. Motion sensing has been around for years, especially with VR equipment.



Ok, thats not his point, its the same controller as the original dual shock for the PSX, except it lost rumble and it has BT+VR, but the N64 had a VR attachment, so have a lot of things, neither nintendo or sony invented, but the fact is, the Wii announced it first so its nothign special anymore. the PS3 controller is nothing special at all as far as current gen consoles are concerned, the Wii is totally revolutionary, weather its going to be good or bad, the fact is it is undeniably way different. and dont flame just because you are a sony fanboy

Haoshiro
May 16, 2006, 08:03 PM
So yeah, even *I* am tired of the PS3 discussions.... **yawn**

I did think it was funny when Phil Harrison was saying 'early adopters are who will buy this system at launch, and they won't care about the high price', the statement is obvious, but it came off to me as "We're basically banking on being able to stick it to the early adopters."

But its all playing out like I thought before the pricing was even announced. Sony would charge a high price at the launch since they know they will sell out (so why not pull in all that extra cash?) and afterwards even a $50-100 price drop will seem great to the next wave of buyers.

A strategy that can often even be used in economy simulators: Hike the price really high, take the money from the people that would buy it anyway, then drop the price a marginal amount and consumers will look on the move favorably (even if the product still costs more then the competition).

It's basically a risk that, if pulled off, can bring in a bunch of extra money very fast. :D

briansolomon
May 16, 2006, 08:14 PM
Proof?



Oh really? Atari Jaguar? In the early 90's that system was over 500 bucks.



Jaguar failed miserably. Case in point of predicting the high price system's failure.

Among other things that led to the Jaguar's demise

Haoshiro
May 16, 2006, 08:17 PM
Jaguar failed miserably. Case in point of predicting the high price system's failure.

Among other things that led to the Jaguar's demise

Those other things including: It had the name "Atari" on it, it had horrible games, horrible controller (http://www.computercloset.org/AtariJaguarPad.jpg), and terrible developer support.

I've done plenty of ratting on PS3 but those "other" things just can't be said for the PS3.

XNine
May 16, 2006, 09:00 PM
Those other things including: It had the name "Atari" on it, it had horrible games, horrible controller (http://www.computercloset.org/AtariJaguarPad.jpg), and terrible developer support.

I've done plenty of ratting on PS3 but those "other" things just can't be said for the PS3.

Haoshiro>briansoloman

plinkoman
May 16, 2006, 09:13 PM
Proof?

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=200951
whether or not you believe it was a complete ripoff, it certainly lacked any original ideas

I want solid proof this was not in development before the Wii. By the way, Nintendo copied that from other places. Motion sensing has been around for years, especially with VR equipment.

oh give me a break, of course motion sensing technology has been around, nintendo didn't come up with that and no one is saying otherwise; they just came up with a different way of using it. And do you honestly believe that the motion sensing capabilities in the ps3 controller are there for any other reason then to try and steal a little of nintendo's thunder? are you that naive as to the way businesses trying to make money do things?

HEY! So am I!!!!!

what was the point of that? you obviously knew i was being sarcastic...

Oh really? Atari Jaguar? In the early 90's that system was over 500 bucks.

oh, well, you can come up with one example, great. but how does that in any way change the point I was trying to make? How much was the ps2, xbox, gamcube, dreamcast, n64, ps1, snes, genesis etc... consoles have mostly been around the $200-$250 mark for the past decade, and sony decides it's time to triple that and they still have to balls to say it's cheap. release a $600 system? fine, but call it cheap when the market is used to a price of a third of that? ...

ManchesterTrix
May 16, 2006, 09:16 PM
I want solid proof this was not in development before the Wii. By the way, Nintendo copied that from other places. Motion sensing has been around for years, especially with VR equipment.

I don't know how solid you can get, except that NO ONE, not even Sony's own developers were told about this until recently. I don't think it's so much trying to rip off the Wii as it is find something to replace rumble so they can get away from having to pay Immersion.

I'm sure the PS3 will sell, but it does seem that it's not going to have the stranglehold on the market that the PS2 had. If the Wii is under 200, it'll make it a very interesting industry for the next 5 years.

ManchesterTrix
May 16, 2006, 09:20 PM
oh, well, you can come up with one example, great. but how does that in any way change the point I was trying to make? How much was the ps2, xbox, gamcube, dreamcast, n64, ps1, snes, genesis etc... consoles have mostly been around the $200-$250 mark for the past decade, and sony decides it's time to triple that and they still have to balls to say it's cheap.

Well, it is indeed cheap for everything that it contains. It is an impressive piece of hardware. I don't think it's ballsy of them to say it's cheap. I think it's ballsy of them to use it to further their blu-ray agenda and then act as if it's there for the consumer's benefit.

plinkoman
May 16, 2006, 09:34 PM
Well, it is indeed cheap for everything that it contains. It is an impressive piece of hardware. I don't think it's ballsy of them to say it's cheap.

it may very well be cheap for a blu-ray player, but thats not my point. the primary function of the ps3 is to be a gaming console. i payed $150 for the last console i bought (gamecube), and my friends with ps2's and xbox's, payed right around the same thing. the market is used to those kinds of prices for a game console, and regardless of what else it does, a $600 game console is an expensive game console.

it should also be worth noting that of my ps2 friends, none have an HD tv, or give a **** about blu-ray, and their pissed because they don't want to spend $600 on a game console.

I think it's ballsy of them to use it to further their blu-ray agenda and then act as if it's there for the consumer's benefit.

i certainly agree with you on that. my friends want to buy a game console, they don't want to have to pay extra hundreds of dollars for the HD movie player they didn't ask for and don't care about.

XNine
May 16, 2006, 09:49 PM
it may very well be cheap for a blu-ray player, but thats not my point. the primary function of the ps3 is to be a gaming console. i payed $150 for the last console i bought (gamecube), and my friends with ps2's and xbox's, payed right around the same thing. the market is used to those kinds of prices for a game console, and regardless of what else it does, a $600 game console is an expensive game console.

BZZZZ Wrong. The PS3 is meant as an entertainment hub as the primary function, combining gaming, movies, music, whatever. Sure the gamecube was 150 bucks, but it also couldn't play CD's, DVD's, nor was it backward compatible with prior systems. Sorry, but the Gamecube was JUST a console, nothing more. The PS3 (and 360 for that matter) are meant for much, much more.

it should also be worth noting that of my ps2 friends, none have an HD tv, or give a **** about blu-ray, and their pissed because they don't want to spend $600 on a game console.

Not noteworthy at all. I'm looking forward to buying an HDTV and for Bluray. So are numerous amount of people I know, and almost half of my close friends have HDTV's. It goes to show the market doesn't solely run off your friends, nor mine. Boohoo, they don't want to spend 600 bucks. So what? Tell them to shut up and quit whining then. They obviously don't get what the PS3 is for.

steelphantom
May 16, 2006, 09:50 PM
my friends want to buy a game console, they don't want to have to pay extra hundreds of dollars for the HD movie player they didn't ask for and don't care about.

That's the way I think most people are going to feel. How many of you actually use your PS2 as a DVD player? I sure don't.

plinkoman
May 16, 2006, 10:38 PM
BZZZZ Wrong. The PS3 is meant as an entertainment hub as the primary function, combining gaming, movies, music, whatever. Sure the gamecube was 150 bucks, but it also couldn't play CD's, DVD's, nor was it backward compatible with prior systems. Sorry, but the Gamecube was JUST a console, nothing more. The PS3 (and 360 for that matter) are meant for much, much more.

I like how you ignored how i said the people i know with dvd-playing backward-compatable ps2's payed the same as i payed for my gamecube. the whole entertainment hub thing is a crock; most people don't have HD tv's yet, their not buying the ps3 to watch blu-ray; do you know why they're going to buy it? to play games. why, because it's a game player. the dvd player in the ps2 was nice, and alot of people used it; i wish my gamecube could do the same thing. but that was done at a time when dvd's had been out for awhile, and were neither uncommon, nor ridiculously expensive, and sony did it primarily to make the ps2 more appealing with additional features. the main reason behind the blu-ray in the ps3 is because sony is trying to leverage it's dominance in the console market to win the format war.

the primary target audience of a game console is usually the 18-24 year old people. how many people in that age range can readily afford an HD set and a $600 console? you can talk about all this great value for the features and entertainment hub crap all you want, but it doesn't make a difference to 90% of the gaming market; they just want to play games, and a game console that is $600 is expensive.

Not noteworthy at all. I'm looking forward to buying an HDTV and for Bluray. So are numerous amount of people I know, and almost half of my close friends have HDTV's. It goes to show the market doesn't solely run off your friends, nor mine. Boohoo, they don't want to spend 600 bucks. So what? Tell them to shut up and quit whining then. They obviously don't get what the PS3 is for.

so your saying sony wants loyal ps2 fans to shut up and quit whining; well, thats just great. :rolleyes:

where the hell do you live that everyone is so rich that alot of them have HD tv's? i'm in college, and i have plenty of things i need to spend money on, I can't afford to go out and buy an HD tv, or a $600 console, but i do want to play games. your saying i should just quit whining and let sony do whatever they want? so i either have to abandon paying for my education to buy an HD tv and a $600 console, or just stop gaming? thats absolutely ridiculous. I'd wager that alot more 18-24 year olds are in my situation than in yours.

you've got an HD tv, your interested in blu-ray, and you want to use all the additional capabilities in the ps3, thats great, but what about the rest of us?

ReanimationLP
May 17, 2006, 12:49 AM
Can we really just shut down all of these kind of threads?

All they do is turn into flame wars.

Seriously, its annoying and stupid.

Seriously, you got Onizuka with his fanboyism of Sony, Clay with the 360, and Praxis with the Wii.

I love all 3 of the consoles and hope to own all 3, but it seriously is annoying that all people do is flame each other now in these threads.

Lets talk about the GAMES, not the hardware they run on. Seriously, hardware is junk unless theres good GAMES to run on the hardware.

evilgEEk
May 17, 2006, 02:23 AM
Okay, here's an attempt at an actual discussion rather than just a flame war. ;)

As much as I hate to say it (or anything positive about Micro$haft) I think they did it right with the Xbox360 and the add-on HD DVD drive.

The format war is still going strong and there is no clear winner, as far as I can see anyway. I'm personally a fan of blu-ray and I hope it does in fact win out, but what if it doesn't? If HD DVD wins the war then all these people that shelled out 600 bucks for a blu-ray drive/game console are stuck with a 600 dollar game console.

I think Sony would have been better off making the blu-ray drive an add-on rather than forcing it upon consumers. Of course, as others have already said, this is likely an attempt to use their dominant position in the gaming world to push blu-ray. But what about all those consumers out there that don't currently have an HDTV, but plan on getting one in the future? Why can't they just buy an add-on drive when they're ready instead of being forced to invest in a format that may or may not be around in the next three or four years.

That's my only beef, well, I still don't think consoles should be more than $300, but that's me. I'm not a serious gamer, so I find it very hard to rationalize spending that much money on a console when I would be better off taking that $300 and investing it somewhere.

Anyway, Sony fanboys, what are your thoughts on this? Was Sony ever planning on making it an external add-on or has it been internal from the start?

Pistol Pete
May 17, 2006, 02:54 AM
Proof?



I want solid proof this was not in development before the Wii. By the way, Nintendo copied that from other places. Motion sensing has been around for years, especially with VR equipment.



HEY! So am I!!!!!



Oh really? Atari Jaguar? In the early 90's that system was over 500 bucks.

wow you are feisty...

(maybe a little more than feisty)

cant we all get along?

Haoshiro
May 17, 2006, 06:36 AM
I've heard HD-DVDs can be pressed with one side HD-DVD and the other DVD, that ability alone I think is something very worthwhile for the movie industry and for consumers. The DVD side could be played in consumers existing players and when they upgrade they would not need to re-buy those films.

Onizuka:

I agree that PS3 is "meant to be more then a console", just as the 360 is. In that department it really only seems to one-up the 360 with Blu-ray.

Obviously 360 accessories are overpriced. $50 for a wireless controller that doesn't even include a rechargable battery pack? $100 for a Wi-Fi adaptor that should only cost $50? $100 for 20GB HDD, that should cost $75.

Take a 360 Premium+Wireless Adaptor for $499 and consider the extra 40GB of space on a PS3 and no, it doesn't seem like a terrible deal. On the other hand, internal components are often cheaper to produce. So the Wi-Fi is worth about $25, the HDD about $50. Still a close call.

The argument (which you may not have made) that an NES costing $199 back in the 80s is about equal to PS3 pricing doesn't really work for me. My Tandy 1000 (286) costed >$2000 in 89, I can now build a PC in the same class (technology for the era) for far less, perhaps even $600.

The PS3 is what it is and people will get over it. How it works out for Sony in the end is yet to be seen. They have an aggressive competitor now (which they never really have) and the risk of Blu-ray failing to get adopted as the standard movie format of the future is still here.

The companies have placed their bets, now we get to see who the big winner ends up being. :)

XNine
May 17, 2006, 09:55 AM
I've heard HD-DVDs can be pressed with one side HD-DVD and the other DVD, that ability alone I think is something very worthwhile for the movie industry and for consumers. The DVD side could be played in consumers existing players and when they upgrade they would not need to re-buy those films.

Onizuka:

I agree that PS3 is "meant to be more then a console", just as the 360 is. In that department it really only seems to one-up the 360 with Blu-ray.

Obviously 360 accessories are overpriced. $50 for a wireless controller that doesn't even include a rechargable battery pack? $100 for a Wi-Fi adaptor that should only cost $50? $100 for 20GB HDD, that should cost $75.

Take a 360 Premium+Wireless Adaptor for $499 and consider the extra 40GB of space on a PS3 and no, it doesn't seem like a terrible deal. On the other hand, internal components are often cheaper to produce. So the Wi-Fi is worth about $25, the HDD about $50. Still a close call.

The argument (which you may not have made) that an NES costing $199 back in the 80s is about equal to PS3 pricing doesn't really work for me. My Tandy 1000 (286) costed >$2000 in 89, I can now build a PC in the same class (technology for the era) for far less, perhaps even $600.

The PS3 is what it is and people will get over it. How it works out for Sony in the end is yet to be seen. They have an aggressive competitor now (which they never really have) and the risk of Blu-ray failing to get adopted as the standard movie format of the future is still here.

The companies have placed their bets, now we get to see who the big winner ends up being. :)

Which is exactly my point. That's why Sony has dropped any slogans dealing with gaming and has focused on media content, distribution, and playing. Six hundred dollars is the deal of the century when it comes to a machine built like this.

360 Premium: 399, Wifi adapter: 99, HD DVD add-on: 199 (most likely)= 797.00. Even if the HD add-on was 99, it would come to 698.
PS3 with Wifi, Bluray, 60 gig drive= 599.00

What's the most expensive console here? The 360. And I love the 360. IT's a great little console. But features for cash, PS3 owns them all. The wii is priced because it does not offer anything expensive in the hardware arena.

Haoshiro
May 17, 2006, 10:10 AM
Which is exactly my point. That's why Sony has dropped any slogans dealing with gaming and has focused on media content, distribution, and playing. Six hundred dollars is the deal of the century when it comes to a machine built like this.

360 Premium: 399, Wifi adapter: 99, HD DVD add-on: 199 (most likely)= 797.00. Even if the HD add-on was 99, it would come to 698.
PS3 with Wifi, Bluray, 60 gig drive= 599.00

What's the most expensive console here? The 360. And I love the 360. IT's a great little console. But features for cash, PS3 owns them all. The wii is priced because it does not offer anything expensive in the hardware arena.

Well again, it depends on what you want the system for. It IS a cheap media center, but if I were going for a media center I'd build a PC and put Linux/MythTV on it and be sure to have TV *IN*. It's not a be-all-end-all media center without TV in.

I think public perception is a problem too. Yes Sony may be trying to position the PS3 as a media center over a gaming system, but the *mass public* will still look at it as a game system, because that is what the brand "PlayStation" has always meant. The general public will perceive the system primarily as a game system, in which case the "cheap" factor is lost.

Also, if you exclude the early adopters and techies that really care about HD-DVD/Blu-ray most people will not want/need that. For many consumers the 360 offers all they actually need in a media center for a lower cost. And even though many homes now have wireless networks a large amount of them also still have wired access as well. I *could* have used Wi-Fi for my 360 but just have it plugged in with ethernet.

To me that means: Yes, technically, the PS3 is not badly priced for the hardware within it; but conversely that extra hardware isn't wanted/need by the majority of consumers so the extra cost is still "extra cost." that yields little or no benefits for the average person that just wants to enjoy MGS4. In which case, those consumers are just out of luck. Perhaps I'm wrong about my assumptions of the "general public"/"average person" but I don't think I am, and I believe it'll remain this way for at least 3 years.

XNine
May 17, 2006, 10:31 AM
Well again, it depends on what you want the system for. It IS a cheap media center, but if I were going for a media center I'd build a PC and put Linux/MythTV on it and be sure to have TV *IN*. It's not a be-all-end-all media center without TV in.

I think public perception is a problem too. Yes Sony may be trying to position the PS3 as a media center over a gaming system, but the *mass public* will still look at it as a game system, because that is what the brand "PlayStation" has always meant. The general public will perceive the system primarily as a game system, in which case the "cheap" factor is lost.

Also, if you exclude the early adopters and techies that really care about HD-DVD/Blu-ray most people will not want/need that. For many consumers the 360 offers all they actually need in a media center for a lower cost. And even though many homes now have wireless networks a large amount of them also still have wired access as well. I *could* have used Wi-Fi for my 360 but just have it plugged in with ethernet.

To me that means: Yes, technically, the PS3 is not badly priced for the hardware within it; but conversely that extra hardware isn't wanted/need by the majority of consumers so the extra cost is still "extra cost." that yields little or no benefits for the average person that just wants to enjoy MGS4. In which case, those consumers are just out of luck. Perhaps I'm wrong about my assumptions of the "general public"/"average person" but I don't think I am, and I believe it'll remain this way for at least 3 years.

I agree that your average consumer may be turned off from the unit, but this isn't directed at the Average consumer. The design and GUI itself are, I'm sure going to make people want to buy it once they see their friends'.

Raggedjimmi had pointed out that the console does no good for him and his setup (a desk with an LCD display). Again, not something Sony cares about. They've designed it with those who have Home Theaters and content streaming in mind.

As for a Mythbox, I want to build one, but pricing one out, with a decent HTPC media case that doesn't look like a PC case will cost over 800 bucks, EASILY. And that's WITH free software. We're just talking hardware here.

Dagless
May 17, 2006, 10:38 AM
Where did I say that? Consoles are very good here. VGA and DVI running up to 720p (or 1680*1050 for PC/Mac games). It's very good. Very lost now.

nxent
May 17, 2006, 10:40 AM
yeh those sony folks are a bit odd. what's with them and their controllers? the cube and the xbox both have 4 controllers where as the ps2 has 2... and then on the ps3 they have 7... why didn't they just even things up with 8?

Haoshiro
May 17, 2006, 10:53 AM
As for a Mythbox, I want to build one, but pricing one out, with a decent HTPC media case that doesn't look like a PC case will cost over 800 bucks, EASILY. And that's WITH free software. We're just talking hardware here.

True, but you can upgrade it every year, you start storing recorded HDTV and movies and 60GB just won't cut it. Plus it can be built with DVD *now* and Blu-Ray and/or HD-DVD added later when it's most beneficial. You can stay much more cutting edge with a custom built system running open source software. I'm sure you are well aware of that, though.

For people that don't need all that, it may be hard for them to justify $600 for PS3 or $800 Mythbox. If they just want general features AND gaming, well the 360 offers that at a better price point.

That means PS3 has a very narrow target audience: those that don't need/want all the functionality and features of a HTPC, want to use the system for gaming, and care about Blu-ray.

EDIT: I tried to list 2 competing systems on each point, both of which would be the lowest cost options.

So we have (estimated Wii price):
"I just want to game" - Wii/360 Core ($199/$299)
"I just want to game, and do that online" - Wii/360 Premium ($199/$399)
"I want to game and have basic media center functions and I don't care about HD movies" - 360 Premium/PS3 Basic ($399/$499)
"I want to game and must have HD movies" - 360+HDDVD/PS3 Complete ($398/$599)
"I want to game and have basic media functions and have HD movies" - 360 Premium+HDVD/PS3 Complete ($498/$599)
"I just care about a full media center" - HTPC ($800)

Now unless blu-ray specifically is important to a consumer then the 360 is a better value, unless Wi-Fi is also a factor, in which case they come in even in some scenarios.

XNine
May 17, 2006, 11:31 AM
yeh those sony folks are a bit odd. what's with them and their controllers? the cube and the xbox both have 4 controllers where as the ps2 has 2... and then on the ps3 they have 7... why didn't they just even things up with 8?

It's not Sony's fault they set the limitations at 7 (it may be 4 now). This is how it works:

Bluetooth "controller" (the part that acts as the main hub for all Bluetooth Devices) can have up to 7 devices attached to it at any time. So that's why the limit was set to 7, because that's all Bluetooth can handle.

Haoshiro:
It seems that it IS a very narrow target audience, which, is unfortuante, but at the same time I feel very comfortable spending 600 bucks on a system that will be around for the next 5 years, that I won't have to upgrade. Where as a Computer would cost me at least 500 bucks every time the next big FPS came out buying a new graphics card (not to mention I'd have to put up with Windows).

I'm very happy with what Sony is offering. And, it may just be that the Wii offers something I like as well, but until I see a couple of games that really make me go OMGWTFBBQ!!! that won't happen. I've been waiting fro a really good Zelda game to come out. Seems that this next one might be what I was waiting for. But with my experience with the GC, I'm holding off.

The 360 also has some very promising titles coming this year. I won't be disappointed, I'm sure.

ManchesterTrix
May 17, 2006, 11:33 AM
I agree that your average consumer may be turned off from the unit, but this isn't directed at the Average consumer. The design and GUI itself are, I'm sure going to make people want to buy it once they see their friends'.

Sure it is, who do you think bought those 100 million PS2s? Not enthusiasts and Home-Theater snobs. Sony's just trying to make the average consumer into a footsoldier for them in the format war, I'm honestly curious to see how this all turns out.

ChrisK018
May 17, 2006, 12:21 PM
I am somewhere between a home theatre snob and an 'average' customer. I don't see the appeal of using a PS3 as a media hub. Early on I used my PS2 as a DVD player... but that was not such a great DVD player. I feel the same way about the Blu Ray capabilities. How many high end multi scanning options will it have?

Maybe it is the average customer in me, but I am still not too into the idea of using a PS3 or 360 as a entertainment media hub (or a PC/Mac). I just want to play games! With that in mind, Sony's price tag has made me seriously question how much I want their system. With the right game? Maybe. Something like Okami

Haoshiro
May 17, 2006, 12:22 PM
The logical conclusion would be, then, that Sony has shifted their target audience away from that of the PS2.

I think that is what causes so much complaining. Take me, I was in the target audience of the PS2, but now with PS3 I am not... they are banking on that narrow audience I described + playstation fanatics.

Either Sony doesn't care about the "rest" of their customer base or they expect that since it has "PlayStation" on it most of them will buy it anyway, thus making them more money and increasing the Blu-ray population.

ImNoSuperMan
May 17, 2006, 01:05 PM
consoles have always been in the under $300 price range. xbox 360 stretched this a little bit, but you just blew it out of the water. :rolleyes:



I still support Sony`s current pricing.:eek: . I mean the announced prices for the two versions of sony. It`s 499 and 599. I dont see any thing wrong bout the prices at all. Coz I m guessing if sony is really smart(but they sometimes arent) then Sony`ll announce on November 15 that the PS3 will be released on Nov 17 and retail for 399 and 499$ respectively for the two models.
And then everyone who was complaining about the prices being too high will feel that PS3 is a steal. Which it wont be. I mean even 399 and 499 is too high a price for a console. But since all knew it`ll cost 499; every one who`d waited for the xbox prices to drop after PS3 release, will be buying a sony instead.


The theory seems hard to believe but it will work. And the biggest point of support for this thing happening is.........................


.

.
I MADE IT UP.


Ok. I dont even believe it myself that such a thing wud happen. But just in case it does. It`ll blow 360`s 12 months lead in 2 months. But then, not all wishes come true.:p

Dagless
May 17, 2006, 01:37 PM
that won't happen, twice Sony have said recently that "you should be lucky we're selling it for this price", or near enough.
Agreed though. It would be a smart move. Or at least get people hyped at the last minute.

GFLPraxis
May 17, 2006, 01:44 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if Sony is doing what everyone thought Microsoft should have; launch it at ridiculously high prices, get tons of cash from the early adopters who will pay anything, and drop the price significantly a month later.

I want solid proof this was not in development before the Wii. By the way, Nintendo copied that from other places. Motion sensing has been around for years, especially with VR equipment.

Sony threw a simple tilt sensing gyroscope into the PS3 controller. They just went and ordered them somewhere- hardly any development required- then wrote some APIs to utilize them. I can not imagine it being in development for longer than the Wii; in fact I can not imagine it being in development since before the controller was UNVEILED in late 2005. It's not much more complex than WarioWare Twisted on the GBA- just something they threw in.

The fact that developers didn't even know about it implies it's something they tossed in recently (not necessarily last minute, but recently).

And claiming Nintendo copied it? Find me another device that does what the Wii controller does. Seriously. Oh, you'll find motion sensors. You'll find tilt sensing controllers. You WON'T find any one-handed, motion/tilt sensing controllers that detect where on the screen you are pointing and how far you are from the TV.

and Praxis with the Wii.

Hey, I REALLY wanted a PS3 before the price and games lineup was announced...but now I can't afford one :(

baleensavage
May 19, 2006, 09:46 AM
One thing that a lot of people keep missing with the $600 price point is that the PS3 will still be made by Sony. What this means is that you will pay a premium for a device that will work flawlessly for the entire time of the warranty and then die inexpicably right when the warranty runs out. This has been, in my experience, true of Sony since back when they made walkmans. I'm on my third Playstation 2, which is one of the slim newer ones and is already starting to get finicky about which disks it plays after about a year.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Playstation 2. I wouldn't trade it for an XBox if someone payed me. The reason... the games. No other system anywhere has better RPGs (that I don't have to have a custom-built Alienware computer to run). And yes, I do use my Playstation to play DVDs and I am actually looking forward to the whole Blu-Ray thing (when I can actually afford an HDTV).

But seriously my biggest bone to pick with the PS3 price point is that there is no memory card slot in the low-end model. Whose stupid idea was that? Talk about killing backwards compatibility. What good is the ability to play PS2 games if you can't take your saved files with you.

Game systems are always expensive when they come out, and yes, Sony is setting themselves up for some Neo-Geo style failure here, but really, all you have to do is wait 2 years and the price will drop significantly. They will still be making new PS2 games in that time, so there will always be new stuff. If you want cutting edge stuff, then shell out the money.