PS3 Price Revealed?
Posted by Vampiro V. Empire
Quoted post: While Sony unveiled a number of its upcoming plans for the PlayStation 3 last month at the PlayStation Business Briefing and in its Game Developers Conference keynote address, a few details are still conspicuously unannounced, most notably the price of the machine. It's been an increasingly hot topic of discussion since a February Merrill Lynch report pegged the manufacturing cost of the system at a whopping $900, but now Sony Computer Entertainment Europe vice president Georges Fornay has addressed the issue.
In an interview with Europe 1 radio program Générations Europe 1 yesterday, Fornay was asked about speculation that the PS3 would retail for $500.
"If we take into account Blu-ray, HD video with drives priced at around 1,000 euros and above, [the PS3] will be a bargain," Fornay told Europe 1. "If we only look at the game function, it's true that consoles were usually priced under 500 euros. We will be at this price point ["nous serons dans cette fourchette," or price fork]. It will be expensive if we only look at the game aspect of the machine, but it will be very cheap if we account for the set of technologies that it will integrate."
Even if the PS3 does hit shelves for 500 euros, that doesn't necessarily mean American gamers will be paying upwards of $615 for the PS3 when it comes out. Price points vary between territories, and systems are frequently more expensive across the pond. For instance, the Xbox 360 core and premium packages launched for $299 and $399 in the US, and 299 euros (about $367) and 399 euros (about $491) in Europe.
Sony representatives did not immediately return requests for comment.
So we all know it's going to be faily expensive, and this little bit of news might just confirm that. Of course, it could end up being a lot cheaper in the States, but chances are it's still going to be about $500.
Posted by Lord of SpamI think Sony is starting to target hte people that have the money to make such purchases: parents. A lot of older people have watched their kids play games and started to get into it. I was at my moms office, and overheard a group of guys standing around the watercooler (literally, lol) talking about Call of Duty 2. Turns out they all went out and bought 360s and are big into online mulitplayer. Seeing that games are no longer seen as the realm of children (average gamer is somewhere in his 20s) it makes sense to market to people who can afford more expensive things.
That being said, jesus, $500? Revolution, here I come.:link:
Posted by Speedfreak$500 is a bargain! Honest!!
Posted by Vampiro V. Empire
Quoted post: Seeing that games are no longer seen as the realm of children (average gamer is somewhere in his 20s) it makes sense to market to people who can afford more expensive things.
Average is abut thirty, I believe. Either way, even if you are an adult who makes a nice sum of money, it's really hard to justify spending over $500 on anything. Especially if you're an adult who has a family. You have certain responsibilities, and probably a tighter budget, such that wouldn't allow you to buy a PS3.
Also, with so many kids working these days and many of them making some pretty nice cash, I'd think it would easier to market towards them. They have less responsibilities, yet, enough money to purchase something so expensive. Usually.
Posted by DecadoConsoles tend to be presents for the most part at the start of sales. Parents are happy to pay $500 to keep their kid quiet for another 5 years normally.
After that, well it wont be $500 forever. and once the enthusiasts buy iot at that price, don't be surprised to see the manufacturing processes get better, and costs reduce, and the price fall to below $400 within 12 months.
Posted by Vampiro V. Empire
Quoted post: After that, well it wont be $500 forever. and once the enthusiasts buy iot at that price, don't be surprised to see the manufacturing processes get better, and costs reduce, and the price fall to below $400 within 12 months.
Well that's obvious. The technology will become cheaper after a year, and it's smart business to cut prices in hopes of attracting new costumers. But since it will start out so expensive, chances are it won't be marked down below $400-$300 until nearer the end of it's life. Which is still asking quite a bit for a console that's three years old.
Posted by Klarth
Quoting Speedfreak: $500 is a bargain! Honest!!
Yeah, especially with graphics that are DEFINITELY better than real life!!!
Posted by Big BossIt is a bargain, as Blu-Ray players by themselves would easily cost above $1000. With the PS3, you'll get a Blu-Ray player and a game machine with a bunch of capabilities for (presumably) far less than that price.
Posted by Vampiro V. EmpireAssuming it's not like the PS2's DVD player, which was pretty terrible compared to the stand-alones. So though it may be a "bargin" you might be getting a player of lesser quality.
Posted by Vampnagel P. WingpireHere's to waiting a few years until a price drop.
Posted by mufflaamen cheers
Posted by Speedfreak[quote=Big Boss][FONT=trebuchet ms][COLOR=yellowgreen]It is a bargain, as Blu-Ray players by themselves would easily cost above $1000. With the PS3, you'll get a Blu-Ray player and a game machine with a bunch of capabilities for (presumably) far less than that price.[/COLOR][/FONT]
According to your logic Xbox 360 is a bargain because to get the same kind of power on a PC it'd cost about a grand.
You're missing the point, customers decide what's a bargain and what isn't. PS3 isn't a bargain, it's a games console and fancy DVD player that costs five hundred f[COLOR=lightgreen]u[/COLOR]cking dollars.
Posted by WILLETH FOR MONTHS[quote="Sony"]Hey, guys! Our console's going to launch around the same time as the 360! Oh, wait. No it's not. We just wanted to take away their market.
Hey, but you know what? It's going to be $500! Actually, hah, no it's not. It'll be about $350. But now, you think that's a bargain! We are the masters of trickery!
Sony aren't stupid. They're brilliant at manipulating customers. I can guarantee that while PS3 may have shortages at launch, there will be a warehouse full of the things that they're just trickling into the market.
Hype and publicity. Even all the bad press for being the cost of an entire third world country can work in their favour.
Posted by brownoystercult
Quoting Speedfreak: PS3 is a bargain, it's a gaming console and fancy DVD player that costs five hundred dollars.
I agree!:link:
Posted by Demonbladei get senior airman in december...with that pay raise... i can easily afford the PS3.
Posted by Big Boss
Quoting Speedfreak: According to your logic Xbox 360 is a bargain because to get the same kind of power on a PC it'd cost about a grand.
You're missing the point, customers decide what's a bargain and what isn't. PS3 isn't a bargain, it's a games console and fancy DVD player that costs five hundred f[COLOR=lightgreen]u[/COLOR]cking dollars.
Another customer, who isn't a gamer, might be out to get a Blu-ray player, and will buy a PS3 because it's cheap and because it offers gaming capabilities on the side if he or she ever decides to play. To him or her, it'll play movies first and games second, and it isn't like Sony calls it a game console, so the costumer isn't wrong. To that costumer, the system is a bargain.
Posted by Linko_16Those who can will still pay. I'm sorely irritated by this, but I'm still thinking, "well, I'll still get it eventually because I don't want to miss out." I hope Wings's theory is correct.
Posted by WILLETH FOR MONTHSBig Boss - it's got the name PlayStation on it. No-ones going to buy it for a Blu-Ray player first and a console second; do you know anyone who did that for DVD with the PS2? Do you know anyone, even, who did that with the PSP - a closer comparison, seeing as it's a newer format?
I call bollocks. Blu-Ray might be what sways the decision, but PS3 will remain a console, first and foremost. Not only that, but to me it seems like Blu-Ray is the Betamax of this era.
Posted by Vampiro V. EmpireYeah, I gotta agree with Wings. People will buy it for it's gaming capabilities, everything else will just be a "bonus". Of course Sony will market it otherwise, but the audience will still be the same: those who want a powerful console that just so happens to do more than play games.
Posted by WILLETH FOR MONTHS
Quoting Vampiro: Yeah, I gotta agree with Wings.
This is happening with bizarre regularity as of late. I'm scared.
Posted by Big Boss
Quoting Wings: do you know anyone who did that for DVD with the PS2?
Absolutely. I was actually thinking of bringing up the PS2 as an example of that happening. Consumers can be aware that it's primarily a gaming console, but that hasn't stopped them from getting a PS2 just for the DVD capabilities because, at the time, it was cheaper than getting just a DVD player. Sure, it's hard to see it when we're all gamers or work for a gaming-only store, but it's happened. And yes, same with the PSP. The PSP is sold, like in Best Buy (to name one), in the gaming section as well as the cellphone/iPod/whateveryoucallit section. These units don't sell just in the gaming sections. They may be a very small, insignificant percentage of everyone that buys them, but it's there.
Posted by WILLETH FOR MONTHSWell, given that it's a small, insignificant percentage, I'd say that it makes your point moot. While some people might do as you say, that's not how Sony will make their money.
Posted by Big Boss
Quoting Wings: Well, given that it's a small, insignificant percentage, I'd say that it makes your point moot. While some people might do as you say, that's not how Sony will make their money.
My point was never that Sony makes good money off those consumers. I was merely pointing out why it says in the article that it's a bargain, since it apparently went over people's heads in this thread. The article doesn't talk about it as just a game machine, but as how all its other features make the whole system cheaper than it actually could be.
Posted by Decadopeople will use that as justification.
Hmm.. i can't really spend $500 on a console... but $500 on a console AND a new gen movie player, well thats not so bad, i think i'll buy it.
Posted by Vampiro V. Empire
Quoted post: I was merely pointing out why it says in the article that it's a bargain, since it apparently went over people's heads in this thread.
I don't believe it went over anyone's head. It's just that most of us are looking at what it, well, actually is: a gaming machine. And in that case, it's no bargain. Plus, like I said, chances are the Blu-Ray drive will be of ****ty quality. Or even worse, like Wings said, Blu-Ray might not be even succeed. Thus making it an utter waste of cash.
Posted by Speedfreak[quote=Big Boss][FONT=trebuchet ms][COLOR=yellowgreen]Another customer, who isn't a gamer, might be out to get a Blu-ray player, and will buy a PS3 because it's cheap and because it offers gaming capabilities on the side if he or she ever decides to play. To him or her, it'll play movies first and games second, and it isn't like Sony calls it a game console, so the costumer isn't wrong. To that costumer, the system is a bargain.[/COLOR][/FONT]
Dream on, no one even wants these next-gen DVD formats. They've only just built up a library of DVDs. You think they're going to be totally okay with buying that library again on expensive Blu-Ray discs? I don't think so. Maybe you'll get this core audience of hardcore techies wanting the best of every technology, but for the most part people simply just don't want them. Hell, the fact that VHS is still in business should serve as a warning that DVD isn't even fully mature yet.
Posted by WILLETH FOR MONTHSExactly. I still have audio cassettes that I don't want to re-buy on CD.
I'm beginning to think you're a shill, BB.
Posted by Prince Shondronai
Quoting Wings: I'm beginning to think you're a shill, BB.
Come, now. You've been around long enough to get way past the beginning.
Posted by Big BossI'm not saying they'll succeed with introducing Blu-Ray as a movie playing format. I'm saying there will be people that will get it just for that. There's always a percentage, and Sony is aiming at making the PS3 attractive to more than just gamers. Unlike Nintendo, they're not concentrating fully on getting non-gamers into games, but getting people with non-gaming interests to enjoy their non-gaming hobbies from Sony's system. Whether that percentage will grow to the point of being a market influence remains to be seen, although I don't see how it'll happen in the immediate future. Again, I was merely stating what the article was pointing out as a "bargain."
My personal opinion is, I'm glad as both an aspiring developer and a gamer that they're going for the Blu-ray format. I'll enjoy the space it provides, and I won't have to worry about designers cutting stuff out because they ran out of space on the DVD (MGS3 postmortem), or having to switch from one disc to the next in the middle of a game (PS1 games and some GCN titles). I don't care about the success of Blu-ray as a multimedia format, although its perseverance would allow the format to stay in business for future consoles (something I would like). I don't care for its movie-playing capabilities, as I have a growing DVD collection that probably this whole forum can't put together, and my Xbox 360 is the player I use to enjoy it whenever possible.
I hope that's clear enough.
Posted by WILLETH FOR MONTHSYeah, pretty clear. But anyone who's an early adopter of Blu-Ray is likely to know their stuff, and most of those won't want a rubbish player; they'll shell out $500 for the actual ones, for example. Not only that, but as a DVD player, the PS3 isn't exactly a looker.
These people will make up less than around 3% of the market. While it might be a bargain to them, it's only being advertised as a bargain to try and increase that percentage - in reality, to everyone else who wants a gaming console, it's not. At all.
I guess if you get a PS3, and Blu-Ray becomes massively popular, then yeah, okay, you've got a half-decent player. I only play my DVDs on PS2, for example. But - I pretty much did without DVD until I decided to get a PS2 late last year. I was happy with VHS, and it was only when films started not being released on DVD did I start buying them; even later when I bought a DVD drive for my PC, even later when I bought a PS2. Even if people don't want to re-buy all their films, the fact remains that they've still got an assload of DVDs (I myself have about 200-odd, now). If they have to have a separate unti to play them, it makes it seem a lot less like a bargain. Buyer's remorse kicks in and the consumer feels resentful towards Sony.
I mean, 360 can play DVDs out of the box. Revolution can play them with an add-on, but still significantly cheaper than the 360 and PS3. PS3 can't play DVDs. You have a lot of DVDs, and want to buy a next-gen console. You're more likely to go for the 360, really.
Shondronai: Oh snap.
Posted by SpeedfreakI don't get it. Whenever I tried to say PS2 was a total ripoff for being more expensive than a Gamecube you said their worth had nothing to do with hardware. Now, since Sony said it, it magically does?
Posted by Unitehmm nice see estimate on price, still it will probably come out for 500 canadian after taxes. wtf is speedfreak doing in this thread he isn't even buying one.
Posted by WILLETH FOR MONTHSBecause it's a valid point. The price is one of the main reasons he's not buying one (and myself as well, to be honest).
Posted by Unite
Quoting Wings: Because it's a valid point. The price is one of the main reasons he's not buying one (and myself as well, to be honest).
lol you and I know price isn't the reason for why he isn't buying one.
Posted by WILLETH FOR MONTHSWhile it may not be the reason, it's certainly a reason.
I know him better than you do, shush.
Posted by Unite
Quoting Wings: While it may not be the reason, it's certainly a reason.
I know him better than you do, shush.
It may be a reason for you, but not for him. They could sell it at 50 and you would still see him moaning.
Posted by SpeedfreakI am buying one. I'm buying 2, actually. One to sell to some rich fanboy idiot who didn't, which will cover the costs of the 2nd one plus a tidy profit. If Sony weren't so gay with their ridiculous proprietary formats that no one fucking wants then I wouldn't have to do that.
Oh, and this just in, UMD bit the dust. Sony's own studios are dropping support and Wal-mart doesn't stock them anymore. Next up, Slo-Ray!
Posted by Big Boss
Quoting Wings: Yeah, pretty clear. But anyone who's an early adopter of Blu-Ray is likely to know their stuff, and most of those won't want a rubbish player; they'll shell out $500 for the actual ones, for example. Not only that, but as a DVD player, the PS3 isn't exactly a looker.
These people will make up less than around 3% of the market. While it might be a bargain to them, it's only being advertised as a bargain to try and increase that percentage - in reality, to everyone else who wants a gaming console, it's not. At all.
I guess if you get a PS3, and Blu-Ray becomes massively popular, then yeah, okay, you've got a half-decent player. I only play my DVDs on PS2, for example. But - I pretty much did without DVD until I decided to get a PS2 late last year. I was happy with VHS, and it was only when films started not being released on DVD did I start buying them; even later when I bought a DVD drive for my PC, even later when I bought a PS2. Even if people don't want to re-buy all their films, the fact remains that they've still got an assload of DVDs (I myself have about 200-odd, now). If they have to have a separate unti to play them, it makes it seem a lot less like a bargain. Buyer's remorse kicks in and the consumer feels resentful towards Sony.
I mean, 360 can play DVDs out of the box. Revolution can play them with an add-on, but still significantly cheaper than the 360 and PS3. PS3 can't play DVDs. You have a lot of DVDs, and want to buy a next-gen console. You're more likely to go for the 360, really.
I agree, although I'm not sure if the PS3 can't play DVDs. Not that it matters to me, but I haven't read anything that says it won't. As for being happy with VHS, I must say I am surprised. I can't recall a store I've been to that still sells VHS tapes, or has for the past two years. Best Buy and Circuit City haven't had them for as long as 3 years, if my memory serves me right, so I imagine that people who were happy with their VHS tapes up until a year ago or so are in the very small minority. If VHS was in any good shape, nationwide retailers would still be carrying movies in that format. Still, like I've said before, I don't see how Blu-ray can succeed like the DVD did.
[quote=Speedfreak]I don't get it. Whenever I tried to say PS2 was a total ripoff for being more expensive than a Gamecube you said their worth had nothing to do with hardware. Now, since Sony said it, it magically does?
If you're talking to me, the reason the PS2 is more expensive than the GCN was because of the DVD player and the fact that Sony could get away with selling the console at a higher price, since they kept selling a lot more units than Nintendo's console. The PS2's worth to me is totally different though, and has nothing to do with what Sony says or doesn't. To me, a system that continually showcased great games was worth spending twice as much money over an Xbox and GCN (considering I have, like, twice the library for it). That's just what I feel, but again, it has nothing to do with the reasons why Sony sells their system at a higher price than the GCN.
As for your earlier comment, Wings, on being shill, I try to play devil's advocate in these forums. Of course you are going to see me defend Sony here, because all people post about the console war is how bad Sony is and how good and innovative and blah blabh Nintendo is. I remember when Speedfreak himself used to say Sony sucked for appealing to the casual gamer, while Nintendo "stuck to its roots" and appealed to the "true hardcore gamers." Now, Nintendo more than ever is appealing to the casual and non-gamers, but now it's praising time! Many people have defended Nintendo without giving a good argument and nobody here points the finger to them. One guy defends an article about Sony, and it's an all out debate war. People take joy in any **** up Sony does, and not one of them can make a thread that is remotely positive about Sony. I mean, just look at this:
[quote=Speedfreak]Oh, and this just in, UMD bit the dust. Sony's own studios are dropping support and Wal-mart doesn't stock them anymore. Next up, Slo-Ray!
But I don't remember him making fun of Nintendo's stupid decision to support cartridges, single-handedly lending the console wars to Sony on a silver platter. That was something to laugh at. It still is today. So, it is this type of bias that propels me to present a counterpoint (when possible) whenever people here rag on Sony, which if often.
I do the same over at G.A.P. I pointed out numerous times how important an online structure was for the PS3, and how the 360 would have the upper hand unless they came up with something, and this was long before the PS3 announced their online plans. I've defended the Revolution on its innovation (after the initial reaction of the controller being a remote) on that same fanboy-infested Sony forums. From looking at this place, you'd think VGChat was Nintendo-owned.
Posted by WILLETH FOR MONTHS
Quoting Big Boss: Now, Nintendo more than ever is appealing to the casual and non-gamers, but now it's praising time!
The difference is that Nintendo are appealing to both, whereas Sony seem to have ignored the core market, which can only really lead to stagnation of the industry.
And, uh. You know this site was formed from WoN, right?
Posted by Speedfreak[quote=Big Boss][FONT=trebuchet ms][COLOR=yellowgreen]If you're talking to me, the reason the PS2 is more expensive than the GCN was because of the DVD player and the fact that Sony could get away with selling the console at a higher price, since they kept selling a lot more units than Nintendo's console. The PS2's worth to me is totally different though, and has nothing to do with what Sony says or doesn't. To me, a system that continually showcased great games was worth spending twice as much money over an Xbox and GCN (considering I have, like, twice the library for it). That's just what I feel, but again, it has nothing to do with the reasons why Sony sells their system at a higher price than the GCN.[/COLOR][/FONT]
[COLOR=yellowgreen][COLOR=palegreen]I don't think you answered my question. Is PS2 a ripoff for being more expensive than the technically superior GameCube, or is better value because customers decide what value actually is? [/COLOR][/COLOR]
[COLOR=yellowgreen][COLOR=palegreen]If the former, thanks for admitting it.[/COLOR][/COLOR]
[COLOR=yellowgreen][COLOR=palegreen]If the latter, welcome to my point. No one wants Blu-Ray, G[COLOR=lightgreen]o[/COLOR]dda[COLOR=lightgreen]m[/COLOR]nit, so why would $500 for a games console with a feature most people don't give a s[COLOR=lightgreen]h[/COLOR]it about be a bargain?[/COLOR][/COLOR]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS][COLOR=#98fb98][/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=trebuchet ms][COLOR=yellowgreen]
[/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=trebuchet ms][COLOR=yellowgreen][quote]But I don't remember him making fun of Nintendo's stupid decision to support cartridges, single-handedly lending the console wars to Sony on a silver platter. That was something to laugh at. It still is today. So, it is this type of bias that propels me to present a counterpoint (when possible) whenever people here rag on Sony, which if often.
[COLOR=palegreen]Oh sure, because that's the sole reason the N64 lost to the Playstation! It had absolutely nothing to do with the year head start Playstation had, or the fact that the vast majority of 3rd parties absolutely despised both Sega and Nintendo at that point. [/COLOR]
[COLOR=palegreen]The fact that the top ten best selling N64 games outsold the top ten best selling PS1 games doesn't at all suggest that CDs don't automatically led to better games, either![/COLOR]
[COLOR=palegreen]I mean, if Square doesn't have enough space then NO ONE does, right?[/COLOR]
[COLOR=palegreen]Especially with handhelds, I mean just look at all those Square games coming out for PSP! There's no WAY they'd fit on a puny 128MB cart when they have a full 1.6GB at their disposal![/COLOR]
[COLOR=palegreen]This arguement is horse s[COLOR=lightgreen]h[/COLOR]it and you know it. If you seriously think the fate of the N64/PS1 era was decided when Nintendo picked cartridges then get your a[COLOR=lightgreen]s[/COLOR]s on the internet and do some f[COLOR=lightgreen]u[/COLOR]cking research, this industry is much more complicated than that.[/COLOR]
[quote]I do the same over at G.A.P. I pointed out numerous times how important an online structure was for the PS3, and how the 360 would have the upper hand unless they came up with something, and this was long before the PS3 announced their online plans. I've defended the Revolution on its innovation (after the initial reaction of the controller being a remote) on that same fanboy-infested Sony forums. From looking at this place, you'd think VGChat was Nintendo-owned.[/COLOR][/FONT]
[COLOR=palegreen]I think you'll find the majority of gaming forums have a bias one way or the other. [/COLOR]
[COLOR=palegreen]I think it's pretty clear that you're implying that I have some kind grudge against Sony. If that's true then why am I planning on getting a PS3 on launch, why do I own a PS2 with an average-sized and growing game library? [/COLOR]
[COLOR=palegreen]I don't hate Sony products, I hate Sony's bulls[COLOR=lightgreen]h[/COLOR]it. [/COLOR]
[COLOR=palegreen]I hate the way they treat consumers like complete imbeciles, like with their Cell hype, and pre-rendered footage and trying to convince us that a restrictive-disc-format-playing games console is a bargain at $500.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=palegreen]I hate when they don't even figure consumers into the equation in the case of DRM and rootkits.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=palegreen]But most of all, I hate the way that they plainly don't give a crap about the games industry, just use it as a vessel to peddle their ridiculous physical storage formats which will very soon become completely obsolete.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#98fb98]Don't be so surprised that people rag on Sony more than anyone else, they're exactly the people Sony are hurting. Nintendo make just as much stupid mistakes as Sony do, the difference is Nintendo's mistakes aren't pi[COLOR=lightgreen]s[/COLOR]sing people off.[/COLOR]
Posted by Big Boss
Quoting Speedfreak][COLOR=palegreen]I don't think you answered my question. Is PS2 a ripoff for being more expensive than the technically superior GameCube, or is better value because customers decide what value actually is? [/COLOR]
You're asking two different questions. You're asking, first, whether or not I think the PS2 is a rip-off, and then you're asking how a $500 PS3 is a bargain. I don't think it's a bargain because I care about its gaming functionality over its ability to play movies or do other non-gaming functions, but the article calls it a bargain based on the components and features that the system will offer. From their point of view, and to the very few people that will get it for the Blu-ray player, it is a bargain. So, it depends on what point of view you're looking for. There's not one straight answer. I don't think it's a rip-off either though, as I find its price to be a lot more reasonable than its cost. I'm in a position where I can measure the cost against the retail price and see Sony is sacrificing a lot more by pricing its system so low in comparison to Microsoft, for example. If my memory serves me right, Microsoft is only losing a $100 on every system sold, while Sony would be losing upwards of $400 if the rumors are true that it costs $900 to make.
Like you claimed below, the industry is too complicated, and a simple yes or no question as to why it's a bargain can't be answered as easily.
[QUOTE=Speedfreak][COLOR=palegreen]Oh sure, because that's the sole reason the N64 lost to the Playstation! It had absolutely nothing to do with the year head start Playstation had, or the fact that the vast majority of 3rd parties absolutely despised both Sega and Nintendo at that point.
The fact that the top ten best selling N64 games outsold the top ten best selling PS1 games doesn't at all suggest that CDs don't automatically led to better games, either!
I mean, if Square doesn't have enough space then NO ONE does, right?
Especially with handhelds, I mean just look at all those Square games coming out for PSP! There's no WAY they'd fit on a puny 128MB cart when they have a full 1.6GB at their disposal!
This arguement is horse s[COLOR=lightgreen]h[/COLOR]it and you know it. If you seriously think the fate of the N64/PS1 era was decided when Nintendo picked cartridges then get your a[COLOR=lightgreen]s[/COLOR]s on the internet and do some f[COLOR=lightgreen]u[/COLOR]cking research, this industry is much more complicated than that.[/color]
A number of factors contributed to Sony overpowering Nintendo in the console wars, but there was no bigger influence than the choice between cartridges and CDs. Now, I understand that you may disagree with how much this decision changed the industry as opposed to the other factors' roles in that shift of power. Maybe we'll never agree on this, so all I can do is tell you why I see it as the defining factor. You must admit, however, that what factor influenced most is just a matter of opinion. All the research in the world won't give you a clear-cut, irrefutable answer. In any case, here's my two cents.
Videogame companies have a history of not taking risks. Fewer risks were taken after the NES was introduced because the industry was growing. The more time passed, the more the industry grew and the more important it was for companies to not make mistakes.
When word got out that Sony was making a videogame console, (I don't know if you were old enough to see this firsthand) the industry laughed. Even people within Sony's different branches firmly believed Sony would fail at introducing their own game console in the industry. Do you really think game companies were eager to jump ship to a brand new contender when consumers, analysts, industry professionals and even a big portion of Sony itself had no hopes for the console?
I believe they weren't. I don't think they were thrilled to break away from the top dog of the industry, Nintendo, no matter how many things the company did to upset third-party publishers and developers. They were safe and secure as long as they stuck with the mainstay and icon of the gaming industry, Nintendo.
However, as time went on the industry got a good grasp of what each hardware publisher was going to do with their systems. The PlayStation, which would be CD-based as well as the Saturn, was priced at $100 less than Sega's console. Nintendo, on the other hand, choosing to stay with cartridges alienated third-party developers instantly. It was the one push they needed to completely break off and start anew. Many statements from developers at the time, from Konami to Capcom to Square employees (to name just the big ones), are not hard to find online. Quotes can be found on their praise on the hardware for being easier and cheaper to develop for over the N64, citing such things as high fees they had to pay to Nintendo since cartridges took longer and were more expensive to make. Many of them cite the PS as allowing designers to expand on their creativity, and I believe you can find a statement from Square representatives being very clear about how that was a big decision in leaving Nintendo for Sony. They even used FFVII as an example, which is (as we all know) one of the most popular games ever. You don't even have to argue this with me. I wasn't the one that said all those things back when Nintendo was getting their slap of reality. Argue with them. Tell them they're wrong. I mean, what do they know? They're just the ones making the actual games.
Well, that's why I feel very confident about which was the most significant reason for developers leaving Nintendo. As for your argument about sales, where's the data? In fact, don't bother. Let's assume that's the case. Well... do sales determine the quality of a game? Come on, you know better than that. Plus, a lot of people, such as journalists and industry professionals, have made a better argument that I'll ever make about how important CD-based games, such as Metal Gear Solid and Final Fantasy VII, could only be made with their unique, revolutionary features on the PlayStation hardware and not on the N64.
[quote][COLOR=palegreen]I think you'll find the majority of gaming forums have a bias one way or the other.
I think it's pretty clear that you're implying that I have some kind grudge against Sony. If that's true then why am I planning on getting a PS3 on launch, why do I own a PS2 with an average-sized and growing game library? [/COLOR]
I don't know. Maybe you want to prove to yourself and others that, by buying all three consoles, you're automatically excluded from being pointed out as a fanboy. That, by having a (dusty) PS3 in your room, you'll have an automatic right to bash on the system as freely as possible, because, HEY, you own it! You know what you're talking about! You have the PS3 and you think it sucks! Can't argue with that!
Then again, I'm just guessing. I really don't have a clue.
BUT, I do have solid grounds on believing you have some sort of grudge against Sony. Your threads, whenever they're about Sony, are always about something negative. About some bad news for Sony. When they're not about Sony, they're about how Nintendo is all fine and dandy. I even remember FreddyG making a thread about how he had realized that Nintendo was going to be the best choice for the next generation after having a private talk with you. If I didn't know better, I'd think you were in a campaign to drive people away from Sony. Also, it's easier to find posts of you making fun of Sony than any other console manufacturer. Every time there's some bad news on Sony, I know you'll be first in line with the report here. However, it always falls on my lap, as a result, to deal with the positive Sony news, but I honestly don't have the time to keep up with you!
Now, I'm not saying you're a fanboy, but you may realize that Sony is like an annoying chip on your shoulder and you don't want to make it too obvious for fear of unjustly being called a fanboy in the middle of an argument with someone, derailing it for good. We've all seen it happen to Prince. People like boomstick and Vampiro (to name just a couple of recent examples) have seen on their own just how... delusional he is about everything. Anyone that has had a lasting debate with him comes out having the same worries I did when I used to be silly enough to pay attention to him. I mean, he may have a plan to wire all Sony buildings with bombs as they are about to launch the PS3, or worse yet, he might send them those horrible scans/pictures of that "game" his "company" was making. Of all unholy acts...
Sorry about that. I got off track playing a game of tag. But, don't worry; I don't think you're a fanboy. I just think you don't like Sony. I see that you've, out of seemingly nowhere, acquired a good tech knowledge that definitely points to your doing research, and that's something I respect. You'll be doing research for the rest of your life if you decide to work in the industry.
I do have to say one thing, though. While I see your points, saying Sony doesn't care about the industry is a little extreme. For a company to green-light a game like Shadow of the Colossus alone shows there are enough people in important places at Sony that care. How else can you explain Sony releasing a "sequel" to ICO, a game that sold, quite frankly, like crap on a stick? And especially in this day and age where releasing a new property with unique gameplay can make a company lose a lot of money in a sea of popular franchises? They had to care. David Jaffe supports Sony for letting their teams be creative, for making the games they want, and anyone that knows anything about Jaffe knows he is anything but afraid to say what's on his mind, and he hasn't been shy on expressing any displeasure he has with Sony. Now, I see that as a company that cares. But, as big as Sony is, there are bound to be people that care only about the $$$. So blame them, but don't point the company as a whole to be uncaring, because I assure you there are a lot of people that work there and love the industry... and it's not just the playtesters. :)
[quote][COLOR=#98fb98]Don't be so surprised that people rag on Sony more than anyone else, they're exactly the people Sony are hurting. Nintendo make just as much stupid mistakes as Sony do, the difference is Nintendo's mistakes aren't pi[COLOR=lightgreen]s[/COLOR]sing people off.[/COLOR]
Oh, but I only see it here. Everywhere else that isn't a Sony-only or Microsoft-only forum, all three are attacked equally. Here, though, it's just all against Sony, so I'm inclined to support them more often here.
Wings: I've always known. I know where the love-Nintendo/hate-Sony atmosphere comes from. I'm just trying, once every few months when I make posts this inhumanly long, to balance things out. It's more fun when there are "even numbers" supporting each company. But, I've found that in school by the dozens, so that's probably another reason why I don't post as much anymore.
Posted by Unite
Quoting Speedfreak: I am buying one. I'm buying 2, actually. One to sell to some rich fanboy idiot who didn't, which will cover the costs of the 2nd one plus a tidy profit. If Sony weren't so gay with their ridiculous proprietary formats that no one fucking wants then I wouldn't have to do that.
Oh, and this just in, UMD bit the dust. Sony's own studios are dropping support and Wal-mart doesn't stock them anymore. Next up, Slo-Ray!
Strange why your even buying one with all your hate , but i agree with big boss on this one. I rather see that ps3 go to someone who really wants it. Rather than collecting dust in a haters room.
Posted by SpeedfreakThe dustiest console is my Xbox, actually. I've been playing my PS2 all weekend, Shadow of the Colossus and Dragonball Z Budokai Tankaichi. I also bought Devil May Cry on Friday but I haven't played it yet.
Believe it or not, I'm looking forward to MGS3: Subsistence getting released here (June), aswell as playing MGS4 (though truth be told that's the only PS3 game I'm looking forward to right now, but it's still 1 more than Xbox 360).
As a matter of fact, owning all 3 systems does mean I'm not a fanboy, because a fanboy would refuse to ever play them, let alone buy them. I own then play them and buy games for them on a regular basis. I've been buying games for my PS2 at roughly the same rate as I have for Gamecube, and at a faster rate than Xbox.
Am I biased? Of course, I'm only human! I'm willing to bet you can admit your share of biases too, but I'm not the one accusing your purchase of a Gamecube being a token effort against fanboyism. I geniunely believe that there are a fair share of games on that system that you'd describe as "kickass"; I'm the exact same way with my PS2.
Let me get this straight, you think an ethernet port (worth about £2) and a DVD player (you can get those for a tenner) is reason enough for PS2 to cost £50 more than a Gamecube? Okay, lets be fair, broadband adapters cost about £10, and a DVD player costs another £10. PS2 is still more expensive by £30! How the heck is that better value for a technically inferior machine with half the controller ports (multitap costs another tenner)? Heck, why even compare it to Gamecube? Xbox is still cheaper than PS2, are you willing to contest that Xbox has less features than PS2?
My reasoning for thinking storage format is such a small factor has been proven by history numerous times.
PSP is losing to DS despite having 10 times the storage space.
Saturn lost to the N64 and PS1, despite using CDs and being more popular than PS1 at first.
Xbox lost to PS2, despite having a hard drive.
Gameboy has always been the weakest system with the smallest storage format, yet it still won.
MegaDrive actually had carts larger than the SNESs, yet it still wasn't enough to ensure victory.
Sega Master System had more ROM space than NES carts, too.
Face it, man! Storage format is an even smaller factor than technical specifications. It's always been about the games, and a good game producer can fit a great game onto pretty much anything. The fact that Square are supporting DS more than PSP is proof of that.
I think SCE care about the games industry, it's their business after all. But Sony as a whole? They see the games industry as a trojan horse to market their ridiculous technologies (Cell, Blu-Ray, UMD and Memory Sticks). I'd love it if most of Sony collapsed and SCE were the only part left standing, because so far SCE have yet to do anything that pisses me off that wasn't an order from above, aside from Ken Kuturagi's crazy ramblings and their pre-rendered footage (and most companies are guilty of that). When I look at SCE I see Eyetoy, SotC and Socom. That's a commitment to innovation and quality that the rest of the company just doesn't have.
Everyone complains about every single company, Nintendo with their constant stupid screwups and risky new directions, Microsoft with their hostility to most of their Windows developers; but Sony are the only ones you'll find boycotts for because of how they treat their customers. Development staff will complain about Nintendo, development companies, and indeed entire continents will complain about Microsoft, but consumers complain about Sony. That is the key, crucial difference.
Posted by m4rkoticIf the price is at 500$, whats the price of the games gonna be? But still, even though 500$ is way up there, its okay. I heard the blue ray will be even expensiver alone.
Posted by Vampiro V. Empire
Quoted post: If the price is at 500$, whats the price of the games gonna be? But still, even though 500$ is way up there, its okay. I heard the blue ray will be even expensiver alone.
More expensive*
And chances are you'll see an increase of ten dollars in games. Just like with the 360. And yes, the blu-ray players will be more expensive - around $1000. But they'll also, probably, be of better quality.
Posted by HyperWhereas Rev games should be even cheaper (if not equal to) current-gen games, from what I've read :D
Posted by SpeedfreakRev games will be the same price. They wouldn't be cheaper because Revolution is still more powerful than GameCube, so dev costs should be slightly higher. Funny thing is GC games were still about a third cheaper to make than Xbox games, and about half the price of PS2 games.
Posted by HyperOdd, I know I read somewhere that they could drop in price.
Posted by Vampiro V. EmpirePretty sure the quote was something like "I could never see the price of games being as much as [the 360's?]". Then later who ever it was said the simpler games would be priced cheaper than current-gen games. But the regular titles would still be the same.
Posted by HyperOooh, okay, that does sound familiar. Thanks.
Posted by WILLETH FOR MONTHSWell, technology prices depreciate and techniques improve. Given that the Revolution architecture is very similar to the GameCube, all the learning's already been done as to how to make the games - I don't see the prices being any more than £40, as per usual. It also allows the pricing edge on the others, as well.
Posted by SpeedfreakIt's not the price of technology that pushes game dev costs up, it's the cost of people. Paying 40 people 30 grand salaries for 3 years costs millions.
The higher resolution the textures or models, the more complex the AI or physics, the more huge levels you need all require more artists, programmers and designers.
You have to make a decision between having the same amount of people and taking longer to make the game or having more people and making it in the same amount of time, and usually the former isn't viable.
Revolution bypasses it because it's not as powerful as the other two, thus is can't handle all these higher polygon models and higher resolution textures, thus you don't need to make them, thus development is cheaper.
Posted by WILLETH FOR MONTHSWell, yes, but for one, Blu-Ray discs are going to be very expensive, at least at first. You can jack the price up a bit to accommodate for that - that's really what I meant about the new technology.
As to the other point - at the start of a console's lifecycle, a lot of time is wrapped up in actually understanding how the system works. Only now are people really coming around to what the PS2 can do and how to do it, for example. Given that the GameCube and Revolution are very similar, developers already know how to makes games for it. That means that a lot of dev time can be cut out, because tricks and tweaks that worked before will still work here, not to mention the fact that engines and whatnot can be re-used, for the most part.
Posted by SpeedfreakBR discs dount account for dev costs, but they would be a factor in game prices.
I suppose not knowing the hardwae could affect development, but I think that'd affect the quality of the final game more than the costs.
Posted by WILLETH FOR MONTHS
Quoting Speedfreak: BR discs dount account for dev costs, but they would be a factor in game prices.
The whole point of talking about the dev costs was to determine why the Rev game prices would be lower than the other consoles. Remember?
And I think you're looking at my other point the wrong way. To create a game of the same quality for a console you know, as opposed to a console you don't, would be quicker, and hence cheaper.
Posted by SpeedfreakNot really. There's already a limit to what you can get out of a Gamecube. Regardless of how familiar you are with an Xbox 360 you'll still get much more out of that than you would a Gamecube even though you're not pushing it.
Posted by WILLETH FOR MONTHSUgh. Yes. But with Revolution you don't have to re-learn how to get good results. With 360 you do.
Posted by SpeedfreakNot necessarily. To get maximum quality out of a Gamecube would be harder than getting the same level of quality out of an Xbox 360, because there wouldn't be any struggling to fit things onto a disc, wouldn't need to worry about optimising code as much etc.
Posted by DecadoThe coding language is still the same. It may be harder to get the maximum out of a new/unfamiliar console, but it will still be easy to get more out of it than the maximum of an inferior console.
Posted by SpeedfreakYeah, that's pretty much what I just said.
Posted by KestrylWhether it's a bargain or not, $500 is still expensive for a lot of people.
If Sony's gonna get my business, there better be a heck of a selection of games for the PS3.
Hey, just a question, does anyone know how much a PS3 costs to make?
Posted by SpeedfreakMore than $500, that's for sure. Sony hasn't released any figures, but estimates are 700-900 dollars.