Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Game Publishers Pressuring Sony For PS3 Price Cut

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the i-can-get-behind-that dept.

PlayStation (Games) 232

Bloomberg is running a story about several video game publishers and developers who are pushing for a long overdue price cut on Sony's PS3 console. Sales of the PS3 are lagging behind both the Wii and the Xbox 360 despite the PS2's resounding victory in sales of the previous generation of consoles. One of the creators of LittleBigPlanet, a PS3 exclusive, made similar comments in an interview with Gamasutra, acknowledging that they're looking forward to the day Sony drops the PS3's price. An analyst from Janco said such an action is necessary if Sony doesn't want to "lose support from game developers and publishers."

cancel ×

232 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Not according to Kaz Hirai (5, Insightful)

Macthorpe (960048) | more than 5 years ago | (#27238855)

The only way Sony can win is if they pretend they're not competing with Nintendo, [guardian.co.uk] and say that the Xbox 360 will be surpassed in 10 years. This conveniently ignores the high probability that the PS3 will be completely dead in ten years if they don't do something now.

Kaz Hirai is a lunatic and he's going to run the PS3 into the ground.

Re:Not according to Kaz Hirai (0, Troll)

ThePhilips (752041) | more than 5 years ago | (#27238903)

The only way Sony can win is if they pretend they're not competing with Nintendo, [guardian.co.uk] and say that the Xbox 360 will be surpassed in 10 years. This conveniently ignores the high probability that the PS3 will be completely dead in ten years if they don't do something now.

I actually agree that PS3 would outsell Xbox360 in 10 years. (Probably even Wii.) The problem for Sony here is that in 10 years, MSFT would already release Xbox1440 and Nintendo - Wiiii.

Kaz Hirai is a lunatic and he's going to run the PS3 into the ground.

Japs traditionally do things with devotion. And devoted people tend to make themselves believe in what they say.

It's not like in the situation Sony management can do anything radical. They have to balance profits with long term plans. They invested lots of time/money and have no choice but to push whatever they have for sale - at a price which has a distant chance of turning a profit.

For whatever reason PS3/BD fails - management heads in Sony would roll. It doesn't matter how it would fail - it would be spectacular. That means the management to succeed have to put a kind smile on and try to sell it more aggressively.

Re:Not according to Kaz Hirai (5, Insightful)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 5 years ago | (#27239255)

I actually agree that PS3 would outsell Xbox360 in 10 years.

I doubt that. I don't think the system will stay alive that long, even if Sony doesn't give up on it the moment the PS4 releases they'll have a hard time gettimg more games for a system that is no longer a new system but not a huge market in the old generation either (and no more games support = no more sales). The PS2 received support for so long because it sold so much, it just made sense to put games there even with the new consoles taking off because the PS2 market is huge but the PS3 won't have that advantage, if anyone will then the Wii. Sony could artificially force a 10 year lifespan by making games for it themselves but the dev teams working on that are dev teams who won't be working on PS4 games in that time. Of course Sony can say "there's no point in a PS4, let's keep the PS3 going instead" and they might actually be right but if they're thinking like that their competition can do the same and the PS3 will remain away from the top while the competition keeps accumulating sales. I think by now Sony is like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, asking "when could we have said 'stop' and walked away?" Their situation is FUBAR by now and all they can do is hope they do better next time.

Then again their leadership is the kind that gets described as "a bunch of mindless jerks who were the first against the wall when the Wii came."

Re:Not according to Kaz Hirai (5, Insightful)

Nested (981630) | more than 5 years ago | (#27238909)

Xbox 360 will be surpassed in 10 years

I agree with your post. There's zero chance Microsoft will wait seven more years before releasing the next Xbox. Additionally, any student of MS product history will know that by version 3 of a product they've usually got the formula down and understand the market pretty well. Looking at the 360 and knowing how bad MS wants this market should keep Sony up a little later each night.

Re:Not according to Kaz Hirai (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 5 years ago | (#27239293)

There's also zero chance that Sony seriously believe the PS3 will be remotely relevant in ten years time.

It's also worth looking at Japanese companies like Canon who are putting prices up because of the result of incompetence by the banks and governments who are supposed to keep them in check playing havoc with exchange rates. Why would a company lower prices now? They don't care about 'publishers and developers' - they're working for their shareholders.

Re:Not according to Kaz Hirai (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27239377)

PS2 is still relevent today, hell it's outselling the 360 is many territories..

Re:Not according to Kaz Hirai (-1)

ookaze (227977) | more than 5 years ago | (#27239807)

dditionally, any student of MS product history will know that by version 3 of a product they've usually got the formula down and understand the market pretty well.

It's funny that you say that, because any student of MS product history also knows that :
- they typically don't understand most of the markets they enter, and don't know how to compete,
- if they can't use their OS monopoly, they usually fail hard,
- they're $6 billion in the hole with their XBox brand since launch (actually $9 billion if we count their R&D before launch),
- they typically didn't understand the videogame market, as they made a console catered essentially to hardcore gamers, which are not the mass market for consoles,
- they went after Sony, which is far from understanding the market (Nintendo made nearly as much profit as SCE during their PS reign).

SCE never understood the market, it's pretty obvious. But they had the strength and distribution channels to do what Nintendo couldn't do before : distribute their console worldwide (especially Europe) despite the constant barrage of lawsuits made to stop them.
They then thought their loss leading business model was working, and believed the market was mainly cinematic games and hardcore gamers. The logical result of that belief is the PS3, but unfortunately, while previously they were in line with the market (luck ?), they just discovered the true videogame market, and it's not in line with the PS3.

Re:Not according to Kaz Hirai (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27240107)

Wow, all that microsoft failure and yet they're still chokeslamming sony to the ground in the xbox360 vs ps3 department. So if that's what's holding ms back, what's sony's problem?

Re:Not according to Kaz Hirai (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27240277)

Yeah sure whatever you say...

Microsoft typically doesn't understand most of the markets they enter AND don't know how to compete? I suppose you think it was just falling ass backwards into luck as the reason that MS-DOS was installed on EVERY SINGLE IBM PC CLONE...

If they can't use their OS monopoly, they usually fail hard? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Monopoly. Last I checked there are at least 5 commercial Linux distributions, AND OS X... Not to mention that Xbox360 and Wii have all but crushed the PS3 out of existence.

They typically didn't understand the videogame market and made a console catered to hardcore gamers only? Yeah, Flight Simulator is HARDCORE!@#! I seem to also remember that Microsoft put up a lot of money to make one of THE MOST SUCCESSFUL and long running MMORPG's to DATE. Asheron's Call 1 anyone?

They went after Sony? Duh? Would you also be amazed to find out that McDonald's is going after Burger King? Or that Dairy Queen was going after Baskin Robins?

Whoever the fuck modded you up obviously mis-clicked the -1 Troll or Flamebait...

Re:Not according to Kaz Hirai (1)

samkass (174571) | more than 5 years ago | (#27240625)

But eventually Microsoft will have to stop subsidizing the XBox by diverting Windows and Office money to it. Anyone who's bought an XBox or XBox360 at the loss-leading prices Microsoft charges is benefiting from the Microsoft Windows/Office monopoly. Considering the billions the division has lost and the fact that even now it's barely break-even, it's going to be many many years before you could consider Microsoft truly competitive in this market.

Re:Not according to Kaz Hirai (3, Insightful)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 5 years ago | (#27239021)

The only way Sony can win is if they pretend they're not competing with Nintendo,

The reality is that they aren't competing with Nintendo - it's not even close.

People rationalized the purchase of a PS3 by saying to themselves "well, I get a blu-ray player "free" with it" ... but now that blu-ray players are under $200, that rationalization is gone - you can buy either competitor + a stand-alone BD player for the same or less. and if you're not in the market for a BD player, then it's no contest, price-wise.

Re:Not according to Kaz Hirai (2, Insightful)

hellfish006 (1000936) | more than 5 years ago | (#27239329)

in this current economic situation, when people don't want to spend a ton of money on anything. And they are looking for entertainment and don't want to invest in an entertainment center, they will go with the Wii, like they have been for 2 years now. It is in direct competition with the PS3. Nobody but highend audio and video freaks care about Blu-ray, when people look at buying the PS3 as compared to the other system its based upon games and whom they can play those games with. Thats why the 360 is destroying it and thats why the Wii is destroying both of them. Denying the wii is in competition with them is just a way for someone to feel better about their purchase. I know many people that wanted a PS3 but didn't want to pay that much and went with a Wii instead, or a Wii-360 combo.

Re:Not according to Kaz Hirai (2, Informative)

somersault (912633) | more than 5 years ago | (#27240185)

I bought a Wii and then a PS3. The Wii soon got relegated to the corner, and after a while I just gave it to one of my sisters so it would actually get some use. The PS3 isn't that expensive for what it is. I use mine as a DVD/blu-ray player, freeview PVR, I stream music and video to it from my computer to watch on my HDTV - oh, and I play the occasional game from time to time. I never even have to change the channel on the TV :)

As for cost, I'd go so far as to say the PS3 has probably paid for itself since I got PlayTV, with the amount of TV series and movies that I otherwise would have had to buy to watch (because they're on at inconvenient times). I used to buy a lot of DVDs. I've noticed my savings growing rapidly since getting PlayTV, while everyone else is busy whining and scaremongering about the economy..

So, I bought both a Wii and a PS3 and prefer the PS3. I'm not trying to "feel better about my purchase" when I say they're in different leagues. The Wii is basically 'just' a games machine; the PS3 and 360 do so much more, and IMO are signs of what to expect in the future. I'm looking forward to the next generation of consoles when everyone hopefully takes the best ideas from the Wii's control system and the PS3/Xbox's media and networking features and builds on them.

Re:Not according to Kaz Hirai (2, Insightful)

LoverOfJoy (820058) | more than 5 years ago | (#27241001)

The problem is that before their market was anyone who wants a game system. Now their market has shrunk to only those that want a game system AND a bluray player and/or a pvr and/or a digital music/video streamer. You may be in that market. I'm not in that market. Neither are MANY other people.

I don't buy tons of DVDs. I check out DVDs from the library. I don't own an HD TV. I get a satisfactory DVR from the Dish Network thrown in as part of my satellite TV package. The PS3 has little to offer me and the many others out there like me.

I don't think that the PS3 is a bad deal for EVERYONE (it does seem like it has served you splendidly) but it has a relatively small market compared to those who just want a reasonably priced game system. The PS2 had a huge market. If ALL the game systems out there had a PVR and cost in the $400+ range then the PS3's market would be pretty broad. But considering that they are competing against a much cheaper game system that didn't throw in everything and the kitchen sink their market has considerably narrowed. The wii basically stole a huge chunk of the market that Sony was previously counting on (or if they weren't counting on it, then they decided to throw away a large chunk of the market they used to have with the PS2).

Re:Not according to Kaz Hirai (5, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#27239403)

People rationalized the purchase of a PS3 by saying to themselves "well, I get a blu-ray player "free" with it" ... but now that blu-ray players are under $200, that rationalization is gone - you can buy either competitor + a stand-alone BD player for the same or less. and if you're not in the market for a BD player, then it's no contest, price-wise.

Yes, just like the PS2 and DVD. The problem is that everyone HAD to have DVD, and everyone HAD to have a PS2 - the original Playstation having been the most badass system ever, right? (It was pretty fantastic.) The PS3 had a lot of competition, and it has failed to compete. Xbox 360 is just as fast, if not faster. Wii is cheaper and, you know, innovative. Like we always said we wanted, and we got it, and guess what? We did want it. And while we could all benefit from DVD, not all of us have the 1080i/p display that is necessary to derive any actual benefit from it.

RF modulator (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#27239561)

And while we could all benefit from DVD, not all of us have the 1080i/p display that is necessary to derive any actual benefit from it.

True, DVD had the advantage of no rewinding. But at the time, a lot of paid-for TVs had no composite input jack, only an RF jack. The $25 RF modulators brought DVD's picture quality down near VHS's.

Re:RF modulator (2, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#27240413)

True, DVD had the advantage of no rewinding. But at the time, a lot of paid-for TVs had no composite input jack, only an RF jack. The $25 RF modulators brought DVD's picture quality down near VHS's.

This is a lot of nonsense. I have a crappy Philips TV with a composite jack and an RF jack. I get basically the same picture whether I hook a player up to the Composite directly, or use the RF. In fact, my Xbox is connected to my TV via RF, through my Panasonic S-VHS which is basically just converting S-Video to RF. I realize that the conventional wisdom is that there is less bandwidth available for RF and so anything else should look better. In practice, the composite input is usually very poorly implemented and the RF may actually have a BETTER picture, because people watch TV on RF but they just play video games on composite (typical hookup anyway.) I am using this setup to get the video signal across my room; Composite is not good at long runs.

Re:RF modulator (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27240943)

Actually, a good RF modulator gives a picture nearly comparable to what you get with the composite input. The big jump in DVD picture quality is going to progressive scan, which requires an ED or HD TV with component or digital inputs.

Re:Not according to Kaz Hirai (1)

EdZ (755139) | more than 5 years ago | (#27239977)

People rationalized the purchase of a PS3 by saying to themselves "well, I get a blu-ray player "free" with it"

Really? I rationalised my purchase with "Well, it has exclusive games I want to play". It is a games console after all, that's what it's for

Re:Not according to Kaz Hirai (1)

DrWho520 (655973) | more than 5 years ago | (#27240731)

Which games are you playing on the PS3?

Re:Not according to Kaz Hirai (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27239055)

Whoa! Riiiiiiidge Racer!

Re:Not according to Kaz Hirai (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27239129)

check this out

http://flybizs.com/pages/index.php?refid=emmanuelmac

Pc games easier to pirate than PS3 games (1)

wjh31 (1372867) | more than 5 years ago | (#27238867)

i get the feeling the title of this pose is true, i wonder if easier to pirate PS3 games would results in more PS3 sales, and as a result more legitimate game sales

Re:Pc games easier to pirate than PS3 games (1)

Fr05t (69968) | more than 5 years ago | (#27238923)

It's already easy to pirate everything else. I've had several friends buy PS3s once they realized it will play almost anything (mp3, wmv, divx, etc) without any DRM. Plus it upscales and looks great. When you add up the price of a great Bluray player (not all are created equal), an upconverting dvd player which plays divx, and a console the price isn't hard to justify.

Re:Pc games easier to pirate than PS3 games (2, Interesting)

Saffaya (702234) | more than 5 years ago | (#27238961)

If only it could play PS2 games, I would be more tempted to acquire one.
I play in progrssive scan since the DreamCast, and would like to try some of the best games that the PS2 has.

But I'm afraid for Sony that PC-based emulators will get enough power with quad-cores CPU to run PS2 games flawlessly before they manage to provide a back-compatible PS3 again.

Re:Pc games easier to pirate than PS3 games (1)

ADT7 (1458965) | more than 5 years ago | (#27240611)

But I'm afraid for Sony that PC-based emulators will get enough power with quad-cores CPU to run PS2 games flawlessly before they manage to provide a back-compatible PS3 again.

Aside from a few graphical issues and problems playing FMV (random black flickering every few seconds for me in FFXII) PCSX2 [pcsx2.net] is pretty much there for a lot of games.

You need a half-decent GPU as well as a good processor to get the most out of it though.

Re:Pc games easier to pirate than PS3 games (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27238945)

The sales of the XBox360 games outside US are equal or less to the PS3.
Piracy would result into more PS sales, but less game sales.

Re:Pc games easier to pirate than PS3 games (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27239019)

But less games. We are already seeing developers shying away from PC and PSP development because of rampant piracy, the Xbox and DS are next inline.

Infact, if you were a developer, the only secure platform, where everyone must buy a legitimate version of your game, is the PS3...

This is why despite a lower userbase, proportionally the games sell better.

Re:Pc games easier to pirate than PS3 games (3, Informative)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 5 years ago | (#27239391)

This is why despite a lower userbase, proportionally the games sell better.

The tie in ratio is the same as it is for the Wii and it looks like it's equivalent to the 360 when adjusted for time. Do you have any data that says PS3 games sell better across the board (not just the top tier exclusives, those sell on their own merits but the entire library combined tends to sell on the userbase's preferences)?

Suprised they haven't jumped ship already (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27238871)

What really suprises me is that publishers and development houses are not already abandoning PS3. month by month sony get further and further behind with the most expensive and most developer unfriendly console on the market, on top of that they have no significant graphics/processing power advantage over the 360 and are not as fun/popular as Wii.

I want a PS3 (4, Interesting)

squoozer (730327) | more than 5 years ago | (#27238943)

I've never owned a console but lately I've been considering getting a PS3. The only thing stopping me is the price which when compared to the 360 is just plain silly. It's not that I can't afford the PS3 at the current price I just can't justify paying more than double the price of the 360 for something that is only a little better. The price of the PS3 really pushes it into the luxury / enthusiast bracket for me. I want something I can just kick back on occasionally not something where I feel guilty for not using it because I've spent a fortune on it.

Just my 1c worth.

Re:I want a PS3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27239079)

Is it really "only a little better"? As I thought that coming from a 360, and hearing what fellow Xbox owners told me, however once I actually got one, I discovered it's actually ALOT better.

If I had hindsight, and had to buy a console today, it would be a PS3 hands down, because it offers far more value for money than the others. And it's all about features/cost (i.e. value for money) rather than cost alone, otherwise we would all be buying Game and Watches.....

Re:I want a PS3 (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27239251)

plain wrong... This argument has been played out over and over. No one could give a definitive answer. Then the Co-creator of the CPU chips in BOTH consoles decided to give his 2 bits. He basically said the PS3 has more CPU power, the 360 has more GPU, given decent programmers both consoles could render about the same.

The problem is that the PS3 was initially designed without a GPU, the core was going to handle all. Then Sony realized this was a programming nightmare and added a last second GPU.

I own both consoles and I have to say online gaming is 10 times better on the 360, and graphics are about the same. Where the PS3 comes ahead is in added value like you pointed out. Added value like a better media player, a blue ray player, and reliability. I just hate the flame wars that go on, with Sony execs coming on here claiming the PS3 looks way better when it doesn't. At least not on my 1080p 40" Samsung 120Hz. Not trying to say MS doesn't have its own flame goons, but on slashdot Sony goons seem to be in larger numbers given the Anti-MS sentiment.

Re:I want a PS3 (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 5 years ago | (#27240301)

The anti-MS sentiment on /. has nothing to do with Xboxes. If anything MS are more popular here because of the X-Box. My own anti-MS sentiment at least comes from their shoddy and uninspiring Operating Systems, and it started about a decade before I ever discovered slashdot..

Re:I want a PS3 (1)

Tridus (79566) | more than 5 years ago | (#27239299)

Well, I own both of them. I only paid for the PS3 (the 360 was a gift because I refused to buy one due to the RROD). RROD jokes aside, I actually use the 360 more for games. Mostly it's due to the controller, which on the 360 is FAR better then the PS3 one.

That's even before you count the stupidity of having to charge the PS3 controller by plugging it into the system, and leaving the system on for hours. On the 360, I just swap out a pair of rechargable AA batteries (conveniently the same ones that the Wii uses) and go right back to it.

I also had problems getting the PS3 to actually connect to online games through my router, while the 360 has always just worked.

The PS3 is a better media player for sure, but honestly, unless you want both a console and a blu-ray player, that doesn't matter very much. If your goal is game playing, it's not worth the extra money at all.

Re:I want a PS3 (2, Informative)

feepness (543479) | more than 5 years ago | (#27239373)

That's even before you count the stupidity of having to charge the PS3 controller by plugging it into the system, and leaving the system on for hours. On the 360, I just swap out a pair of rechargable AA batteries (conveniently the same ones that the Wii uses) and go right back to it.

The PS3 controllers will charge off any mini-usb plug. I think I have a dozen lying around right now. I try to avoid hardware unless it charges through that.

Re:I want a PS3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27239517)

You mean one of those adapter things that plugs into the wall and allows you to charge devices that way?

It's great that you have "a dozen" lying around, because I don't have any.

Unless you meant any USB port, in which case there are a few problems with that:

1. Like most normal people, I have a laptop. I suppose I could carry around a PS3 controller to keep charged, but that seems - stupid.
2. Even if you have a computer that can charge the controller, you've just moved from keeping the PS3 on constantly to keeping the computer on constantly.
3. There are no PS3 controller drivers for Windows, which means that Windows users can't charge the controller because a driver is required to turn on power for USB devices.

The upshot is that you can run Folding@Home while charging the controller, but still - I'd rather just have the replaceable batteries.

Re:I want a PS3 (2, Informative)

bilbravo (763359) | more than 5 years ago | (#27239863)

1) The parent was simply asserting that you could charge it on a PC. Just because you don't want to charge it while using your laptop doesn't mean it's completely unacceptable for most people. 2) It would be silly to leave your PC on just to charge your PS3. However I'd say most people on slashdot leave their computers on nigh 24/7. 3) Not true. I have charged my PS3 controller on both my desktop and (gasp) my laptop. I've also charged it using my DVR which has a USB port.

Re:I want a PS3 (1)

acohen1 (1454445) | more than 5 years ago | (#27240141)

Does this actually work? I thought without the drivers the controller would only get a trickle of power compared to charging on the PS3. I honestly haven't tried running the controller all the way down and plugging it into another device like my desktop pc thats always on to see.

Re:I want a PS3 (1)

iainl (136759) | more than 5 years ago | (#27240671)

If you just want to run Folding while you charge, then I've yet to meet a PC that does more units per Watt than the PS3 anyway, so you might as well go back to Plan A.

Re:I want a PS3 (1)

ookaze (227977) | more than 5 years ago | (#27239877)

Mostly it's due to the controller, which on the 360 is FAR better then the PS3 one.

Actually, that depends on preferences and the kind of games you play. The XB360's D-pad is notoriously flawed, so not good at all for fighting games for example.

Anyway, all of this doesn't matter.
What will make you want to buy the console are some features (like no region lock for example), and mainly the games, or rather exclusive games.

Re:I want a PS3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27241007)

jesus here you are again. I'll have to correct you AGAIN.

The 360's d-pad is *notoriously* flawed (emphasis mine)? I would argue the exact opposite and say that Sony Playstations d-pad has been *notoriously* flawed since the PS1. NES, SMS, SNES, GEN, all got it right. They were all basically the same d-pad. Then Sony comes along and fucks up the standard by breaking apart the plus into 4 separate buttons? Yeah, I've never been able to play any fighting games on PS1/PS2 because of that HORRIBLE mistake.

Please instead of using opinions try to back up your rhetoric with... well shit at least with an anecdote if you have no facts.

Re:I want a PS3 (1)

feepness (543479) | more than 5 years ago | (#27239357)

I consider it a much higher value, even without the massive RROD issues considered.

While BluRay players are dropping in the sub $200 range, it is nice to have all contained in one unit and to be able to keep stuff on the PS3 harddrive which the low end Xbox doesn't have. And there are things on the PS3 that are simply stunning which I haven't seen on the Xbox. There are a huge number of exclusives coming out as well. I'm a baseball fan and between MLB09 on the PS3 and 2K9 on the XBox... well... it was sad.

Add in a few years of "Live" fees and you're paying pretty the same anyway.

All that said a price drop would pretty much make this a no-brainer. Here's hoping so my supply of awesome games keeps coming.

Re:I want a PS3 (3, Informative)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 5 years ago | (#27239395)

you are forgetting something.

The Xbox360 as it is CAN NOT PLAY ONLINE without you buying a gold membership. Some of the new games will play with the free membership but an Xbox 360 costs you an additional $59.00US a year to own if you want to play online.

Wii: Without a friend code, why not play vs. CPU? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#27239603)

The Xbox360 as it is CAN NOT PLAY ONLINE without you buying a gold membership.

Nor can the Wii, unless you have friends from the real world who happen to own a copy of the same game. Nintendo WFC does not have lobbies. Either you play with friend codes that have been exchanged mutually out of band, or you play against anonymous opponents that are indistinguishable from CPU opponents.

Re:Wii: Without a friend code, why not play vs. CP (1)

bilbravo (763359) | more than 5 years ago | (#27239895)

The Wii most certainly can play games online without buying a membership. You even said so yourself.

Just because the anonymous users are anonymous does not negate the fact that you are playing games against human players. If they are indistinguishable from CPU opponents then 1) the game has great AI or 2) the human players are horrible. :-)

Re:Wii: Without a friend code, why not play vs. CP (2, Informative)

ookaze (227977) | more than 5 years ago | (#27239921)

So basically you contradict yourself ?
You CAN PLAY the Wii ONLINE without having to pay anything more.
The XB360 is the only console that requires that you pay a yearly or monthly fee to play online against others.

Re:I want a PS3 (4, Informative)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 5 years ago | (#27239747)

For the record, it doesn't cost anywhere near $59.00 a year, heck, the MSRP is 49.99. Amazon is selling the 13 month Live cards for $38.99. I bought mine from them a few months ago for something like $29.99.

http://www.amazon.com/Xbox-360-Live-Month-Gold-Bonus/dp/B000B9RI00 [amazon.com]

Re:I want a PS3 (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 5 years ago | (#27239847)

doesn't cost anywhere near $59.00 a year, heck, the MSRP is 49.99 MOST people buy their cards at walmart or other stores, incredibly few but it online and wait a week for the card to show so they can use it.

Many places like California and Chicago have the cards in store for that price and if you give them your CC# Microsoft happily charges you MSRP online.

SO yes Many places it IS more expensive. and YES if you are savvy enough to go looking for a deal you can find them. Remember most consumers are NOT SAVVY.

O HAI (1)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 5 years ago | (#27239773)

I here you like XBOX. You give me ten dollar I tell where you buy XBOX LIVE [amazon.com] now!

Re:I want a PS3 (1)

bilbravo (763359) | more than 5 years ago | (#27239907)

I don't own an Xbox360, but even I know that a gold membership does not cost $59.00 US. In fact if you deal shop, you can usually get a 12 (I think it's 12 + 1 actually) month card for between $35-40 USD.

Re:I want a PS3 (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 5 years ago | (#27240069)

Well, the 360 is cheaper.. but it STILL has problems like the RROD. Also, the PS3 comes with a BluRay, and games I want to play, unlike the Wii... sadly. RE4 was really good on the Wii I thought (the Wii the first console I've owned since the SNES).... but games that interest me aren't showing up.. STILL. Add in the 360 problems... and it seems my best choice is Wii + PS3 for gaming. (Well, I also have a PSP... so the integration there would be nice as well).

Re:I want a PS3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27240543)

The price difference for the machine is made up in the monthly XBOX live fee. Yes you can get around with digging up free cards, but when that doesn't last you'll start shelling out monthly payments. After a year and a half, you'll make up the price difference.... yeah the PS3 online experience isn't that great in comparison to Xbox Live, but its Free, and what would you expect from a Free service?

I don't see how a PS3 price cut is "long overdue" (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27238965)

I mean it's outselling the 360, even at a higher price point.

Just as a reminder (and to counter the obvious Microsoft FUD spreading):

22m PS3's in 2.5 years (2 in Europe) is ~10m a year

28m 360's in 3.5 years (and having a exclusive 1 yr period) is 8m a year.

Seems like some people including "the industry experts" have been fooled by Microsofts cherry picked statistics..

Re:I don't see how a PS3 price cut is "long overdu (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27239319)

The problem is for the last 5 months the 360 has outsold the PS3... doesn't matter that they had the lead, they are increasing that lead now. You seem to forget how cocky Sony was, in projecting that they would be almost 10million consoles ahead after 2 years. Fuck the 360, fuck the Wii, fuck the PS3, go back to your desk you Sony employee. On the chance you are just some ignorant Sony dick sucker, then pull your head out of your ass, and return your shitty over priced PS3 already. Go outside and play real games.

Re:I don't see how a PS3 price cut is "long overdu (1)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 5 years ago | (#27239349)

[Citation Need]

And just where exactly did you "cherry pick" your statistics from?

I don't own an XBox, nor PS, but I'd like to know how your statistics are so absolute.

Re:I don't see how a PS3 price cut is "long overdu (2, Informative)

ookaze (227977) | more than 5 years ago | (#27239963)

[Citation Need]

And just where exactly did you "cherry pick" your statistics from?

I don't own an XBox, nor PS, but I'd like to know how your statistics are so absolute.

What ?
LOL, these numbers are taken right from TFA, using exactly the same data the "analysts" talk about.
It's absolutely right that for now, the PS3 sells faster than the XB360 despite the higher price point. You can see this clearly if you align launches.
You've clearly been fooled by MS cherry picking.
Most people don't realize it, because Nintendo flew past MS, despite being 1 year younger, so it skews most people's visions.

Re:I don't see how a PS3 price cut is "long overdu (0, Troll)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 5 years ago | (#27240471)

Oh, it's "right from the article, my mistake, obviously since its in the fucking article, that makes their statistics unquestionable fact.

Guess if someone posts an article now about how Microsoft is outselling Sony, then suddenly that is fact.

I have no vested interest in either, that's why i mentioned it, I haven't been "fooled", because frankly I don't give a damn who is up/down/left/right. My point was, what makes Microsoft's "cherry picked" statistics, less accurate than these "cherry picked" statistics? Why do people simply believe these statistics because they are the newest, from these particular people?

Re:I don't see how a PS3 price cut is "long overdu (1)

FatAlb3rt (533682) | more than 5 years ago | (#27241033)

So you asked for a citation, it was given, and now that's not good enough?

Where's your contrary evidence?

Re:I don't see how a PS3 price cut is "long overdu (3, Insightful)

Xest (935314) | more than 5 years ago | (#27240757)

Actually you're wrong.

The PS3 is absolutely not outselling the 360 overall, nor is it doing so in Europe or North America. It is only outselling the 360 in Japan but only by around 10,000 units a week, whilst it's losing out to the 360 by around 20,000 a week in Europe and around 50,000 a week in the US.

The reason the AC parent has the stats he has (although they're rounded in favour of the PS3- the real stats are 21mill PS3s and 29mill XBox 360s) are because the PS3 had a period where it was outselling the 360, about 6 months into it's lifetime for around a year. It wasn't outselling it for the first 6months of it's life however and it has not been outselling it for the last 6, furthermore it's actually losing ground week on week in terms of the units shifted, so not only is it losing ground overall, it's losing ground at a faster rate week on week as an average trend across the last 6 months.

MS were cherry picking for a while for sure, but they're not now. They've got a healthy gain on the PS3 and it's almost certainly because the 360 is so cheap now whilst the PS3 remains too expensive.

It's also worth pointing out that MS is also selling over twice as many games per console as the PS3 so is making even more money than Sony in that repect too.

Go check the facts for yourself if you want at:

http://www.vgchartz.com/ [vgchartz.com]

Re:I don't see how a PS3 price cut is "long overdu (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27239353)

I don't know if you noticed, but the economy has - well, taken a bit of a hit recently. It's kind of a global phenomenon, so I find it surprising you've missed this.

In this economy, the PS3 is simply not worth the money.

Especially from a developer's point of view. Due to the difficulty in using the Cell, developing for the PS3 costs more money than developing for either other console. This extra cost and a smaller install base - regardless of how fast it was growing pre-economic meltdown - means that developers just can't afford to target the PS3 any more.

There's a reason there's a long list of former PS3 exclusives that have Xbox 360 versions: DMC4, FFXIII spring to mind immediately, and rumors have it that Konami is considering porting MGS4 due to poor sales. There are others, (basically any 3rd party game developed for the PS3, ever) but I'm too lazy to look them up.

Re:I don't see how a PS3 price cut is "long overdu (1)

ookaze (227977) | more than 5 years ago | (#27240033)

There's a reason there's a long list of former PS3 exclusives that have Xbox 360 versions: DMC4, FFXIII spring to mind immediately, and rumors have it that Konami is considering porting MGS4 due to poor sales. There are others, (basically any 3rd party game developed for the PS3, ever) but I'm too lazy to look them up.

OK. You're even including rumors in your facts, which shows how well thought out your reply is.
Now, can you explain why some XB360 former exclusives are going to PS3 too ? Because of poor sales ?
Bioshock, Eternal Sonata comes to mind. There are also rumors of Mass Effect coming to PS3.
There are others, (basically any 3rd party game developed for the XB360, ever) but I'm too lazy to look them up.

Seems to me like XB360 and PS3 are in the exact same boat.

Re:I don't see how a PS3 price cut is "long overdu (2, Interesting)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 5 years ago | (#27239509)

And? So they're doing slightly better than the 360 (not that the time adjusted sales really matter, what matters is the userbase you can sell stuff to). What does that get them? A medal in the special olympics? The 360 isn't the goal, the Wii is! Currently the Wii's userbase is about equal to the COMBINED userbase of the 360 and PS3. I know people love to fling around stupid claims like "it's a fad" (yeah, one that's already gone through half a console generation without ending) or "casual gamers don't buy many games" (the tie in ratio does not support that claim). What is true to some extend is "third party software tends to sell much worse than Nintendo software" but that's mostly because third party software for the system tends to be garbage thrown together by, as Iwata put it, 4th and 5th string teams while the 1st and 2nd string teams keep working on extremely expensive yet less profitable games on the HD consoles. Of course dev teams that can barely make their games not crash aren't going to compete with the highest quality game publisher in the whole damn industry on even footing.

Anyway, taking second place from the 360 is a worthless goal since it's pretty easy to make a game cross platform between the two (and the PC) so the leadership in that special race isn't going to change much. What they have to beat is the Wii which is just far off in the distance with currently no apparent chance for Sony or MS to catch up with it.

Re:I don't see how a PS3 price cut is "long overdu (1)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 5 years ago | (#27239583)

Chances are as the market comes under greater and greater economic pressure they are holding off on discounting the PS3 for as long as possible so the can go with a major price drop for maximum marketing impact and a major sales surge rather than minor sales price reductions. Right now a lot of the component suppliers are starting to suffer and they will be looking for any opportunity to boost sales in a significant way even if it is with very low margins.

So who knows maybe as high as a 50% drop in price right after xbox drops it price by say 10%.

Re:I don't see how a PS3 price cut is "long overdu (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27240639)

The fact is, the console is still selling in reasonable numbers. And that is is spite of it being "too expensive" and the world and his dog "hating" Sony. Component costs have dropped considerably since Nov 06, most of those costs have not been passed on to the shelf price. The dollar is far stronger too, yet the US prices remain where they are. Clearly Sony aren't worried by the numbers game, even in the current tight financial climate. Given time, the PS3 will drop in price, look how scared MS are of it and how far they had to drop their prices.

Don't confuse the US market with the global picture. The PS3 is the dominant console of the two elsewhere. The Wii is clearly way out in front on units sold, but let's be honest, that bubble is near enough over. There isn't much demand for it now, everyone who wants one can buy it anywhere now. And people who have them, once they're realise they were caught in the hype, sell them on. Will the Wii be selling in 18 months, it will be be regarded as a fad like rubiks cubed and be boxed up in the attic because there's no second user market?

PS3 != Xbox 360 != Wii (5, Insightful)

ernest.cunningham (972490) | more than 5 years ago | (#27239153)

Own all three. PS3 is a great gaming system with really nice media center features etc. Xbox 360 is a great gaming system with really good online gaming solution. Far superior online system to Playstation network but you pay for it so meh. Wii is perfect for when the mates come around etc or friends or family for a social visit. Its a hit with my young nieces and nephews, but also a hit with my mother so its very popular. However as an out and out gaming machine the wii graphics are very poor but the social benefits of its setup are plenty. Sooo, where am I going with this state the damn obvious here...... Sony's product IMO is a far better system to have in the living room. I mean you can actually copy movies and music onto the damn thing unlike the 360 (yeah I know direct cd import but not mp3 support???) So to me the extra price is actually worth it! Sony are not really competing with Nintendo or Microsoft here as their machines all concentrate on different aspects. PS3 = Home entertainment system Xbox 360 = Gaming system with kickass online play Wii = Family casual gaming fun. So not really competing here in terms of what they are trying to offer. Well the only problem here is that somebody forgot to tell the consumer that they are not competing. They see Call Of Duty World at War on all three systems. To most people they see all three as gaming systems pure and simple and do not know they differences between the xbox 360 and the ps3 and usually go for the cheaper ones. I know the parents who are purchasing the systems do... If you ask a salesman, whats the difference between the Ps3 and the Xbox 360, the most common answer will just be "The PS3 has a built in Blue Ray player which the xbox 360 does not have". In reality there are many more pros and cons that can in use would change their minds about the console they would like. So overall I beleive the PS3 is worth the sale price, but most consumers will not see it that way and they only thing for Sony to do now is drop those prices and try and compete in the consumers ignorant eyes. Well thats just my $2.50, take it or leave it.

Re:PS3 != Xbox 360 != Wii (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#27239457)

Sony's product IMO is a far better system to have in the living room. I mean you can actually copy movies and music onto the damn thing unlike the 360 (yeah I know direct cd import but not mp3 support???)

Install the Homebrew Channel on the Wii via Twilight Hack and you can copy movies and music onto that; I personally stream them to my Xbox, and only my Xbox games (original Xbox) are stored on my hard disk, along with XBMC.

Sony are not really competing with Nintendo or Microsoft here as their machines all concentrate on different aspects.

Aside from the lack of Blu-Ray support, XBMC is still a better media player than the PS3, with support for vastly more formats. Since I don't have any HD movies (yet) the Xbox is still serving my needs; it does have 720i/p and 1080i output so it can at least scale - scaling is done by the GPU.

If you ask a salesman, whats the difference between the Ps3 and the Xbox 360, the most common answer will just be "The PS3 has a built in Blue Ray player which the xbox 360 does not have".

And the consumer can say "That's not worth two hundred bucks" and make the decision for themselves.

Re:PS3 != Xbox 360 != Wii (1)

ndavis (1499237) | more than 5 years ago | (#27239531)

I agree I purchased a PS3 recently and I had the choice to purchase any of the systems. The PS3 won out because it had Blu-Ray support which I wanted and could play games. While I like the Wii I find it much more fun when other people are playing as it is more of a multiplayer system.

I looked into the Xbox 360 but was thinking I would then purchase a Blu-Ray player that would quickly be higher priced then the PS3 which can play games as well. If the PS3 was $50 or $100 cheaper this would have been a very easy choice.

I also use the PS3 to stream videos and music off my computer which the Xbox can do as well.

Re:PS3 != Xbox 360 != Wii (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 5 years ago | (#27240631)

I like the Wii I find it much more fun when other people are playing as it is more of a multiplayer system.

Get LittleBigPlanet if you haven't got it (and if you do have it, just ignore the rest of this comment!) - it's honestly much more fun than I ever had on my Wii :) It's probably even worth buying 3 extra controllers if you have lots of friends round regularly. Definitely worth buying at least one extra controller anyway, and maybe your friends will have spare controllers. My best friend has 2 as well so we just share when we have LBP nights.

Whenever I've tried to explain LittleBigPlanet to someone they haven't really got it. But once they start playing, much hilarity always ensues, even if they're not geeky types who go 'oooh' at the physics engine like I do :)

Re:PS3 != Xbox 360 != Wii (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 5 years ago | (#27239539)

They are competing because their machines get paid for with the same wallets and their games made by the same developers.

Re:PS3 != Xbox 360 != Wii (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27239587)

You are exactly right.

The PS3 is not just a gaming system. It's a bluray player, a Media Center that will play anything especially used with the PS3 Media Server.
Yes you can install homebrew stuff on other console but you can't play HD content on a Wii.

Also the PS3 may be more expansive than the 360, but you can use a regular 5$ HDMI cable and a regular 2$ toslink cable to set it up in your home theater system. With the 360 you have to buy those expansive adapters.

Re:PS3 != Xbox 360 != Wii (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27239767)

To me, the PS3 is a mediocre media center at best.
Its support for codecs and container formats are sporadic. It doesn't support MKV at all and I sometimes get "corrupted data" or "unsupported data" messages even on perfectly healthy x264 videos.

Furthermore, it doesn't support anything other than FAT32 as the external drive filesystem. If a mate comes over with a video on his USB harddisk (which is usually NTFS), I have to start the PC to either stream to PS3 or to copy it to a FAT32 formatted harddisk. Not to mention the 4GB file limit on FAT32 or that I might have to transcode it to even play it.

It doesn't really help the PS3 that it can run linux either, as the hypervisor blocks access to the RSX graphics chip. This means there is no hardware acceleration at all for video decoding, thus you can't simply run a media center such as XBMC.

If there are any solutions for the problems I mentioned here, I would like to hear them though. I only recently got my PS3 and I have been unable to find any solutions despite extensive searching. That really was a disappointment.

Regardless, the PS3 is an excellent gaming machine with alot of great games available. The bluray drive is a major plus as well and I definitely think it is worth its current price.

Re:PS3 != Xbox 360 != Wii (0, Troll)

ookaze (227977) | more than 5 years ago | (#27240335)

PS3 is a great gaming system with really nice media center features etc. Xbox 360 is a great gaming system with really good online gaming solution. Far superior online system to Playstation network but you pay for it so meh. Wii is perfect for when the mates come around etc or friends or family for a social visit. Its a hit with my young nieces and nephews, but also a hit with my mother so its very popular. However as an out and out gaming machine the wii graphics are very poor but the social benefits of its setup are plenty.

What ?
Wii is a great gaming system, and its graphics are not "very poor". This is pure nonsense, but I see where you come from.
Or are you saying the PS2 is not a great gaming system, as its graphics are even "poorer" than the Wii's, and it was still outselling the XB360 when it was alone on the "next-gen" market and even after ?
The Wii is just as great a gaming system as its competitors actually. No, actually, it's better, and the sales show it.

Sooo, where am I going with this state the damn obvious here......

The only thing that was obvious here was your bias.

Sony's product IMO is a far better system to have in the living room. I mean you can actually copy movies and music onto the damn thing unlike the 360 (yeah I know direct cd import but not mp3 support???) So to me the extra price is actually worth it!

OK, that's your opinion. But now, for the videogame market, the Wii is clearly the far better system to have in the living room.

Sony are not really competing with Nintendo or Microsoft here as their machines all concentrate on different aspects. PS3 = Home entertainment system Xbox 360 = Gaming system with kickass online play Wii = Family casual gaming fun. So not really competing here in terms of what they are trying to offer. Well the only problem here is that somebody forgot to tell the consumer that they are not competing. They see Call Of Duty World at War on all three systems. To most people they see all three as gaming systems pure and simple and do not know they differences between the xbox 360 and the ps3 and usually go for the cheaper ones.

Unfortunately, Sony forgot to tell Sony that they weren't competing with Nintendo and Microsoft, as most of their PR include Nintendo and Sony, most of their comparisons do too.
They also forgot to tell every single analyst out there that all still believe that XB360 and Wii are competing with PS3.
Even the developers didn't understand that and make games for all 3 consoles, and even more (DS, PSP, PS2).
Actually, you and a bunch of other people are the only ones still believing that they're not competing one against each other.
I would call you delusional, but perhaps the world is wrong and you're right.

I know the parents who are purchasing the systems do... If you ask a salesman, whats the difference between the Ps3 and the Xbox 360, the most common answer will just be "The PS3 has a built in Blue Ray player which the xbox 360 does not have". In reality there are many more pros and cons that can in use would change their minds about the console they would like. So overall I beleive the PS3 is worth the sale price, but most consumers will not see it that way and they only thing for Sony to do now is drop those prices and try and compete in the consumers ignorant eyes.

LOL, the "consumers ignorant eyes" ?
It confirms I know where you come from.
It's not the consumer's job to go to your product, it's your job to put your product in consumers' hands.
The consumers, the market, will then decide the value of your product, and will weigh the value against the price.
Some people have a hard time admitting that the Wii has a higher value, and the PS3 has higher value than the XB360.
The PS3 has a higher price tag than XB360, and it sells as much with sales aligned, so its value is clearly better.
It's even better when you know XB360 had 1 year without competition, while PS3 always had competition.
But the Wii has clearly the better value. Some people didn't realize it, and believed that when XB360 would be lower price than the Wii, it would sell better than the Wii.
Clearly that never happened, as the Wii's value is far better than its price.
Consoles main value is their games.

Hidden Costs (4, Informative)

ifrag (984323) | more than 5 years ago | (#27239219)

Total cost of ownership turns out to be a lot more similar in the long term though. I don't think the PS3 should have any problem competing with the 360. The initial price sticker shock may be having some effect but consider that:
  • PS3 - Stock wireless controller is rechargeable. XB360 Stock controller requires user to provide rechargeables, or just burn through normal batteries.
  • PSN Online is provided free of charge, with multiplayer gaming. XBox Gold membership is something like $50/year, and is required to actually play multiplayer games on XBLive.
  • Most PS3 models have built in wireless support (although there were some that didn't), the XB360 Wireless Network adapter is something around $50.
  • PS3 ships with a larger hard drive than the XB360 (80GB PS3 has been the standard model for some time now). The hard drive is also replaceable with a standard consumer drive. XB360 drive is upgradeable but only with MS product (although I think there are adapters to use other devices, the adapter is once again cost added).
  • PS3 is bluetooth headset compatable, XBox 360 requires use of proprietary headset if the user wants to have a wireless earpiece.

With accessories and online costs considered, I'd say it evens out, and rather quickly at that.

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27239419)

If those things are important to you, sure.

I bought four wired controllers for my XBOX360 for EUR 80 (second hand). A wireless adapter would be useless in my area, as the channels are totally saturated (about 40 ssids showing up when I scan for access points). I prefer offline multiplayer to online, so don't need a live subscription or headset.

Re:Hidden Costs (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 5 years ago | (#27239439)

Xbox360 CAN be upgraded yourself. It's not easy but I bought a 120 gig drive from newegg and flashed it's firmware with a hacked one that identifies it as a xbox drive. used a few tools to move my bought games and other crud over and I now have a 120 gig drive for $39.95 and 2 hours of tinkering at home.

Honestly the bluetooth headset sucks. The wired ones are more comfortable and are less "icky" when you share with buddies or family members.

Finally, most people buying a ps3 vs an xbox360 do not factor in the Yearly xboxlive subscription fees.

Add in 5 years of fees and the Ps3 looks a lot cheaper.

and yes I do own a Xbox360.. Where they win is there are a lot of really good games on the Xbox. Only a very few ps3 only titles even peak my interest.

As for the built in Bluray. Most people dont care about bluray. The dismal sales of the players and discs scream that one loud and clear.

Re:Hidden Costs (2, Informative)

feepness (543479) | more than 5 years ago | (#27239547)

As for the built in Bluray. Most people dont care about bluray. The dismal sales of the players and discs scream that one loud and clear.

Sales for BluRay discs/players are beating DVD at this point in its lifecycle. We'll see what the economy does to that though.

Re:Hidden Costs (1)

Binestar (28861) | more than 5 years ago | (#27240489)

Exactly True. I'd love to have Blu-Ray. I've been incrementally upgrading my home theatre and have to do it as I can afford it. 2 years ago I got the nice TV & converted to HD Cable. Last year I got a nice Upconverting A/V receiver and an upconverting DVD player. Moved everything over to HDMI.

Blu-Ray is low on the list for 2 reasons. The Blu-Ray selection at my local rental shop isn't of interest to me yet (About 5 I'd like to see and 10 or 15 I've seen already on DVD). I know I can go netflix, but this is a mom & pop rental place and I'd prefer to keep my money in the area. Second: Buying Blu-Ray is expensive.

Either way, I'll get it eventually. It did win the format war after all.

Mod down, not bashing Sony (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27239463)

n/t

MS and their 3x priced harddrives, no sale (1)

cheekyboy (598084) | more than 5 years ago | (#27239851)

Common MS, theres no excuse, let us use any HD on our xboxes, you techy execs or senior engineers have lost all credibility and respect, its a 100% money grabbing scam.

You guys look real stupid now dont you eh, all your excuses are lame. A million shops sell 3rd party laptop HDs now.

Re:MS and their 3x priced harddrives, no sale (1)

flink (18449) | more than 5 years ago | (#27240351)

I heard that the real reason they don't let you use third party HDDs is that their drive has DRM hardware built into it. They don't want any unapproved data being written to or read off that drive. Of course it has the side effect that they can therefore gouge us on the price.

Re:Hidden Costs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27240677)

How much were you paid to repeat this piece of marketing tripe?

Total cost of ownership is almost the same...if you use a selected set of add-ons that most people in fact don't use.

hypocrisy (3, Insightful)

papabob (1211684) | more than 5 years ago | (#27239297)

And if Sony cuts down the PS3 price EA and Blizzard are going to stop selling games at $70 each? I doubt it.

Re:hypocrisy (1)

evilkasper (1292798) | more than 5 years ago | (#27239567)

No, but I would wager they are betting they would sell more games at $70. Truthfully though I haven't seen any games on the PS3 that make me want to drop the money for it.I have a Wii and a 360 and they pretty much cover my console needs.

About the right price.... (1, Interesting)

Slash.Poop (1088395) | more than 5 years ago | (#27239473)

Is it just me or does the price seem about right?

First things first, look at the prices of stand-alone Blu-ray players. Somewhere around $300-$500, with some models much more. The PS3 offers you a Blue-ray player, an internet appliance, home media streaming AND a game console for around $540. (Less depending on the HD size and bundle you get)

Is it just me or does the price seem about right?

(Prices from http://www.crutchfield.com/ [crutchfield.com] )

Re:About the right price.... (1)

Hecatonchires (231908) | more than 5 years ago | (#27239849)

No, it doesn't. It seems expensive, because it is.

Re:About the right price.... (1)

Slash.Poop (1088395) | more than 5 years ago | (#27239925)

Of course it is expensive. I agree with that. Ridiculously expensive? No. Out of line expensive? No. It is all relative. Particularly when you look at the prices of Blu-ray players.

Re:About the right price.... (1)

Slash.Poop (1088395) | more than 5 years ago | (#27241013)

Sweet! For presenting an opinion (with prices and a reference) that differs from everyone else I got modded troll. Highlight of my day. Thanks mods!

Kicking fanboys when they're down (3, Insightful)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 5 years ago | (#27239573)

One of the creators of LittleBigPlanet, a PS3 exclusive, made similar comments in an interview with Gamasutra, acknowledging that they're looking forward to the day Sony drops the PS3's price.

I look forward to the time when "exclusives" are no longer even pretended to be a good thing, and those who make those Faustian bargains are recognized as chumps.

Lower console price is a good start... (2, Interesting)

cdpage (1172729) | more than 5 years ago | (#27239623)

From what i understand, game developers are more interested in making it easier to develop the games for the PS3. Currently it is difficult and time consuming. This makes it less profitable for developers, so they have chosen to jump ship and go to the 360.

I agree, the price difference between the two is almost the same 'for most people' with all the peripherals considered.

But that initial price shock is enough to steer potential buyers the other way and that really is hurting the PS3's bottom line.

The XBOX 360 is Just as Expensive as the PS3 (2, Informative)

Logical Zebra (1423045) | more than 5 years ago | (#27239633)

That's right, folks. The XBOX 360 is just as expensive as the PS3.

A lot of people go around bashing the PS3, but I find that most of them don't own both systems, like I do. The PS3 is actually cheaper than the 360. Did you know that? Here's why:

1. The PS3 comes with wireless capability. The XBOX 360 requires a $100 wireless kit. That right there makes up the price difference.

2. The XBOX 360's controllers require batteries. An add-on rechargeable battery system costs about $20 per controller. The PS3's controllers are all rechargeable right out of the box.

3. If you buy something from the PlayStation store that costs $5 or more, you pay the exact amount. On the XBOX store, you have to buy "Microsoft Points" at the rate of $12.50 (USD) for 1,000 points. You have to buy these in bulk. So if you want something that costs 800 points, you have to pay for 1,000 points, leaving you with 200 points ($2.50) left over. Of course, Microsoft manipulates things, so you are always left with small amount of points left over. In other words, Microsuck is keeping your change. Bastards.

Re:The XBOX 360 is Just as Expensive as the PS3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27239771)

That's the difference between the two. I'm not forced to buy those things for the 360. So I'm not paying for those things and that keeps it cheaper.

If I did own a PS3, I would be paying for things I wouldn't be using, MS gives customers a choice.

Re:The XBOX 360 is Just as Expensive as the PS3 (2, Informative)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 5 years ago | (#27239789)

1. Not everyone needs wireless. My living room was already networked.
2. AA's are cheap, and the batteries last for months. I've had my 360 since Christmas and only changed them once.
3. Agree with this one. Bastards.

Re:The XBOX 360 is Just as Expensive as the PS3 (1)

Cheesy Fool (530943) | more than 5 years ago | (#27239913)

> 1. The PS3 comes with wireless capability. The XBOX 360 requires a $100 wireless kit.

Unless you don't need wireless. Also, you can get a cheap wireless router (and DD-WRT) and use that.

> 2. The XBOX 360's controllers require batteries. An add-on rechargeable battery system costs about $20 per controller.

You can use rechargeable AA batteries, which I'm sure people with a lot of gadgets would already have.

Agreed about the Microsoft points though.

Re:The XBOX 360 is Just as Expensive as the PS3 (1)

archammer2 (1041754) | more than 5 years ago | (#27240685)

1) If you happen to have an old laptop with wireless capabilities, it can act as a wireless adapter for the 360 with a little tweaking. "Little tweaking" meaning going to instructables.com and following directions.

2) A PS3 controller is $55 while a 360 controller is $50 without the recharable batteries. Got me on this one.

3) eBay. Some individual get a discount for buying the cards in bulk and will pass (some) of the savings on to you.

If the Wii is 'competition'... (1)

cdpage (1172729) | more than 5 years ago | (#27239639)

Sony should start releasing some old classics. Be it free downloads, chap downloads or updates to old games that people would jump on.

Final Fantasy WAS a Nintendo title till Sony came along...it worked before, do it again.

I for one would love to see updates to games like: Dragon Warrior, Battletoads, Contra, Ghouls & Ghosts, RC Pro AM, Baseball Stars and BaseWars...etc.

Re:If the Wii is 'competition'... (1)

ookaze (227977) | more than 5 years ago | (#27240613)

Sony should start releasing some old classics. Be it free downloads, chap downloads or updates to old games that people would jump on.

Final Fantasy WAS a Nintendo title till Sony came along...it worked before, do it again.

I for one would love to see updates to games like: Dragon Warrior, Battletoads, Contra, Ghouls & Ghosts, RC Pro AM, Baseball Stars and BaseWars...etc.

It's too late for releasing most of those old classics. They're available on the Wii virtual console already.
Unfortunately, the brands are installed now, it's too late to change anything.

And Final Fantasy never was a Nintendo title. It always was a Squaresoft title, and then a Square Enix title. These beliefs that 3rd parties' flagship games are tied to a console are part of what put Sony and its fans in this situation this generation.

Terminology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27240105)

Why do you people always say "Sony are" or "Nintendo are". It sounds so awkward and out of place. The word Sony describes a single entity or company. I don't understand why you use plural verbs attached to it. In subsequent sentences you might say "they are", but that's because you're now referring to the pool of individuals that make up the company and develop the products. So stop saying "Sony are"! /rant

Oh, for crying out loud... (3, Insightful)

Millennium (2451) | more than 5 years ago | (#27240357)

Sony can't afford a price cut. Frankly, they can't even afford the current price, as evidenced by their having squandered almost all of the profits from both the PS1 and PS2 just keeping this train wreck afloat. That's the problem with predatory tactics like loss-leader hardware: sometimes you get burned by the risk, and Sony has gotten burned big time.

Ultimately, the core problem is that people won't pay $600 for a game console. Truth be told, they don't really even tolerate $400 at launch, if the 360's sales are any indication (for all that we -rightly- speak of the PS3 as a failure, it still consistently outdoes the 360 at corresponding points in its lifetime). This is because people understand that the value of a console derives not from what the devs put into it, but from what the gamers get out of it, and that there is really only a small section of the market that can actually be swayed by "better value through bloat" marketing Kool-Aid. The proper response, therefore, is to make sure that you can afford to release your console at a price people are willing to pay for it en masse -$300 at launch seems to be the limit- and if you can't do this, then you need to scale your technology back until you can. Sony failed to do that with the PS3, and their current situation is nothing but a natural consequence of that.

Truth be told, the 360 really isn't faring too much better. Neither market is large enough to sustain third parties on its own anymore, thus the glut of cross-platform games: the increased sales from being on both platforms can be just enough to eke out a profit despite the additional cost of porting. If anything, the real benefit of Microsoft's year-long headstart may be that it hasn't benefited from the marketing fallout of its failure due to there being no real basis for comparison. The PS3 has faced that in full measure.

But the real problem that faces both consoles, really, is that the self-described "hardcore market" is dying (and no, Netcraft has not confirmed it). This fanbase's obsessive pwn-the-n00bs mentality and fetish for gratuitous complexity have between them driven away most of the new gamers who might otherwise be interested, ensuring that there a healthy influx of new players. Meanwhile, many of the existing gamers in that market have frankly grown up, and in the process have either gotten bored with gaming altogether or started wanting more from their games than the generic "hardcore" formula; these have sought greener pastures and found them elsewhere.

But then, the attitude of the so-called "hardcore" has never been a gamer attitude anyway; it was a domination fantasy and nothing more. They've poisoned this market for far too long, and as a gamer I'm frankly relieved to see them being pushed back to the margins. If the 80s and early 90s were gaming's golden age, then let this generation be the start of a renaissance of gaming for everyone. The market will be so much healthier.

Speaking as a game developer (2, Informative)

tylersoze (789256) | more than 5 years ago | (#27240827)

Now if we could only pressure Sony to make the damn thing easier to code for. Having developed for both I can tell you it's night and day. The XBox dev tools are much easier to use and better integrated into IDE and speaking from mostly writing multiplayer code the API are much simpler.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?