Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Games' started by greatdevourer, May 11, 2006.
What ***** planet is he living on!
To be fair he does sort of have a point, when you look at the price of Blu-Ray players and the actual specs of the machine, putting together a PC of the equivelant specs would cost a heck of alot more than $600....saying this there is no way i'm going near a PS3 and will probably get a 360 once there price drops hopefully in about November...
Blue Ray is still kind of worthless, i mean it a new technology and no moives are on blue ray disks, i think sony took to big of gamble with such a pricey system, and they will lose for its.
It's cell prossesor is worthless to many*it about how it ends up looking* blue is stil to new to be super useful
To be fair he's talking out his ASS. Get him 2 explain WHY they have CRIPPLED a 500 dollar/euro machine. Get him to explain HOW on earth that would advance BluRay sales rather than NOW divide them in 2 for PS3 owners.
SONY ye fecked up big time. Not only are you saying look were only half supporting our own movie format for Ps3 , you are screwing the consumer who wouldn't know different (about HDMI & HDCP)
What I was trying to get across is the fact that the components in the PS3 are very expensive, forget the $500 model as it is a non entity but if you look at the hardware you are getting in the $600 dollar model it is very expensive (blu-ray mainly) as well as all the bundled wi-fi and 60gb HD that the 360 didn't have....add the pricey wi-fi adapter and HD-dvd drive to the 360's more expensive pack which i think was released at $399 and you are looking at near enough $600 with a smaller HD.....
Pesonally I think sony should quickly ditch the $500 dollar model and just cut there losses and make the $599 version $500 as the current $500 bundle is a joke...
By no means am I a fan of the PS3 neither do I plan to get one they are of absolutly no interest to me cost and games wise, i'm just making the point that they aren't as much of a rip off as people think.
I agree with you that 599 is relativly cheap taking into account the cost of the integral components. But an Xbox 360 is just as cheap if you look at it that way too..
I think the general public no matter how many bells and whistles sony throw into it will ALWAYS be seen as just a games console, and 599 or 499 is still too much for a games console regardless of its components.....
The average consumer isn't gonna give a **** about blu-ray. They're gonna look at the pricetag and say "Wow, that's overpriced."
You wasted a lot of money on the PS3--we get it, Sony. Doesn't make the system a better value.
I like how you called it the PS-pound sign. Here in the US we can call it the PS$.
People said the same thing about the PS2 when Sony included a DVD player. They sold like hotcakes. I'm not saying the same thing will happen, but I wouldn't ignore the possibility until after we see this thing launch.
Games consoles have always been silly money on launch. I remember my mate buying the N64 when it came out for £350 (!!). A few months later they halved the price.
Once the inevitable supply issues have been sorted out after the launch the same will happen for the PS3. I mean Sony can't really afford to lose out on this battle, they have partially nailed all their blu-ray hopes on this machine doing well too.
£350 = $650. It only released at $199 in the US. I know systems are more over there, but that sounds absurd.
That price was for the N64/Mario/extra controller.
And yes prices over here compared to what you pay are very often absurd (at the time the exchange rate would have made £350=$450 btw.).
My point is that the package price literally halved over the course of a few months.
I thought it was the P$3
But that was when DVD's were somewhat established, unlike today where BD's are completely new tech. The average consumer doesn't know what it is.
With that said. I think my brother paid $500 for the PS2 launch "bundle". Came with SSX, which was the best thing ever. I think high tech savy people are going to go after this, $600 is just too much. They should, and I'm sure they will, market it as a "entertainment center", which I think they had mentioned before.
My mates all bought PS2s with the justification that it was the DVD player they needed too.
I think Sony hopes the same will happen with Blu-Ray. Personally I'm not so sure that blu-ray is the must have that normal dvds were.
ps3, suck my wii
Exactly, there is a huge misnoma going on about how PS2 was the driving success of DVD. Yet DVD had already hit the important watershed of $199 barrier before PS2 had even released.
It was a case of DVD helped PS2 sales rather than the other way around, and unfortuently BluRay will still be extremely expensive when PS3 is released and
hence will not have the same effect period....
DVD was also universally supported industry hardware, Blu Ray certainly isnt and DVD did not have to go through an hardware war, only a consumer one... BluRay has to fight competeing format and a place in consumers minds, which simply isnt being driven at this point by the mass general consumer demand...
DVD players and DVDs where started hitting the market in 1997-ish, but they where no where near established. At the time most movies where still coming on VHS. They didn't start out selling/renting VHS until 2003 -- almost three years after the PS2 was released. The average consumer may have known what a DVD was, but many of them found little or no use for such a device.
That was actually an accident (£ is shift-3), but a very appropriete one
Can you tell me what that means, cause Dictionary.com doesn't know what you're talkin bout. Misconception?
I thought they were somewhat established. They were becoming a staple in the industry, and people knew what it was about. People started collecting them, and recognized it as the next universal video format. One of the main advantageous factors of the PS2 was the DVD player, and I do remember having dvds myself. All I'm saying is that BD is no where's near the position DVD's were back in 2000.
It's worth the price for what you are getting.....yea yea you want a console for games but it is much more than that..take it or leave it AND i bet ya plenty will take it.
hahahaha, nice, that made my day`
I think this whole place, as far as games go, is funny. We obviously have way too many people who think Nintendo is God.
I'm going to laugh when on launch day the PS3's sell completely out, and they keep that way for months to come. Then everyone in here who says it's a "failure" is shown wrong and I can be like "Stick it up your illogical ass!"
Being realistic, the PS3 will sell more than enough units, regardless of price, regardless of fanboys proclaiming "rootkit fiasco" and without boycotts. This machine is going to bust the entertainment market wide open.
That is absurd yes. I got mine for a whole truck load less, with F-Zero X and Mario and an extra controller (albeit 3rd party). lord, for £350 I could have bought it twice.
It's madness this. I remember a guy having some kind of "I hate Nintendo" rant at me on MSN once. "yea well the N64 games cost £60!" etc etc. People try and confuse you when something happened long ago. I keep my game receipts in boxes, most I ever paid for an N64 game was £35 for Jet Force Gemini.
to the topic in hand. I won't be buying a PS3 until a sever price drop. I don't care what's inside. It's still that price for a games machine. I'd rather just buy a £150 graphics card and play all the new games on my PC. *I know you have to take into account the rest of the PC's price, but that was bought years ago and is used almost 24/7 for some reason or another* = better value.
Misnomer, I believe.