[PS3] Limited stock and its still not selling!? [Archive]

View Full Version : [PS3] Limited stock and its still not selling!?

Haoshiro

Dec 14, 2006, 07:47 PM

If this isn't a sign of bad things for PS3 I don't know what is... a local store here actually has them in stock. Several 20GB models.

So I thought to myself, "maybe I should buy these, and eBay them" but before I did I went home and checked what they were selling for.

People were lucky to get $599 out of these $499 models. Now that sounds like a $100 profit, but it isn't. You have a good $40 in eBay/PayPal fees as well as nearly $40 in tax, that is a $19 profit... IF you managed to sell at $599. Most were going for $530-$575, effectively causing the sellers to LOSE money.

I thought this might be just the 20GB models, but it's not, the 60GB models weren't selling for much of a difference.

With Wiis still selling for over $500 on eBay (I watched one end yesterday at $715) this really seems to show the lack of consumer interest in PS3. I thought it was going to be bad, but not THIS bad.

I can walk into a store and buy a PS3, but I can't get a Wii for the life of me. And yet Nintendo has had MUCH more stock then Sony, a good 10X more Wiis have been shipped over PS3 but somehow I can't get them.

Is PS3 honestly bombing this bad? What gives?

clayj

Dec 14, 2006, 07:56 PM

Is PS3 honestly bombing this bad? What gives?I'm as surprised as you... guess the hype bubble is popping much more quickly than any of us thought it would.

I played on the PS3 at one of the local Best Buys last week, and I have to say I wasn't impressed. There is honestly NO reason at this point why I would consider buying one, even at retail.

mkaake

Dec 14, 2006, 09:32 PM

darkwing

Dec 14, 2006, 10:11 PM

I've been calling a local GameStop (The Gateway in Salt Lake City) who told me they'd be in yesterday. They didn't come in, so I called today at 1:15 and they said they're going through the shipment now... told me to call in like 25 mins. So I did, and they told me they got 4 in and sold them before they took them out of the box. Customers already in store get first dibs.

I guess those of us who work for a living are out of luck.

Nobody wants the 20s. Sony should have learned from Microsoft and not bothered.

I will buy a PS3 and a Wii, but I see Nintendo either releasing another system that can do HDTV or some kind of add-on in a couple years. Even with all of Sony's stupidity lately, I think leaving HDTV out of a next-gen system was the stupidest thing of all.

NYmacAttack

Dec 14, 2006, 10:17 PM

Aperture

Dec 14, 2006, 10:21 PM

I was in GameStop a few weeks ago and they had the Xbox 360 and PS3 setup right next to eachother. To tell you the truth, I can't see anything better with the PS3 that wasn't already in the 360. (BluRay, but I'm not buying into either system until one of them wins) Anyway, I'm not surprised they are selling for just above retail on Ebay.

clayj

Dec 14, 2006, 10:24 PM

I cant believe what has happened with the PS3's either. I've been trying to sell them for a almost a week now. Ive looked at ebay but it looks more and more like there going back to the store. Its hard to believe these were selling for those ridiculous prices a couple of weeks ago. Does no one really want the PS3? :confused:It just occurred to me that many of the PS3 "scalpers" may have forgotten that people were already shocked at how high the RETAIL price of the PS3 is... add your scalper's premium on top of that, and you're surprised that people aren't going for them? Only a real fanboy (Xbox 360, PS3, or Wii) would drop 1.5x retail or more to get a console right at the launch.

The difference is that the 360 was much cheaper, even at scalpers' prices, than the PS3... and the 360 was also much less of a "letdown" in terms of overpromising and underdelivering. In fact, I'm pretty sure there weren't any articles during the 360's launch that called it a failure in any way... but there certainly have been for the PS3.

Mavimao

Dec 14, 2006, 10:32 PM

but I see Nintendo either releasing another system that can do HDTV or some kind of add-on in a couple years. Even with all of Sony's stupidity lately, I think leaving HDTV out of a next-gen system was the stupidest thing of all.

What in the world makes people think that nintendo will release an upgrade that will fundamentally change the native output of their console? I hear this talking point all over the web - I mean seriously, apart from their handhelds, when has Nintendo EVER upgraded their home consoles (the Q doesn't count - it was more of a novelty console - not a replacement)?

Haoshiro

Dec 14, 2006, 10:34 PM

I had a hard time believing it, so I just checked it out myself:

A premium 60 gig PS3, in box, in hand...

$690.

Wow. Only a $90 premium.

Wii, ended same time. In box, in hand.

$415. $165 premium.

Didn't see that one coming two weeks ago... day after Wii release, you could pick them up for $10 over retail, whereas the PS3 was pretty crazy...

Exactly, and you figure in $80 in taxes and listing fees and they only made $10 of that 60GB PS3.

So to the person talking about the PS3 getting sold fast, check eBay for yourself, 60GB PS3s aren't going fast... and people are still buying them to SELL them for a profit, probably not realizing they aren't going to make much.

You really don't know if the 4 PS3s that were sold were sold because they wanted them, or if they were hoping for a good profit.

sikkinixx

Dec 14, 2006, 10:46 PM

No one wants the 20Gb version so... besides Im sure there are a lot of people like me who have just decided to wait and a while and get one once they are somewhat in regular supply. I played it at Bestbuy and I got the urge to buy one again. Although I can see it collecting dust like my 360 has (about an inch thick by now)

I LOVE that the ebay thing has bombed so quickly. A big **** you to the scalpers, hopefully most lose money so this gongshow won't repeat itself next system launch (although Im sure it will).

And to clayj, dude the 360 launch sucked. Aside from CoD2 there was hardly a reason to get excited for the games...and then none came out for months :mad: The PS3 one has been many times worse but I hardly call the 360 one a success. All those dead systems, supply problems, etc, it was a crap show unless you had a pre-order or got lucky as hell.

ericsthename

Dec 14, 2006, 11:08 PM

I guess the general apathy towards the PS3 by a lot of real gamers is probably part of the problem. I know personally I would've liked to have had a PS3 on launch day, but the more I think about it, the PS3 doesnt have a selling point for someone in my position.

I already have and XBOX360, because I consider myself a serious gamer I couldn't pass up getting in on NExtgen as soon as possible. The nintendo wii on the other hand presents some interesting scenarios that do interest me.

I would buy a wii JUST for mario. Zelda has yet to truly capture my attention, but I'm sure it will... The PS3 on the other hand doesnt have a hardware advantage over the 360, and it's a good year behind in software - a lead that may never elapse.

In my opinion, the only way the 360 could slip behind is if HDDVD suddenly drops the ball and goes extinct - and even then theres no saying that MSFT couldnt just turn around and sell an external Blueray drive...

I dunno, the PS3 may be a beautiful machine, but it currently lacks a reason to be. I don't discount Sony out of this at any point though - it's just bizarre to me how they've gone and burned so many bridges.

AppleIntelRock

Dec 14, 2006, 11:13 PM

ericsthename

Dec 14, 2006, 11:22 PM

HDDVD is already on the fall-out. The PS3 offers an all-in-one solution in a more elegant package. Blu-Ray is the winning format- thus making the PS3 better.

In that case, we should start spreading the news quick, because nobody else seems to have been privvy to this info!

AppleIntelRock

Dec 14, 2006, 11:24 PM

In that case, we should start spreading the news quick, because nobody else seems to have been privvy to this info!

It's not like FOX and MGMDisney just signed on to Blu-Ray or something :rolleyes:

Mackilroy

Dec 15, 2006, 01:14 AM

It's not like FOX and MGMDisney just signed on to Blu-Ray or something :rolleyes:

It's not like you're making unsupported statements and treating them as fact, much like Sony itself. Plus, check another thread on here for stuff about how HD-DVD is beating the pants out of Blu-ray.

Gimzotoy

Dec 15, 2006, 01:19 AM

It's not like you're making unsupported statements and treating them as fact, much like Sony itself. Plus, check another thread on here for stuff about how HD-DVD is beating the pants out of Blu-ray.

Exactly. Technologically, I'd love to see Blu-ray win. It's nice when the best format actually prevails. Unfortunately both formats are severely crippled with DRM, Blu-ray in particular, and from what I've heard the HD-DVD transfers have been far superior in quality thus far.

It's not looking good for Sony's format. Again. How do they keep screwing this up?

GFLPraxis

Dec 15, 2006, 01:21 AM

mkaake

Dec 15, 2006, 01:40 AM

HDDVD is already on the fall-out.

Not according to sales numbers, no.

The PS3 offers an all-in-one solution in a more elegant package.

I suppose that's a matter of opinion, so you're entitled to it...

Blu-Ray is the winning format- thus making the PS3 better.

No, it's not - there is no winner yet, and HDDVD is ahead. And storage medium a gaming console does not make.

Granted, it always takes one or two years for game manufacturers to catch up, but that's beside the point. Honestly, there aren't any games that take advantage of the xbox's full capabilities either. I do agree that I am very surprised how much PS3 sales have subsided.

Yeah, I was shocked watching that 60 gig auction earlier. It jumped from 620 to 690 in the last minute, but it stopped there.

And re: format wars, I'm not a fan of MS at all, but I appreciate the 'add-on' nature of HDDVD for the console. As a person who won't be purchasing an HD set for some time, not tacking $200 onto the console price is nice. Plus, if HDDVD ends up being a dud, I won't have spent that money on the format that lost. That's the real burn with the PS3 I've never been able to get over - if the format fails, the high cost of the PS3 was for nothing. If it succeeds, great... but then, if it succeeds, I'll be able to pick up a blu-ray player in about 3 years (When the format war will likely be settling down) for under $200.

Eh, no sense in getting stuck into a format that I don't plan on using for another few years anyway.

</rant>

greatdevourer

Dec 15, 2006, 01:58 AM

(the Q doesn't count - it was more of a novelty console - not a replacement)? The Q wasn't even made by Nintendo - I think that makes it the world's first 3rd-party console? :p

ericsthename

Dec 15, 2006, 02:21 AM

I can fully appreciate the aesthetic and engineering benefits of having the Blueray drive built-in, but on the other hand I can also appreciate how having an external player has benefitted the consumer this time around... Admittedly there are several ways of looking at the situation but hey, thats what makes it all the more interesting

2nyRiggz

Dec 15, 2006, 02:27 AM

Don't really care about HD-DVD or blu-ray....I might have both in the future so I couldn't give a rats arse.

I'm glad the ebay thing didn't went well beacause there is no way I'm paying more than retail for a console...I don't care if its powered by dual core 7 with 20 SPEs.

This makes getting a PS3 better for me but this is the 20gig we are talking about here so meh...

Bless

pcypert

Dec 15, 2006, 02:53 AM

Yeah, I was bummed. My wife and I thought maybe we could buy one of the PS3's here in Bangkok and sell it on e*** for a premium and it would pay to fly her home to see her folks. Glad we didn't get one or we'd be stuck with it :)

I'll be darned if I'm going to be stuck with that over a Xbox 360 or Wii

Paul

seenew

Dec 15, 2006, 02:55 AM

What's with Blu-ray fanboys? Seriously, I don't get it.

It's because it sounds cooler and is easier to say, DUH.

:rolleyes:

MacRumorUser

Dec 15, 2006, 03:40 AM

HDDVD is already on the fall-out. The PS3 offers an all-in-one solution in a more elegant package. Blu-Ray is the winning format- thus making the PS3 better. Granted, it always takes one or two years for game manufacturers to catch up, but that's beside the point. Honestly, there aren't any games that take advantage of the xbox's full capabilities either. I do agree that I am very surprised how much PS3 sales have subsided.

Wow the Sony boys are really deluding themselves.

Posted in another thread but seemingly needed here too

--------------

HD-DVD sales are 11 - 1 over BluRay. Argue all you like, but you cant argue with the retail figures.

HD-DVD at this present time is kicking BluRay's arse.

It currently uses the better advanced compression system and is giving a better experience than BluRay.

Disney who were advocates of BluRay have now decided to hold back to the later part of 2007, and are re-considering HD-DVD.

Optical HD Battle May Be Over: HD DVD Wins

By: Rob Enderle
December 6th, 2006

Nearly a year and a half ago I wrote a column saying that Blu-Ray wins or nothing does. This showcases the reality of doing predictions because while the analysis held up, events did not pan out as anticipated and by any current measure HD DVD will end this year with a decisive win.

The basis for the prediction, which did accurately point out that Sony’s win here might actually cost them more than a loss, was the PS3 and the forecast volumes for that product. Back in August of 2005 we did know that HD DVD, which used DVD production technology, would be easier to bring to market but it simply did not seem reasonable that Sony would put their PlayStation franchise at risk for anything but a technology they were absolutely certain they could bring to market on time.

That turned out to be incorrect. The problems with Blu-Ray have created extreme cost and execution problems for Sony and now their premier division (instead of being the profit center for Sony) is predicting they will take a $1.5B loss next year largely resulting from this decision. To put this in perspective, just think what would happen if Apple’s iPod group, instead of generating massive profit, suddenly dropped into massive loss. Now you can see why the Sony PlayStation division just changed out their top executives.

Why HD DVD is Winning

When you talk to either the HD DVD or the Blu-Ray camp you get the sense that neither actually watches movies much. Both cite features as the reason why folks will pick one or the other. Yes there is a lame shooting game in League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (Blu-Ray) and there are a ton of things you can do interactively in HD DVD (including changing car colors in one scene in The Fast and Furious III: Tokyo Drift). But the movie market moves on quality of movie, price of player, and price and availability of media.

At launch HD DVD players were about half the price of Blu-Ray players and the movie price for HD DVD is generally running about $5 less. In addition, many of the new HD DVD movies also have regular DVD side which means that buyers, most of which will have both HD DVD and DVD decks, will get better value with HD DVD than with Blu-Ray – that’s the theory anyways.

All that being said, the killing blow may have been done by Microsoft who decided to bring to market a $200 HD DVD option for their Xbox 360 which has been in market a year longer than Sony and is projected to have a near 20x installed base advantage by year end (10M Xbox 360 to 600K PS3). Note that both projections are aggressive but Sony was supposed to originally ship 2M PS3s into the market during the 4th quarter and actual numbers (given they had under 200K at launch) may be closer to 400K. And with a recall possible there is a chance they might not even make that. Add to this that the Xbox 360 HD DVD drive is for movies only, so each one counts for movie viewing while PS3s may not be used to watch movies and you have a situation where the active movie player advantage by year-end should be between 4x and 6x better for HD DVD over Blu-Ray.

Finally, HP who had been a big Blu-Ray supporter and dominates the Media Center PC market, introduced a $100 HD DVD upgrade for their PCs (Sony’s Blu-Ray VIAO solution was just dropped to $749). The impact of this last move is still too early to measure but there is no comparably priced (not even close) solution using Blu-Ray.

If you go to Amazon and look you can see HD DVDs are solidly ahead and this is before the impact of either the Microsoft or the HP moves, many of which won’t be opened until Christmas or haven’t yet been shipped (HP).

Now Sony will stick with a technology for years after the market has decided on another path and they do have some very strong supporters which include Dell, Apple, and Disney. Dell traditionally has been the PC bellwether company, Apple has the most loyal customer base, and Disney is the only Studio that people ask for by name. So these folks, particularly Sony, could drag this on for years. But if that is the case not only will many in the industry not make money, Sony will probably lose the most because they are still the ones doing the heavy lifting (In addition, after the battery problems, neither Dell nor Apple is as close to Sony as they had been).

Right now it appears impossible for Blu-Ray to gain a substantial lead on HD DVD, even after massive investment, they likely could only close the gap. If the HD market depends on the emergence of one as a standard and Blu-Ray no longer has a chance to be that standard, how long will it be before the Blu-Ray supporters follow HP and switch sides?

Do You Want One Standard?

Now you can evidently help drive this if you are so inclined. There is a petition that has been set up for you to voice your support if you believe that there should be only one and HD DVD is that one. You can find the petition here . Evidently they had collected 2,300 signatures at the time of this writing.

The petition was put together by HD NOW where the folks have collected a rather interesting list of supporting material which goes far farther than I have on supporting the conclusion that we’ve prematurely crossed over to the point where HD DVD has won the High Definition DVD competition.

Does Blu-Ray Die?

Blu-Ray has substantial storage capacity advantages for data and could survive as a high capacity personal computer storage medium. While expensive, one non-Sony vendor’s upcoming Blu-Ray laptop solution costs around $800 on top of a $3000 notebook but it gives that product an unmatched removable media capability. But this is a vastly better storage solution for a high-end PC it isn’t a high volume high definition movie watching solution.

So BluRay could indeed survive but probably not for movies only for PS3 games and high-end optical backup. The real question is does the PS3 survive or whether there will ever be a PS4. Some are saying that the PS3 is in deep trouble and some are saying the PS4 will never arrive with massive game defections from PS3 to Xbox.

Wrapping Up

The market wants one solution for High Definition video and we are already starting to see high definition downloads through services like Xbox live. Apple’s iTV is expected to go even further when it launches early next year. It may actually be too late for either of these platforms to move; if folks move aggressively to downloads for high definition content and if High Definition pay per view cable offerings continue to improve, even if I’m correct and HD DVD has won, it may have actually prevailed too late in the process to survive for long.

Be that as it may, with a 4x to 6x advantage by year end, you’d have to conclude that HD DVD has reached a point where it can’t lose and Blu-Ray is only now in a position to ensure both platforms lose. That last option still appears most likely if the market doesn’t move aggressively to one HD platform.

and as for games and consumer satisfaction

Study: A Blue Christmas for Blu-ray
Author: ERIK GRUENWEDEL
egruenwedel@questex.com
Posted: December 6, 2006
Email this Story to Friend

Historical doubt about Sony’s technological innovations (Betamax and UMD) and corporate attitude finds a majority of online opinion favoring next-generation optical media format HD DVD over Blu-ray Disc, according to a new research study.

The report compiled by Cymfony Inc., a Watertown, Mass.-based market analytics firm, found that positive online discussions about HD DVD were 46% greater than Blu-ray, following scrutiny of 17,664 postings on social media sites, blogs and discussion boards between Oct. 1 and Thanksgiving.

The study found that early adopters — split between gamers and videophiles — spearheaded much of the online chatter. Closer inspection of 2,000 randomly selected posts found that 70% discussed the advantages of HD DVD compared to Blu-ray.

From this group, 23.4% viewed Blu-ray negatively compared to 14.2% for HD DVD; 53.1% were neutral toward Blu-ray (52.8% for HD DVD) and 32.9% viewed HD DVD positively compared to 23.5% for Blu-ray.

Cymfony observed little online discourse of Blu-ray’s expansive storage capacity over HD DVD, and found no discussion of the format’s alleged sophisticated interactivity.

In fact, the ongoing format war (16%) cost issues (14%), picture quality (7%), title selection (6%) and backward compatibility (3%) paled in importance to concerns about new video game console PlayStation 3 (21%) and general dislike (26%).

The latter, the study noted, was largely due to Sony’s alleged credibility as a technology innovator and ability to succeed with new platforms.

Gamers led the dissent by citing Sony’s inclusion of a Blu-ray drive in the PS3. Of the more than 350 posts discussing the advantages of HD DVD, 252 noted positively about Microsoft offering HD DVD as an option to Xbox 360.

“Sony forces you to buy Blu-ray,” read a post at forums.adventuregamers.com. “MS doesn’t force you to buy HD DVD. It’s about giving the consumer options.”

Spokespersons from the Blu-ray Disc Association and Sony were not immediately available for comment.

and further proof PS3 may not be helping BluRay

Playstation 3 not helping Blu-ray?
Playstation 3
Written by:
Henning Molbaek

First online:
Dec 5, 2006

After months of delay, the Playstation 3 finally hit the US on November 17th. The gaming console has long been known as Sony's secret weapon in the HD format war: Their Trojan Horse to get a blu-ray player into every home. However, it now looks as if also this launch from Sony is not having the impact they had hoped for. Many analysts claim that they were only able to ship 150,000 - 250,000 of the more than 400,000 promised units. These sold out quickly, but many units were bought with reselling at a high price in mind and not for gaming or movie use.

Sony sold the idea of Blu-ray to many studios with Playstation 3 as their biggest argument for supporting their format and not HD-DVD. Fox among others have said that the PS3 was one of the main reasons for their Blu-ray support.

So, here two weeks after launch, is the PS3 affecting sales? We did our own mini test on Amazon.com, and here is what we found.

If we look at the top three selling HD-DVD and Blu-ray discs, we find titles like "Superman: Returns" and "X-men 3." Each product on Amazon has a sales rank that indicates how well the product sells compared with other products of its kind. We took a look at how the HD discs compared with all standard DVDs, HD-DVD, and Blu-ray releases. Here are the numbers:

HD-DVD Top 3:
1# Superman: Returns
DVD Sales Rank: 162

2# Batman Begins
DVD Sales Rank: 352

3# Superman: The Movie
DVD Sales Rank: 803

Blu-ray Top 3:
1# Superman: Returns
DVD Sales Rank: 394

2# X-men 3: The last Stand
DVD Sales: 2279

3# Kingdom of Heaven: Director's Cut
DVD Sales Rank: 2373

So, the answer is, no. As you see, Blu-ray sells far less than HD-DVD and still has a lot of catching up to do. It looks as if it has proven far more difficult for Sony to both launch their own brand new format and to beat their competition. The numbers also show that regular DVD is doing great and has nothing to worry about right now. We will have to wait and see if Sony can turn this all around by spring.

Dagless

Dec 15, 2006, 07:06 AM

Thus ending the thoughts that BluRay is somehow winning.

See, this is what happens when you don't release good games. Sony can stick in all the components in the world into their machine, but the system is a games machine. It is bought to play games. When there are no games - nobody cares. Regardless of "potential", as Sony once called it.

I also laugh at their attempts to rush such a console to market just because they couldn't miss another Christmas. What the hell have their devs been doing for the past couple of years?

aj98

Dec 15, 2006, 08:21 AM

>Nobody wants the 20s.
I'll offer a counterpoint. A 20 is exactly what I plan to buy.

It's possible the 20s aren't selling b/c the original advertising was the 20g would not have an HDMI connection.

But that changed, and Sony did incorporate HDMI on the 20g

Perhaps the consumer hasn't gotten that yet...or the average American mindset of bigger and more expensive must be better?

But as to why I'd buy a 20 instead of a 60...

1st, I don't need the wireless connection, nor do I need the memory card reader.

I have 16mb storage on my PS2, but still have 3/4 of the first card free, and the 2nd card is empty. At that rate, it may take a while to come close to filling the 20g drive. I've read the drive is upgradeable - if that is true, then the smaller drive is a non-issue.

While MS may not be "forcing" you to add an HD player, do you need that drive to play the HD games? Or have XB game developers figured out how to get 1080 in the standard format drive? Even if the drive isn't used for games now, how long before it will be?

By the time you add the cost of the HD drive, the xbox is just as much as the PS3.

In either case, regarding the format war, I'd much prefer to acquire a PS3 for the blu-ray player than pay 2x as much for the standalone player.

If I had an XBox, same logic - the add on player for the XB is about 1/2 the cost of a standalone player.

Of course, thats just my .02...I could be wrong :)

MacRumorUser

Dec 15, 2006, 08:28 AM

While MS may not be "forcing" you to add an HD player, do you need that drive to play the HD games? Or have XB game developers figured out how to get 1080 in the standard format drive? Even if the drive isn't used for games now, how long before it will be?

By the time you add the cost of the HD drive, the xbox is just as much as the PS3.

All microsofts games are HD and all are available on DVD.

There are NO plans to EVER release 360 games on the HD-DVD format. Microsoft have catagorically stated it, and to be honest there simply is no need, there is more than enouigh space generally on a DVD to store a great HiDef game.

Dont let the PS3 hyperbole spoil you, the BluRay discs boasting 20gb needed for HD gaming is pure BULLCRAP. It's already been seen that most of these games from lauch are actually 6-7gb, with the rest of the space on thte disc is literally artifical filler to help speed up disc read times.

A game is just data, and usually compressed.

HD output is more to do with the GPU & CPU. All PC games come on DVD and are capable of a higher res than 1280x720.

360 is HD without the need of the HD-DVD drive period.

Haoshiro

Dec 15, 2006, 08:32 AM

To those people blaming this on the fact it was 20GB versions (you know who you are, 2nyRiggz and sikkinixx)... :D

This is not just the case with the 20GB, sure, thsoe are the systems I found, but I'm actually talking about consumer demand. You are really missing the point.

Wii prices on eBay are so high because of demand for that product, not because of "scalpers." Nintendo has shipped far more Wii units then Sony has PS3 units, which means they should be easier to get. Yet they aren't, they are harder to get and people want them more. That's the whole reason they sell at ridiculous prices on ebay - the bidders, the people wanting the system.

When you get on eBay and watch both 20GB and 60GB auctions ending without bids or at very little over retail it shows a serious lack of consumer interest. It almost seems like there is more demand for TMX Elmo then PS3!

Consider also that a lot of electronics this time of year are purchased by parents and family. If someone knows their son/daughter wants a PS3 they would likely pick up a 20GB model if they saw it, because it is very likely they wouldn't know the difference.

Personally, if I was going to get a PS3 the only thing I can think of that would really pull me towards the 60GB model is the built in wireless, nothing else extra offered seems all that appealing for someone like me who would just be interested in gaming.

Dagless

Dec 15, 2006, 08:52 AM

[QUOTE=aj98;3153170By the time you add the cost of the HD drive, the xbox is just as much as the PS3.[/QUOTE]

But that is the point. I have a TV capable of 720p (or 1050p if we want to go all pedantic) but DVDs are more than perfect for me. Would I be content in being forced to buy a BluRay player in my PS3? I personally would be happier buying a non-BR PS3 for the same price as a Premium 360. I imagine the system would have sold better too, but that's just me.

360 + HD-DVD = PS3 price
360 + no need for HD-DVD = less than PS3 price, still with HD gaming.

And still the PS3 is no faster, no better than the 360. It just has a built in drive versus optional.

aj98

Dec 15, 2006, 08:56 AM

This is not just the case with the 20GB, sure, thsoe are the systems I found, but I'm actually talking about consumer demand. You are really missing the point.

Wii prices on eBay are so high because of demand for that product, not because of "scalpers." Nintendo has shipped far more Wii units then Sony has PS3 units, which means they should be easier to get. Yet they aren't, they are harder to get and people want them more. That's the whole reason they sell at ridiculous prices on ebay - the bidders, the people wanting the system.

When you get on eBay and watch both 20GB and 60GB auctions ending without bids or at very little over retail it shows a serious lack of consumer interest. It almost seems like there is more demand for TMX Elmo then PS3!

You're right, I may be missing the overall point - my OP was to present a reason for wanting the 20 instead of the 60.

My Ps2 is less than a year old, and while I will get a PS3, it's not something I have to have *right now*

At 41, I'm the biggest kid in my house - the 'success' or 'failure' of Xmas does not rest on getting the system, and I simply refuse to pay the ridiculous price(s) people are asking on ebay...so perhaps thats another reason there are so few bids.

Couple that with the number of fraudulent auctions for other high dollar items I've seen in the last year...

I'm both amused and irritated at/by people who buy (any game system) for no reason other than to resell it on ebay for (hopefully) a huge profit, and haven't had their high reserve price met. Hope it teaches them a lesson.

Perhaps if it weren't for them, there'd be more systems on the street actually being played.

MagicWok

Dec 15, 2006, 09:11 AM

And still the PS3 is no faster, no better than the 360. It just has a built in drive versus optional.

Now that's just plain rubbish... If you can't be objective, then don't post in these kind of threads. If you compare the hardware between the 360 and the PS3, the PS3 is more powerfull and can compute and potentially display games faster than the 360. However, the differences [b]at the moment[/p] are imperceptible to our eyes.

Even then, comparing the first generation of games on different formats is ultimately defeatist, as neither console is even close to being pushed to it's full potential. The PS3 is 'better' in that it is one complete package. The 360 is 'better' as it has a year head-start, therefore better games. The launch titles for the 360 were nothing to shout about either.

I find it absolutely amazing that people argue over the actual hardware at this point. It is the games that make the console a success, and at the moment the 360 is leading, but almost purely down to the fact that it has a year head start. Though at least microsoft haven't wasted it's advantage.

steelfist

Dec 15, 2006, 09:13 AM

the main reason why the ps3 is not selling well is the fact that it IS in limited quantiy. if it's limited, the prices will jump, which will aggravate the fact that it's more expensive than the rest of the competitioon.

also, the average gamer dosen't care about power or graphics, they want fun, and games. the wiisports for the nintendo wii was a marketing success, because they based it on that idea; combined with the fact that's it's released very closely to the playstation 3, it means that it stole all the potential buyers away from them, and choked ps3 sales.

it's like somebody who's having a circus performance, and then at the same time there's this more stunts, has funnier clowns, and more exotic circus that's right next to it, and then people who originally wanted to see the first circus's performance got lured to the second one.

the price hike and the very attractive new alternative are the reasons why it isn't selling.

as time goes by, i think the ps3 will sell a bit more. they just had a bad start.

Haoshiro

Dec 15, 2006, 09:24 AM

You're right, I may be missing the overall point - my OP was to present a reason for wanting the 20 instead of the 60.

My Ps2 is less than a year old, and while I will get a PS3, it's not something I have to have *right now*

At 41, I'm the biggest kid in my house - the 'success' or 'failure' of Xmas does not rest on getting the system, and I simply refuse to pay the ridiculous price(s) people are asking on ebay...so perhaps thats another reason there are so few bids.

Couple that with the number of fraudulent auctions for other high dollar items I've seen in the last year...

I'm both amused and irritated at/by people who buy (any game system) for no reason other than to resell it on ebay for (hopefully) a huge profit, and haven't had their high reserve price met. Hope it teaches them a lesson.

Perhaps if it weren't for them, there'd be more systems on the street actually being played.

Oh I wasn't responding to your post, I hadn't seen it when I began writing my last post. I too would likely get a 20GB over 60GB if I were getting a PS3.

But I really don't think there would really be more systems available to the public without the scalpers. Interest is so high in Wii that these things are flying off of "ebay shelves" even at ridiculous prices, why would we think it would be easier if they were available cheaper? No, more then likely you'd be fighting even more competition.

I could definitely get annoyed that I may potentially not be able to get a Wii because scalpers have bought them all up and sold them to people more desparate then myself. But I really don't know if that is the case. Plus, it's an entertainment device and a huge profit potential. Personally I think people who buy them and *keep* them are just not being financially wise. They have an option for a major ROI and they aren't doing it for a few weeks of fun? I *want* a Wii but if I get one I probably won't keep it, I'll know I'm essentially screwing myself out of $300 just because "I want it now" - knowing full well come Jan/Feb these things will be so well stocked anyone can pick them up in the store, and prices on ebay will be closer to retail.

It's a matter of perspective really. This thread was started simply because of my observation that consumer interest just isn't that high in PS3. When you've seen Nintendo Wiis sell on ebay for the same price as a 60GB PS3 (http://cgi.ebay.com/Nintendo-Wii-Game-System-Console-In-Hand-with-5-GAMES_W0QQitemZ160062691022QQihZ006QQcategoryZ62054QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem) also sells for on ebay, that paints a bleak picture for Sony.

2nyRiggz

Dec 15, 2006, 09:33 AM

To those people blaming this on the fact it was 20GB versions (you know who you are, 2nyRiggz and sikkinixx)... :D

What did I do....I just said I don't want the 20gig one....I'm not defending sony or the other company like the many fan-arse boys here but I'm just saying I don't want the 20...

Its hurts to here you talk about me this way Haoshiro:( .....watch ya back man, watch ya back!;) :D

Bless

Haoshiro

Dec 15, 2006, 09:46 AM

What did I do....I just said I don't want the 20gig one....I'm not defending sony or the other company like the many fan-arse boys here but I'm just saying I don't want the 20...

Its hurts to here you talk about me this way Haoshiro:( .....watch ya back man, watch ya back!;) :D

Haha!

I was just saying, not caring about how things are on ebay or the fact it was a 20GB model is missing the point of the thread entirely! Naturally I assumed you were replying to the thread, so I was replying to your post in the thread in regards to the topic of the thread that your post in the thread seemed to be disregarding. Hopefully that clears things up! ;) :D

Dagless

Dec 15, 2006, 09:48 AM

[QUOTE=MagicWok;3153288]Now that's just plain rubbish... If you can't be objective, then don't post in these kind of threads. If you compare the hardware between the 360 and the PS3, the PS3 is more powerfull and can compute and potentially display games faster than the 360. However, the differences [b]at the moment[/p] are imperceptible to our eyes.QUOTE]

Ridge Racer 6 and 7?

MGS trailer from a year ago? Why are there no games like that out?

Looking at both products regardless of any other factors other than what I see displayed on both systems in real time - the 360 has it. Ie, the whole Ridge Racer comparison.
You do know that Dev kits have been with studios for a long time right? Remember, all 3 announced their systems at roughly the same point. All 3 systems have had their games developed from a similar starting point. There really is no excuse for the PS3 now. Its merely had an extra year to finalise the actual machine.

Consumers aren't going to look at the system in a shop and say to themselves "well the true power of the 7 core CPU, each adding it's own values and running particular tasks is simply far greater than a 3 core CPU etc". Remember who the mass public are.

atszyman

Dec 15, 2006, 09:50 AM

I *want* a Wii but if I get one I probably won't keep it, I'll know I'm essentially screwing myself out of $300 just because "I want it now" - knowing full well come Jan/Feb these things will be so well stocked anyone can pick them up in the store, and prices on ebay will be closer to retail.

I don't know that I would bother listing a Wii if I could even find one now. I predict that the prices on eBay will start to plummet early this next week as people realize it will be hard to get them shipped and received before Xmas. I think most of the auctions started on Wednesday or later will stagnate. Sunday, Monday and Tuesday have a shot but I imagine that with the release on Sunday the prices will also plummet as more people find them at the stores.

I've suspended my quest for the time being. I might check out one or 2 places on Sunday but not until they are open. I think I'm going to wait until we head up to Wisconsin for Xmas and I'll pick one up there if I find one and am not completely distracted by other things. I'll have more time there to play then I will at home anyway.

I think we are seeing the peak of the price curve and I'd expect a steep drop off around Wednesday. Of course my predictions rarely match reality.

2nyRiggz

Dec 15, 2006, 09:54 AM

so I was replying to your post in the thread in regards to the topic of the thread that your post in the thread seemed to be disregarding. Hopefully that clears things up! ;) :D

Crystal....:D

but on a serious note..kinda..sony is now saying that there production lines are up and running and expecting 2 to 6 million units for Europe, US, JP

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6163190.html?tag=lastword;link

In other news...MGS: PO is kicking arse:)
http://www.gamespot.com/psp/action/metalgearsolidpo/index.html?tag=topten;_title;0

Bless

clayj

Dec 15, 2006, 09:59 AM

Haoshiro

Dec 15, 2006, 10:05 AM

Crystal....:D

but on a serious note..kinda..sony is now saying that there production lines are up and running and expecting 2 to 6 million units for Europe, US, JP

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6163190.html?tag=lastword;link

In other news...MGS: PO is kicking arse:)
http://www.gamespot.com/psp/action/metalgearsolidpo/index.html?tag=topten;_title;0

Yeah, but didn't they claim they'd have like 2 million in north america by now?

As for MGS:PO, it's about time they got something for PSP that was universally acclaimed and fir the target audience (LocoRoco seemed to be well received, but the target audience for that game seems like it would have fit a DS better).

My uncle might be glad to hear about that game, since all he has used the PSP for since he got it was Namco Museum - Galaga. :D

ChrisK018

Dec 15, 2006, 10:25 AM

I tried to like the first PSP Metal Gear game, but it failed to build up any momentum for me. LocoRoco was good. I liked it, but truth be told the PSP does not get much playing time.

Reading the reviews of the new Zelda game I am dying to get (take?) a Wii, but that will have to wait until January/February, depending on if I can pick up a MBP or not.

If I walked into a game store and saw a PS3 with my name on it I would not drop the $$$ to get it. Not enough good games (yet). If I saw a Wii-- yes.

I am so addicted to FFXII right now on the PS2 that I don't care, even though I have FFIII on the DS waiting in the wings.

greatdevourer

Dec 15, 2006, 10:31 AM

gkarris

Dec 15, 2006, 10:49 AM

gkarris

Dec 15, 2006, 10:54 AM

MS was smart. Yea, they took the Sega CD, Turbografx CD route as an add-on. But, with the dawn of a new medium, it's working (CDs were old news by the time Sega and NEC adopted them and tried to slap them on their system).

Buy it if you want it. HD-DVD is stunning on my front projection system. And if it does fail, well, MS will come out with a Bluray drive!

It was only $160 anyways after the Circuit City coupon, and it came with "King Kong" and the media remote! Not to mention the drive will work on a Mac or PC (waiting for player software though).

Sony banked on Bluray so made you buy one whether you like it or not. I would not have minded a $399 basic PS3 with a DVD drive and buy Bluray later... I would've gotten one launch day and there would've been more to go around!

Haoshiro

Dec 15, 2006, 11:02 AM

PS3's? None here still around Chicago. I was at a Target and someone had asked about them. The salesperson said they had gotten a bunch in a couple of days ago, but they were snatched up by people who were going to put them on eBay.

Are there any gamers that actually got their hands on a system???

Enjoying my XB360 HD-DVD right now...

Which is funny, because more then likely these people will make like $10 or $20, or they will LOSE money. I don't think the people rushing out to do this are actually calculating the costs involved...

zero2dash

Dec 15, 2006, 11:54 AM

Now that's just plain rubbish... If you can't be objective, then don't post in these kind of threads. If you compare the hardware between the 360 and the PS3, the PS3 is more powerfull and can compute and potentially display games faster than the 360. However, the differences [b]at the moment[/p] are imperceptible to our eyes.

Ps3 has slightly more powerful hardware but weaker efficiency in that hardware. 360 has slightly weaker hardware that is more efficient at using that hardware. 360 wins hands down. Want to know why? Practically every Ps3 game thus far that is a MULTIPLATFORM TITLE has framerate issues on the Ps3 whereas the game runs steady as a rock on the 360. Ps3 may have better number crunching for artificial intelligence but the fact remains that the Cell cpu is counterproductive and chokes on its own memory and bandwidth limitations meanwhile the 360 runs at lower speeds yet is more efficient at handling the data thus 360 wins. It's like Pentium 4 vs PPC G5 comparing processing power vs clock speed all over again; educate yourself before spewing out a rant with no facts. This debate has already been tested and documented MANY TIMES IN THE GAMING COMMUNITY.

Even then, comparing the first generation of games on different formats is ultimately defeatist, as neither console is even close to being pushed to it's full potential. The PS3 is 'better' in that it is one complete package. The 360 is 'better' as it has a year head-start, therefore better games. The launch titles for the 360 were nothing to shout about either.

360 has a better online functionality therefore AGAIN 360 wins. Ps3 was supposed to have online at its core just like the 360, did they do it? No. Sony's online presence is still shoddy, incomplete and unfinished and that's what happens when you procrastinate for 4+ years and don't offer a similar online marketplace (on Ps2) when your competition launches theirs (Live on Xbox).

True, launch games for 360 weren't much to talk about but then again did Microsoft come out talking about their system being the end-all, be-all system offering everything including 4D gameplay and you'd want it so much that you'd work 2 jobs to be able to afford one?

Didn't think so. :p

I find it absolutely amazing that people argue over the actual hardware at this point. It is the games that make the console a success, and at the moment the 360 is leading, but almost purely down to the fact that it has a year head start. Though at least microsoft haven't wasted it's advantage.

If Sony didn't have Square Enix, they wouldn't be around anymore. Period. Not in America and certainly not in Japan. SE isn't a Sony exclusive, but SE does only release the major FF titles on Sony's hardware...which IMO is why Sony still sells consoles. If a major FF title is released on another console instead, either as an exclusive or as a multiplatform, Sony will take a major hit. Hell, Blue Dragon (according to Magic Box) sold 80,348 units and is #4 on the best selling list in Japan right now. 360 may not be much of a competitor in Japan...but every little bit helps. Microsoft needs to lay some RPG groundwork in Japan and run with it; hopefully that's what Blue Dragon will do.

greatdevourer

Dec 15, 2006, 12:27 PM

Ps3 has slightly more powerful hardware but weaker efficiency in that hardware. 360 has slightly weaker hardware that is more efficient at using that hardware. 360 wins hands down. Want to know why? Practically every Ps3 game thus far that is a MULTIPLATFORM TITLE has framerate issues on the Ps3 whereas the game runs steady as a rock on the 360. Ps3 may have better number crunching for artificial intelligence but the fact remains that the Cell cpu is counterproductive and chokes on its own memory and bandwidth limitations meanwhile the 360 runs at lower speeds yet is more efficient at handling the data thus 360 wins

If Sony didn't have Square Enix, they wouldn't be around anymore. Period. Not in America and certainly not in Japan. Iirc, one of the Cell's real comedowns when it comes to gaming is AI, because it has no L2 cache, no branch prediction and is stuck to in-order processing :p

And SE annoy me no-end with their Sony-only FF games :mad:

GFLPraxis

Dec 15, 2006, 12:30 PM

Now that's just plain rubbish... If you can't be objective, then don't post in these kind of threads. If you compare the hardware between the 360 and the PS3, the PS3 is more powerfull and can compute and potentially display games faster than the 360. However, the differences [b]at the moment[/p] are imperceptible to our eyes.

Even then, comparing the first generation of games on different formats is ultimately defeatist, as neither console is even close to being pushed to it's full potential. The PS3 is 'better' in that it is one complete package. The 360 is 'better' as it has a year head-start, therefore better games. The launch titles for the 360 were nothing to shout about either.

I find it absolutely amazing that people argue over the actual hardware at this point. It is the games that make the console a success, and at the moment the 360 is leading, but almost purely down to the fact that it has a year head start. Though at least microsoft haven't wasted it's advantage.

Actually, that's not entirely true.

The PS3's processor has faster potential, true, but it's very difficult to make software for that utilizes it (and so far, PS3 games look worse side by side 360 games, but that'll change).

But ignoring that...the graphics cards is where it's at. The PS3 has ZERO hardware capabilities the XBox 360 doesn't have, and the 360 is actually faster in many respects.

Since the GPU's have the same hardware capabilities, there should be NO visual difference between them. Cell might be capable of handling more AI at once or something, once developers get it down.

Ps3 has slightly more powerful hardware but weaker efficiency in that hardware. 360 has slightly weaker hardware that is more efficient at using that hardware. 360 wins hands down. Want to know why? Practically every Ps3 game thus far that is a MULTIPLATFORM TITLE has framerate issues on the Ps3 whereas the game runs steady as a rock on the 360. Ps3 may have better number crunching for artificial intelligence but the fact remains that the Cell cpu is counterproductive and chokes on its own memory and bandwidth limitations meanwhile the 360 runs at lower speeds yet is more efficient at handling the data thus 360 wins. It's like Pentium 4 vs PPC G5 comparing processing power vs clock speed all over again; educate yourself before spewing out a rant with no facts. This debate has already been tested and documented MANY TIMES IN THE GAMING COMMUNITY.

Calm down a little, buddy :)

360 wins hands down at this point in time. The framerate issues on PS3 are mostly because Cell is very hard to program for; devs made the games for XBox 360 first, ported it to Cell, and Cell gave it a lot of trouble.

We'll see how things are in a year. I think multiplatform games will look better on the title they were first developed for (probably 360); it'll be exclusive games we have to compare. I doubt either system will have a big visual advantage.

GFLPraxis

Dec 15, 2006, 12:33 PM

If Sony didn't have Square Enix, they wouldn't be around anymore. Period. Not in America and certainly not in Japan.

Sony no longer has Square Enix.

Final Fantasy XIII and Versus XIII are the only games SE is making for PS3. The Dragon Quest series just abandoned the Playstation.

Most foreigners don't realize this, but Dragon Quest is the top selling series in Japan. It outsells Final Fantasy. Dragon Quest VIII was *the* top selling PS2 game, period, outselling every Final Fantasy game.

Guess what? Dragon Quest IX is Nintendo-exclusive. Both the Dragon Quest spinoffs (Dragon Quest Monsters and Dragon Quest Swords) are now Nintendo-exclusive. The sequel to Final Fantasy XII (Final Fantasy XII: Revenant Wings) is now Nintendo-exclusive. Add to that two Nintendo-exclusive Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles games.

Ouch for Sony. SE is probably just finishing FFXIII on PS3 because they started it, perhaps like Konami (IIRC Hideo Kojima has stated he has to finish MGS4 on PS3 because of contractual obligations but he'd rather work on the Wii).

Dagless

Dec 15, 2006, 12:44 PM

Aye, I heard they even take days off work in Japan when a DQ game comes out :D

Thus ends Sony's 2 year reign as console king. Ah well, these things do happen in cycles. 2 generations from now Nintendo will be back down again etc.

FFXII: Revenant Wings? A little google brought up a very nice sounding game. Just hope it plays like FF3/7 and I'll be set.

GFLPraxis

Dec 15, 2006, 12:49 PM

ChrisK018

Dec 15, 2006, 01:26 PM

Let me hop on the "no Dragon Quest/Final Fantasy = no Sony" boat right now. Unless Sony gets the ex Clover studio guys rounded up for Okami 2 I probably won't go back. I like Katamari and Gran Tourismo quite a bit, but it's not the $500+ dollars kind of like.

FFXII on the DS?!? Sweet mother of mercy does that sound awesome to me. The whole battle system for FFXII is mana from heaven, on the DS, with the touch screen I could imagine it getting even more fun.

zero2dash

Dec 15, 2006, 01:27 PM

Sony no longer has Square Enix.

I'll edit my post, but what I'm trying to say is Sony has had the standard regular issue Final Fantasy series as an exclusive up until this point. Whether things will change or not should be realized soon enough; Magic Box says that Square's working on 2 unannounced 360 games, lord only knows if they'll pull something out of their butts and release FF XIII on the 360 as well.

Sure, Square Enix has released several FF games on other consoles: Crystal Chronicles on the Gamecube, the Advance remakes on the GBA/DS, FFXI on the Ps2/360/PC. But they have up until this point only released the big ones on Sony hardware, which is why Sony maintains a large market share especially in RPG Land (Japan).

I've never been a DQ fan myself...but losing it will certainly hurt Sony even more than everything else already has.

Dagless

Dec 15, 2006, 01:56 PM

Yowza! Revenant Wings looks killer :D Beautiful graphics.

I wonder, what with DQ moving to the DS, what will happen to the main FF series in due time? Not that I'm bothered, FF3 is the first 3D FF game I've truly enjoyed.

MacRumorUser

Dec 15, 2006, 02:02 PM

nice looking ds game alright. another game to add to the collection.

Dagless

Dec 15, 2006, 07:03 PM

Christ above! Turns out my girlfriends Wii won't be shipped till Jan 25th! I tried ringing Play.com today to find out about mine, line was congested :(

So I thought I'd check on eBay. £300-500 (or 750 with "Sports 5 game" :D ). Ruddy hell. This is madness. This is ENGLAND! Folk don't normally bother with this kind of scalping and they're going for so much.

You PS3 scalpers should sell in Europe. You'd make a mint.

Haoshiro

Dec 16, 2006, 09:02 AM

The local Wal-Mart here now has 60GB PS3s in stock, nobody seemed to care. They usually put their stock out in the morning, and this was last night I saw them. They even had a sign "PlayStation 3 now available!"

It probably didn't help the demo unit always seems to be frozen, first on NBA 2K7 and then on Motor Storm... must be a hardware problem. They did have a few ads playing on another screen, talking about immense processing power, cell, and blu-ray. :rolleyes: