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!

Sony's Harrison In No Rush to Lower PS3 Price

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the out-of-reach dept.

Sony 107

njkid1 passed on a link to a GameDaily interview they conducted at DICE with Phil Harrison, SCE WorldWide Studios President. Harrison stays mostly positive throughout the article, pointing out that the availability of consoles is a sign of a healthy supply chain. He denigrates rumble in controllers as a 'last generation' feature, and specifically discusses the company's decision-making process for lowering prices: "The PS3 technology, as with any of our platforms, starts off life at a high price and then we engineer cost out of it. And that process is an investment that you make to combine chips into a single chip or to reduce components or combine components and redesign things, and that investment is part of our planned R&D effort to reduce cost. At the appropriate time and when we can afford to, the business model of the industry is to pass those savings onto the consumer, but we're a long way away from doing that yet."

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

Of course not... (4, Insightful)

k_187 (61692) | more than 7 years ago | (#18169836)

Why would they start trumpeting a price drop now? When one comes (whenever that may be), there won't be much if any of a warning. Even if they were going to do it next week, they won't tell anyone until it happens. The last thing Sony needs is ill will from the people who were still loyal enough to have already bought a PS3.

Re:Of course not... (1)

GrayCalx (597428) | more than 7 years ago | (#18170962)

My guess is that he was specifically asked about WHEN to expect a price drop. He did a good job of saying yes there will be a price drop when the ps3 reaches that stage in its life, but we are nowhere near that. If anything I think he was squashing the price drop trumpeting by reporters.

Re:Of course not... (1)

k_187 (61692) | more than 7 years ago | (#18172118)

Its kind of a given that the price will drop. I'm just saying that even if Sony was planning on doing it next week (which I don't think they are), it would be silly of him to say so now.

Re:Of course not... (2, Funny)

monopole (44023) | more than 7 years ago | (#18180942)

The last thing Sony needs is ill will from the people who were still loyal enough to have already bought a PS3.
I don't think they'd worry about such a small number of people.

Re:Of course not... (1)

k_187 (61692) | more than 7 years ago | (#18181252)

True, they don't seem to be worried about everybody else either.

What a coincidence! (5, Funny)

TomatoMan (93630) | more than 7 years ago | (#18169862)

I'm in no hurry to buy one.

Of course (4, Interesting)

tbannist (230135) | more than 7 years ago | (#18169876)

Really, there's no point in dropping the price right now. Until Sony gets a couple of killer games out, dropping the price isn't going to really excite anyone.

Re:Of course (1, Interesting)

WidescreenFreak (830043) | more than 7 years ago | (#18170412)

I disagree. I think that the BluRay functionality would be a major reason to purchase one, especially if the price dropped. However, that's exactly why a price drop is not going to happen. It has nothing to do with the PS3 but with the positioning of other products.

In particular, Sony just announced a set-top BluRay player for - look at that - $599, which is the MSRP of one of their PS3 models, I believe. I would not be surprised that the reason for the price drop of the player is to match the PS3 price. "Hey, wait. People are buying our PS3s to be BluRay players, so our regular BluRay players are just sitting on the shelf." Now people have a choice for roughly the same price: a PS3 without the full functionality of a standalone BluRay player -or- a full player with all of the features that a PS3 doesn't have but it cannot play PS3/2/1 games. If they dropped the price of the PS3, that would undercut their position on their new, lower cost BluRay player.

It seems more to me that they're trying to avoid making the PS3 the BluRay player of choice because of having a lower cost that an fully featured player, which is exactly what would happen if they dropped the price.

Just my two cents. I still don't want a PS3.

Re:Of course (1)

Applekid (993327) | more than 7 years ago | (#18170666)

If the DVD playing abilities of the PS2 are any indication, that PS3-priced BluRay player is going to be a much better experience than the PS3 provides.

Re:Of course (1)

poot_rootbeer (188613) | more than 7 years ago | (#18171022)

for roughly the same price: a PS3 without the full functionality of a standalone BluRay player -or- a full player with all of the features that a PS3 doesn't have

What features would a standalone BluRay player have that the PS3 does not?

Re:Of course (1)

LoverOfJoy (820058) | more than 7 years ago | (#18171376)

DVD upscaling to 1080p? A universal remote with picture mode settings? Not a whole lot but I can imagine picking the standalone player if I wanted blu ray and wasn't into games at all...especially if they cost the same. But the PS3 cost significantly less then I could imagine my choice changing.

Re:Of course (1)

ShadowsHawk (916454) | more than 7 years ago | (#18171188)

I understand your point but disagree that people are purchasing the PS3 as a cheap BluRay player. There may be some, but they are probably in the extreme minority. Having said that, I have no interest in the PS3 or BluRay until they drop in price. I really can't see spending more than $200-250 for a gaming platform and anything more than $150 for a movie player is ridiculous.

Re:Of course (1)

HappySqurriel (1010623) | more than 7 years ago | (#18172388)

In North America I agree with you but in Japan it is a different story ...

Currently (in Japan) there have been (roughly) 700,000 PS3 systems sold and (roughly) 725,000 games sold; being that many gamers would buy (at least) 2 games with a system, and have bought (at least) one aditional game in the past couple of months, I think a reasonable assumption is that a lot of PS3 systems have only been used to watch movies.

Re:Of course (1)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 7 years ago | (#18170818)

This is completely true, though they're finally starting to release some worthwhile stuff. fl0w was just released (and is completely amazing), Virtua Fighter 5 (I hear) is excellent, and Motorstorm comes out next week. These games should likely give the sales a boost, although I doubt the big jump will come until FFXIII/GTA4/MGS4.

Re:Of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18176016)

i don't know about final fantasy but GTA4 and virtua fighter 5 are coming out for the xbox360 also

Excellent!! (5, Funny)

rlp (11898) | more than 7 years ago | (#18169882)

As a Nintendo shareholder, you have my deepest gratitude.

Re:Excellent!! (-1, Troll)

Intangible Fact (1001781) | more than 7 years ago | (#18170118)

You better sell your shares becuase in a year the public will have already forgot about the simple mini games and rehash games. You have my deepest gratitude.

Re:Excellent!! (2, Insightful)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 7 years ago | (#18170718)

Maybe so, but Nintendo will still have made massive profits while Sony sinks deeper and deeper into the abyss that is their game division atm.

Re:Excellent!! (2, Insightful)

Phisbut (761268) | more than 7 years ago | (#18175262)

You better sell your shares becuase in a year the public will have already forgot about the simple mini games and rehash games.

Just like the public has already forgotten about the DS when everybody went out to buy PSPs and watch UMDs

Re:Excellent!! (1)

ProppaT (557551) | more than 7 years ago | (#18180692)

Do you realize what the number one played game in the world is? Mario? Think again. Halo 2? Think again. Pokemon?? Think again.

Try Solitaire built into Windows. Solitaire. And you think people are gonna forget about "minigames" once the PS3's ultimate graphics take over the world! Heh, that's just silly.

I don't understand (0, Troll)

Kohath (38547) | more than 7 years ago | (#18169934)

You mean Sony isn't completely obsessed with the price of their console, like the press is? They don't feel bad about the lack of rumble, like the press does? They have their own strategy that doesn't involve pleasing the press?

I'm just not getting it. Can someone in the press tell me what I should think about this?

Next you'll be telling us that Sony isn't planning on trying to make every XBox 360 and Wii fanboy happy. Surely not even Sony would ignore such a vocal crowd -- would they?

You nailed it. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18170116)

"I'm just not getting it. "

Nobody is. That's the problem. Both the Wii and Xbox360 seem to be the ones that people are getting.

I have no doubt that a price cut is coming, and soon. I'll take a look when the 60G model hits $399.

Re:I don't understand (5, Insightful)

LukeCage (1007133) | more than 7 years ago | (#18170180)

You mean Sony isn't completely obsessed with the price of their console, like potential customers are? They don't feel bad about the lack of rumble, like the potential customers do? They have their own strategy that doesn't involve pleasing potential customers?

You seem to think that "the press" has it's own agenda here, but in this case they are bringing up legitimate concerns that the public is putting forward and that Sony is ignoring. I won't go as far as saying "self-destructing", but ever since their E3 price announcement they have steadily been eroding the goodwill of gamers and turning off potential customers. Like myself...I was going to buy a PS3 before the sky-high price and lack of exclusives turned me off to it. Their attitude isn't helping me re-evaluate that decision.

Don't bother with the interview, btw. It's nothing more than PR-flak "we can do no wrong" spiel from a clueless non-gamer executive.

Re:I don't understand (1)

Kohath (38547) | more than 7 years ago | (#18170332)

You seem to think that "the press" has it's own agenda here...

Come on. We all know the press never has an agenda.

I was going to buy a PS3 before the sky-high price and lack of exclusives turned me off to it.

If the price is such an issue for you, how did you think you were going to afford any games? The PS3 costs as much as another console with an accessory and a couple of games.

Re:I don't understand (1)

XenoRyet (824514) | more than 7 years ago | (#18170458)

If the price is such an issue for you, how did you think you were going to afford any games? The PS3 costs as much as another console with an accessory and a couple of games.
Perhaps he does, in fact, want a couple of games, and not just the system itself.

Re:I don't understand (1)

vapspwi (634069) | more than 7 years ago | (#18170460)

>>The PS3 costs as much as another console with an accessory and a couple of games.

Yeah, but then you buy an accessory and a couple of games for the PS3, and suddenly it's way more expensive than that other console again.

Games and accessories are essentially a push across all the consoles - you'll need an extra controller, a fancier video cable, and a couple of games no matter which console you get, and the costs for those items are similar across all the consoles. Comparing the base prices of the consoles is perfectly valid, and there's no getting around the fact that the PS3 is significantly more expensive than the competition.

JRjr

Re:I don't understand (0)

Kohath (38547) | more than 7 years ago | (#18170624)

...suddenly it's way more expensive...

No, it's still just an accessory and a couple of games more expensive.

Comparing the base prices of the consoles is perfectly valid...

Indeed it is. But there's a $100-200 difference between the 360 and the PS3. If that's the end of the world for you, then I contend that you can't afford to buy games. It's a factor, but it's been over-hyped past the point of stupidity now.

Re:I don't understand (3, Informative)

torchdragon (816357) | more than 7 years ago | (#18170922)

Actually, wouldn't the problem be that I can afford to buy $100-200 worth of additional items AND a cheaper system as opposed to a more expensive system with nothing? I remember back in the day saving up my pennies so that I could buy my own SNES. Now, I know this whole "teaching your kid (financial) responsibility" thing is on the way out, but for those few parents encouraging their kids to save up for a smart purchase a $100-200 cut is huge. 1xPS3 @ $499 = 1xWii @ $250 + 5xGames @ $50 ea More potential customers care about price point than those that care about ZOMG GRAPHICS!!!! (especially true when the potential customer's parent is the one that ends up footing the bill)

Re:I don't understand (1)

Kohath (38547) | more than 7 years ago | (#18171096)

More potential customers care about price point than those that care about ZOMG GRAPHICS!!!!

Yeah, those people bought a Wii or a PS2. Some people are in the market for hi-def and some aren't. There are lots of nice choices for everyone.

Re:I don't understand (1)

vapspwi (634069) | more than 7 years ago | (#18171288)

>>No, it's still just an accessory and a couple of games more expensive.

I'm just going from my personal experience here. I've got enough money in the bank to go buy whatever I want to buy. Being able to afford the console isn't an issue. (I have no interest in the 360, so that's not in the equation for me.) Wii is $250, so I bought one. If I were to buy a PS3, I'd want the 60 GB version, which is $600. $350 is more than "an accessory and a couple of games more expensive." More like 5 games (hypothetically - all I've got's Zelda so far), a Wiimote, a nunchuck, a classic controller, and a couple of Virtual Store downloads more expensive.

But it's not "not being able to afford it" that keeps me from buying a PS3, it's "not willing to spend $600 for a toy." In other words, price is a factor in ways beyond "I don't have that much money."

JRjr

Re:I don't understand (1)

CaymanIslandCarpedie (868408) | more than 7 years ago | (#18171944)

I don't think for most people here its "too expensive" as in they cannot afford it. Its "too expensive" as in there is something just as good or better which costs less. IE if Bill Gates was in the market for a car and found two that were identical but one cost $50,000 while the other cost $70,000, the $70,000 one would be too expensive (far more expense for the same value).

That said, it also CAN be a matter of "too expensive" (as in cannot afford it). Say a poor college student is considering a PS3 and a couple games but he'll have to live next month on nothing but Mac 'n Cheese and Ramon noodles or he can get a X360 and a couple games plus he can have burgers and a few beers for the next month. Now your opinion seems to be such a person shouldn't buy any system, but we all know they will and in that case the PS3 is too expensive (cannot afford it).

Re:I don't understand (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18172204)

The problem with your logic is that you've just reasoned a Benjamin out of existence, even comparing the premium 360 to the low-end PS3. If "affording to be a gamer" requires a mindset that ignores such large sums, then I ought to hang out at a gaming store with a cloth and shoe polish.

Re:I don't understand (1)

tzhuge (1031302) | more than 7 years ago | (#18171690)

"If the price is such an issue for you, how did you think you were going to afford any games? The PS3 costs as much as another console with an accessory and a couple of games." This statement makes a pretty bad assumption. The absolute price isn't necessarily the issue. It's the price for value that is really questionable. In my evaluation, the PS3 holds no value over an Xbox360 or a Wii, so I would consider price to be an issue even if it was $1 more. Now, for others it might hold more, even $100-200 more.

Re:I don't understand (1)

Kohath (38547) | more than 7 years ago | (#18172450)

In my evaluation, the PS3 holds no value over an Xbox360 or a Wii, so I would consider price to be an issue even if it was $1 more. Now, for others it might hold more, even $100-200 more.

Yes. So the PS3 is too expensive to some and the 360 is too expensive to others. People value different things differently.

I'm not sure I understand how that makes "PS3 to Continue at the Same Price" news though.

Re:I don't understand (1)

Chibi Merrow (226057) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178072)

I'm not sure I understand how that makes "PS3 to Continue at the Same Price" news though.

Because 99.9% of Sony's potential customer base believes $600 is too much to pay for a toy. Hell, even in *Japan*, Sony's stronghold, they can't clear 40k systems in a week. Meanwhile the DS practically hasn't dipped under 150k sales for about two years. Traditionally there is no market Sony does better in than Japan, and their two flagship systems' sales (PS3 and PSP) added together aren't even coming close to the numbers of just one of the systems of a company they've already publicly declared they didn't believe to be "real" competition. Then there's the fact that the PS2 has outsold the PS3 several weeks in the past few months (despite an already saturated market) and that the 360's (the least liked console in Japan since the original XBox) numbers have actually come within striking distance a few times in the same time period and the fact that we're not seeing a price drop announced and seeing Sony do crazy things like remove features from their products before European launch makes most people wonder what exactly Sony is trying to do with themselves. Their system is DoA and they don't seem to know what to do to fix it.

Penny Arcade is great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18172152)

Don't forget the Jewel crusted chalice [penny-arcade.com] !

Re:I don't understand (0, Troll)

SetupWeasel (54062) | more than 7 years ago | (#18170338)

As a long time Nintendo fan, posts like this make me so mother fucking happy. Nintendo received so much bad press they never deserved, and now that Sony is getting the animosity they begged for, the Sony camp is upset.

I have to say that I am eating this with a spoon. It feels like the Islanders won the Stanley Cup. The only thing sweeter than the rise of an underdog is the tears of the fair-weather fans.

Don't worry. If this continues, you'll switch teams and start flogging Sony.

Re:I don't understand (2, Interesting)

Kohath (38547) | more than 7 years ago | (#18170450)

I'm not on a team. The press should think about reporting the news instead of beating up on Nintendo or Sony or anyone else. Sony saying the price isn't going to change isn't news.

The whole "Can you believe the Sony execs don't agree with us about our latest obsession?" storyline that the press has going is silly.

In other news, The Sun says it has no plans to change it's habit of coming up in the morning. We'll be back with updates on that story every 20 minutes or as they occur.

Re:I don't understand (1)

SetupWeasel (54062) | more than 7 years ago | (#18170706)

saying "We are completely content with our plan and its outcome," is news. Not "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction" news, but for gossipy video game entertainment news, this is gold.

Re:I don't understand (1)

Kohath (38547) | more than 7 years ago | (#18170840)

saying "We are completely content with our plan and its outcome," is news.

It's essentially what every corporate PR person always says.

Breaking news: Politician says "vote for me".

Savings passed on to You! (1)

JoelMartinez (916445) | more than 7 years ago | (#18170060)

... the business model of the industry is to pass those savings onto the consumer...
Really? when? where?

Calling Steve Jobs (1)

bym051d (980242) | more than 7 years ago | (#18170182)

I'm as big of a Sony fan as there is, but there's one hell of a Jobs patented Reality Distortion Field in effect. They really discount the huge effect of the DS on the portable market and the lack of a first party PS3 killer app.

Re:Calling Steve Jobs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18173100)

Not really. Steve Jobs gets everyone else to believe in his vision of reality. Sony doesn't seem to have that talent.

yep (-1, Flamebait)

nomadic (141991) | more than 7 years ago | (#18170244)

Why should they drop the price? They're already selling out almost everything they send out. I know Sony-haters like to think that the fact that they saw a console or two on the store shelves is indicative of something, but if I was producing a product that was 99% sold out I'd be pretty happy with the results.

Re:yep (3, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 7 years ago | (#18170386)

Except when your competition is selling many more systmes and is 100% sold out all the time. I still can not find a Wii for sale. I have no problem finding PS3s. Then add in that that your competition is making a lot more per system sold than you are and it actually does look pretty ugly.

Re:yep (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18171116)

You may want to update that link for your homepage, I had to click through 4 or 5 "post moved" pages before I got to the actual post.

Re:yep (1)

rlp (11898) | more than 7 years ago | (#18171344)

> If you want to run Linux don't buy the Dell Dimension E521.

If you mean the USB mouse problem w. Ubuntu, Dell's Jan '07 BIOS upgrade fixes that.

Re:yep (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18170488)

Just me wondering, How long was it until PS2 could be found routinely in stores?

I ask this because I suspect it was more than three months, but I could be wrong. And before you label me a "sony-hater" remember that I am comparing two Sony products (even though I am conviently ignoring games, but I wasn't really interested in any PS2 launch games either).

As for price lowering, I'd bet Apple would have more of a market if the Mac was $2000 rather than $2495 in 1984. (I recall a story that DOS sold more than OS rivals because of a lower price, but I could be mistaken) Remember that network effects apply to video games as well.

Re:yep (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18170594)

Gee, thats funny, every single store in my area that Ive been to in the past few weeks has had several PS3s in stock (even Blockbuster had one the other day). Additionally, hitting iTrackr shows every Target, GameStop, and even CompUSA in my area has them in stock as well. I'd just put that 99% sold out figure right back up your ass where you got it.

Re:yep (1)

XenoRyet (824514) | more than 7 years ago | (#18170610)

That was true a few weeks ago, but the systems really are starting to pile up. Last week I was in Best Buy twice, and both times they had a stack of 40+ units of the 60 gig model out. The first time, I thought I just must have shown up on a shipment day, but the second time proved that wrong.

I know it's just another anecdote from a guy on the internet. But, if you add it all up, the PS3 is getting easy to find. I don't necessarily think that means it's time for a price drop, but the theory that they're still selling out virtually instantly is no longer valid.

Re:yep (4, Interesting)

Cadallin (863437) | more than 7 years ago | (#18170680)

Um no, They aren't selling out, and we're not talking a console or two. We're talking even the smallest retailers have a a stack of half a dozen machines, with the big stores having stacks of the things. This isn't just the states either, its the same in Japan. Retailers in Japan have already started to discount the machines just to get rid of them. This isn't bad, its an out and out disaster. And Sony's not helping things either. Telling Europe they're getting crippled systems with impaired backwards compatibility isn't exactly drumming up excitement for the European launch (and its not really pleasing anybody else worldwide either).

If Sony wants to salvage the situation, they need to be doing something right now. Because here's what Sony's got: The worst development tools (vs. Xbox 360, great dev tools, and the Wii, with good tools, and lots of experienced developers in the field), the most expensive platform to develop for (partially due to poor tools, but also due to the use of expensive technologies like blu-ray), the smallest market share, and the slowest growing market share. If I were a developer, I'd be thinking long and hard about my commitment to the PS3 right now. The alternatives are looking very tempting. At this point I wouldn't even count on Final Fantasy remaining Sony exclusive. My guess is that Microsoft is probably flashing crap tons of "partnership" cash in their direction(It's what I would do if I were a Microsoft Gaming Division executive), while Nintendo is content to let their profitability and growth speak for themselves.

Re:yep (2, Interesting)

fistfullast33l (819270) | more than 7 years ago | (#18171906)

We're talking even the smallest retailers have a a stack of half a dozen machines, with the big stores having stacks of the things.

You're right, I was just in Best Buy and Circuit City last night, and thanks to Sony's console I now have two pending lawsuits due to negligence from stumbling over the damn boxes! They're piled up outside and the retailers can't even give them away!

Let's cut the hyperbole for a second. If the crisis was as bad as you say it is, two things would be happening.

1) Retailers would be screaming for a price cut or motivational factor to move the consoles. They don't want them sitting on the floor, they want them moving, especially due to the high price of the investment that it represents in inventory. If it was really bad, they'd be willing to take the loss that a price drop to consumers represents and would demand that Sony reimburse them. There have been no public reports of this.

2) Sony wouldn't be shipping as many consoles as they are currently. How many consoles have they shipped to date? 2 million? [gamasutra.com] . If they are not selling like you say they are, then the next quarterly report will note a decrease in console shipments (so less than 2 million more shipped). Until then, you can make no conclusions about how the actual console is selling because retailers won't report this information fast enough!

First person comments do not count! Give me a statistic - a published report of 24 consoles per big box retailer or something. But piles and piles doesn't mean anything to me. Besides, you don't know how many of those are empty boxes. To have a $600 console just sitting on the floor without protection (especially in the smaller Gamestops and EBGames) is kind of stupid since someone will just run out the door with them.

NPD Statistics (4, Informative)

Dobeln (853794) | more than 7 years ago | (#18172946)

"Until then, you can make no conclusions about how the actual console is selling because retailers won't report this information fast enough!"

Erm, NPD (USA) and Media Create (Japan) keep close track of the sales of all major consoles, and as the PS3 has only been released in those territories, the statistics are comprehensive. Current stats:

November 2006:
Xbox 360 -- 511K
Wii -- 476K
PS3 -- 197K

December 2006:
Xbox 360 1.1 mm
Wii 604.2 K
PS3 490.7 K

January 2007:
Xbox 360 294k
Playstation 3 244k
Wii 436k

NPD also does Canada stats, but the PS3 has been the slowest selling console there as well (by far).

In short, I do believe there is reason for Sony to worry, but not to panic. Yet. This is a marathon, not a sprint, after all...

Re:yep (1)

Cadallin (863437) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174502)

Unfortunately, the stats (posted by Dobeln) back me up. I may be exaggerating the situation, but all my basic premises are correct. Sony is not doing well, if they are going to "win" or even stay afloat this generation, they're going to have to start outselling the Xbox 360 at the very least at some point, and the longer they stay behind (both in numbers and sales), the more attractive the alternatives look to developers, which in turn drives more sales to those alternatives. They cannot retain their 3rd party exclusives with the market share they have. The 3rd parties can and will leave, and due to the extreme expense and long development times titles have these days, I'd think that the 3rd parties would be VERY reluctant to continue to back the PS3.

Re:yep (1)

Skreems (598317) | more than 7 years ago | (#18170750)

I know Sony-haters like to think that the fact that they saw a console or two on the store shelves is indicative of something
When your supply chain is shot, and you can still find units on the shelves in every store in town [penny-arcade.com] , it probably does mean something.

Re:yep (1)

MarkAyen (726688) | more than 7 years ago | (#18170870)

Why should they drop the price? They're already selling out almost everything they send out.

Only if you believe Sony's corporate double-speak. Every electronics retailer I've visited recently has surpluses of them in-store and as of right now they're in-stock and available online at Amazon, Best Buy, Circuit City, Wal-Mart (albeit only as part of a bundle) and GameStop - every e-tailer I can be bothered to check.

Saw 11 or so piled up at Gamestop... (1)

AmazingRuss (555076) | more than 7 years ago | (#18171564)

in Santa Maria, CA yesterday. All I could think was "Damn, I wish they had that many WII's"

I pondered a purchase...but the price was prohibitive. Plus, they are kind of cheap looking and I saw no interesting looking games.

Maybe next generation...

Of course not (1)

John Jamieson (890438) | more than 7 years ago | (#18170280)


Of course he is in no rush to drop the price. If I were in his position I would be tempted to wait until I was forced. I know of no corporation that is in a rush to drop prices.
Even Walmart drops prices to beat up the competition, not because they really care if you have an extra dollar at the end of the year. (and soon many won't have the dollar as they shut down more and more of the US economy, but that is another topic for another day)

Re:Of course not (1)

poot_rootbeer (188613) | more than 7 years ago | (#18171876)

I know of no corporation that is in a rush to drop prices.

Maybe not, but there's no shortage of companies that are willing to drop prices in order to get rid of unsold inventory.

If Sony is losing $200 on every PS3 they DO sell, then they lose $800 on every PS3 they've manufactured but DON'T sell. It's not outlandish to suggest that it might get to a point where Sony would drop the MSRP by $100, meaning they get away with a loss of only $300 per unit. Negative three is better than negative eight.

Re:Of course not (1)

John Jamieson (890438) | more than 7 years ago | (#18172818)

Yep, I agree. I think they have a lot of good reasons that could FORCE them to drop the price. They are not in any RUSH...

Re:Of course not (1)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 7 years ago | (#18172302)

He should be. The odd thing about video game systems is that there's momentum at play. If you can't get a reasonable install base, then you lose exclusive developers, who will move on to greener pastures where they know they can make money. And if you lose exclusives, you lose a major reason to buy a particular console.

Getting out early and building an install base fast is *extremely* important to the success and longevity of a platform. Cutting prices on the PS3 may go a long way to helping them in that goal.

Of course, more and better games would also help, but the DS sold like hotcakes right after launch despite having a rather thin launch library, thanks in part to it's low price point, allowing people to justify the purchase even if there was only one or two games they were interested in.

Re:Of course not (1)

John Jamieson (890438) | more than 7 years ago | (#18173176)

Ya, I am not sure even that would solve his problems.

They always talk about the three pillers of success. Price,games and installed base. Supposedly you need two of the three to get any momentum in the third. So, if he could just get a KILLER game or two, maybe the price cut would pay off.

Right now they have none of the above strengths. Time will tell, they may have won the blueray fight at the expense of the console cash cow. If I had a choice, I would rather dominate the console market.

Wow (1)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | more than 7 years ago | (#18170336)

Can this guy possibly spew any MORE bullshit?

I feel insulted that he thinks we're this stupid.

Re:Wow (1)

GrayCalx (597428) | more than 7 years ago | (#18171024)

Could you point out for me specifically what bullshit you're upset by? I'm only going on the price-drop quote. And it seems to be free of bullshit. A reporter asked him, straight up, when would the ps3 drop in price. He was amicable said there would be a price drop, but its way off in the future.

I think you're just getting your panties in a wad.

Re:Wow (1)

Rycross (836649) | more than 7 years ago | (#18171066)

Agreed. I was surprised at how well he answered the questions, given Sony's recent epidemic case of foot-in-mouth-itis.

Re:Wow (1)

sqlrob (173498) | more than 7 years ago | (#18171050)

Can this guy possibly spew any MORE bullshit?

Be careful, he'll take that as a challenge.

Insulting (5, Interesting)

vapspwi (634069) | more than 7 years ago | (#18170368)

As a fan of the PS2 who WANTS the PS3 to succeed (I'll buy one when the price comes down...), I find this interview rather insulting. It's just so transparent that EVERYTHING he's saying is just a repeat of the company line, trying to turn negatives into positives.

Lots of PS3s languishing on shelves? "We do a good job managing our supply chain." Target in Newnan, GA, 4 PM on 2/25: 11 PS3s, 0 Wiis. Congrats on your expert supply chain management, Sony, but maybe you'd better focus on SELLING THE PRODUCT.

No rumble in the controllers? "That's a previous-gen feature." Yeah, and why would you carry over a minor feature that most users are neutral or positive about into the next generation...

Motion sensitivity? "Far more opportunity for future innovation..." Ah, so that's why Sony didn't even HAVE motion sensitivity in place until the last minute, then?

Arrgh. Just infuriating.

JRjr

Re:Insulting (1)

king-manic (409855) | more than 7 years ago | (#18177080)

The PS3 distribution is uneven. Up here in Edmonton, Alberta Canada there is not a PS3 in sight. Shipments vanish as they come ditto with the wiis. 360s everywhere though. The places were you see them "languish" in shelves are likely places that had too many shipped int he area. I am not willing to deal with ebay or any oneline retailer when the amoutn is over $100, because that is a loss I can't write off if it goes south. So I am stuck waiting. I want to grab a PS3 for the Ps2 Backwards compat at the very least. But availibility si nil here. A

Re:Insulting (1)

chrish (4714) | more than 7 years ago | (#18180482)

Costco in Ajax, Ontario, has 4-5 20GB PS3s, and almost a full palette (20+?) of 60GB PS3s. Under 10 Xbox 360s, and (of course) no Wiis.

EB Games in the Pickering Town Centre can't keep Wiis in stock (or accessories, for that matter), but they've got PS3s sitting there.

The Wii is just fun, the 360 has loads of games, and the PS3... has BluRay. Which is pretty pointless unless you've got the HDTV mess all sorted out.

I think one of the Wii's greatest opportunities is to reduce development costs. It's getting to the point where games need to sell millions of copies just to break even, and most games simply can't sell that many units. Especially with the lower installed bases of the new consoles. PS2 games will probably keep coming out for quite a while because of this, too.

Re:Insulting (1)

king-manic (409855) | more than 7 years ago | (#18180916)

Don't kid yourself. If Nintendo "wins" they'll each make up the difference with higher licence fees. They did so in the past with the NES. . Each of the three are varyign degrees of evil. The wii is fun but shallow. I have one, it's good. I'm looking for some deeper games. 360/xbox library don't appeal to me so I'm seeking a PS3.

Full of themselves (1)

the dark hero (971268) | more than 7 years ago | (#18170546)

A steady supply chain? Rumble is last gen? You've got to be kidding me!

Talk to the people who run GameStop, talk to the people who run BestBuy, and they'll tell you that the demand is unprecedented and that they give us kudos for managing to keep a very sophisticated supply chain moving.

Phil, the people at slashdot have had several conversations with these people and we'll tell you a different story. No regrets? I hope not, but i do hope this generation knocks off SCE from its high chair so that you guys don't screw up the following generation with your pompous attitude.

No need to read TFA. The interview offers very little insight beyond Phil Harrison and SCEA believing that their little baby can do no wrong.

Read for translation (2, Funny)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 7 years ago | (#18170582)

"So long as you suckers keep paying full price, we have no reason to offer a discouunt! Muhuhaha!"

"Last-generation" features? (2, Interesting)

Wilson_6500 (896824) | more than 7 years ago | (#18170856)

What, like gameplay?

Seriously, what kind of rationale is that for leaving out a feature? If that's a _justified_ reason, then it means that the feature was all along just a gimmick to lure people in, like virtual reality (i.e. red lines) or force feedback or onboard memory expansion. Why would you want to say something like that to people? "Well, we can't dupe you dolts any longer with that candy, so we'll drop that for some new one like motion sensing." If it's _unjustified_ to dismiss it as last-gen, then you're dropping support for something that gamers might possibly want or like; if gamers don't like it or don't care about it, why not just say that? It's not like Sony would be admitting that they made a mistake since they didn't exactly pioneer the idea of controllers with rumble.

It's not really even right semantically. It's not like we have something better to replace it--you could argue that motion sensing and rumble aren't compatible and one would have to replace the other, but since they don't do the same thing it's not really a supersession of "last-gen" rumble with "next-gen" motion sensing. If we found some whiz-bang thing that would make for instance anisotropic filtering obsolete, THEN you could call anisotropic filtering a "last-generation" feature.

In this context, it just sounds like marketingspeak use of "generation."

Re:"Last-generation" features? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18171124)

Likewise the PS2 and the PSP and the PS3 set themselves as far apart as possible from popular expectations for what a videogame machine should, or might, look like - to the point of plain impracticality. In their time the systems are so expensive, so glossy, they serve more as high-end luxury items than a simple game machine. To drive that point home, they are all packed with features to give the impression that they are indeed more than a mere game machine. That nobody uses these added features, that most of them are implemented poorly, and that nobody in his right mind would have reason to buy a game console no matter how "cool" it was unless he was interested in videogames, is beside the point: they create a perception of value, and of a higher order. They also create the odd perception that, to sell videogames, you have to hide them behind a veneer of more "legitimate" electronic devices.

The implication seems to still be, from the Sony camp, that videogames are either something to be afraid of or not innately worthwhile - which, considering how entrenched Sony has now become within the industry, strikes me as something of a problematic and silly position. All it suggests to me, personally, is that Sony has yet to develop any original ideas as to what to do with this industry. To an extent, the company is still flogging its original point from a decade ago - which again at least made sense back then, as non-constructive as it was. That it is still playing the "too cool for you" game strikes me as a little pathetic, and gives me the impression that Sony never really had anything to contribute. That on a practical level all Sony has ever done is play one-upsmanship with other people's ideas (shoulder buttons, analog sticks, analog triggers, motion control) pretty much confirms the perception that this is a company without much, if anything, constructive to say.

--What's Wrong With Console Design? [next-gen.biz]

Well (1)

Is0m0rph (819726) | more than 7 years ago | (#18171158)

I think it's people not buying $600 PS3s more than their awesome supply capabilities. My local Walmarts and Targets have multiple premium PS3s on the shelves now, no $500 ones, and never any Wiis. I've seen a Wii in stock one time. I'm not buying either one of them I'm happy with the 360 so far.

Re:Well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18172400)

I set out to buy a 20GB PS3 and no retailers have them in stock. I was told by multiple locations that they have not received ANY since launch. Speculation is that Sony has quietly discontinued the 20GB model. I won't spend the extra $100 for features I don't need, so I no longer plan to buy a PS3.

Gee, Phil, thanks for letting us know (2, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 7 years ago | (#18171274)

I think the entire gaming world just breathed a sigh of "Who gives a rat's ass?"

Seriously, is there any real reason to buy one of these things at ANY price right now?

-Eric

Money Better Spent? (3, Interesting)

Plekto (1018050) | more than 7 years ago | (#18171686)

I as talking with a friend online last night and the PS3 came up. It eventually came around to the price and two things came up.

1:$600 in PC upgrades results in an astounding increase in gaming potential for most people. Far more than any PS3. Why should we spend $600 for a box that's merely comparable to the old gaming rig we want to upgrade anyways?

2:If Sony ditched the Blu-Ray player or made it an optiona add-on, the PS3 would barely cost $250, if that. $300 is a hard price-point, like $30,000 is for car buyers. It's hard to justify more than that much for somethng unless there's a real need for it.(let alone $600 or a $60,000 car). The Wii sells well because it's inexpensive and fun. The PS3 is expensive and games are slow to arrive.

3: One more - Me? I bought a PS2 this holliday season for my son. Cheap, effective, and it has Guitar Hero and GT4 and so on. Its a great toy for him and didn't break the bank.

Re:Money Better Spent? (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 7 years ago | (#18175398)

Cool. Bought myself a GameCube for Christmas.

Marty DiBergi asks... (1)

Purity Of Essence (1007601) | more than 7 years ago | (#18173024)

Marty DiBergi: The last time Tap toured America, they where, uh, booked into 10,000 seat arenas, and 15,000 seat venues, and it seems that now, on the current tour they're being booked into 1,200 seat arenas, 1,500 seat arenas, and uh I was just wondering, does this mean uh...the popularity of the group is waning?

Ian Faith: Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no...no, no, not at all. I, I, I just think that the.. uh.. their appeal is becoming more selective.

Why reduce price when it's still selling well? (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 7 years ago | (#18173186)

Sony has finally, it seemed, ironed out demand problems - Feb 21st is the first day that Amazon had them in stock for more than a day as you can see in the primary systems sales graph [eproductwars.com] for the three consoles (scroll down near the bottom)...

The thing to note there is that since the console finally had availability, it's been consistently at a pretty good sales rank (around eight to ten according to the same chart) and in fact higher in sales rank than the 360. Given that it's selling in healthy numbers, why reduce the price? Even all last month when the PS3 was not as available, it still sold almost as many systems as the 360.

I would like one cheaper myself (I do not yet own any of the three next-gen consoles). But if people are buying them, then I guess the price isn't so bad as people here think. A lot of people are thinking of the PS3 as a $250 game system along with a $250 Blu-Ray player, and from that standpoint the system is a pretty good value. If the PS3 sales do pick up beyond the level of the 360 wil there then be calls for Microsoft to reduce the 360 price?

Re:Why reduce price when it's still selling well? (1)

HappySqurriel (1010623) | more than 7 years ago | (#18173340)

The problem is market share ...

Market Share is a very easy thing to lose and an amazingly difficult thing to gain. As long as they are selling approximately as many systems as the XBox 360, and selling less systems than the Wii, they will be the system with the lowest market share and are (essentially) digging themselves into a hole.

The reason why this is important is that (as I have said before) the only type of performance that third party developers care about is sales performance. The PS3 is currently selling at a rate similar to what the Gamecube and Dreamcast sold at (in both Japan and North America) meaning third party developers will (possibly) start treating the PS3 like they treated the Dreamcast and Gamecube; if you don't remember, both systems only had a handful of third party exclusive games from (very) close companies.

Now, I would say that Sony is correct in not rushing and dropping the price of the PS3 ... most of the damage that could be done from a high price has been done (hurting reputation, producing slow sales, etc.). Right now Sony needs to know whether their 'big' game releases will improve sales or whether the PS3 actually needs a price drop to even compete.

Quite a few more (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178232)

Market Share is a very easy thing to lose and an amazingly difficult thing to gain. As long as they are selling approximately as many systems as the XBox 360, and selling less systems than the Wii, they will be the system with the lowest market share and are (essentially) digging themselves into a hole.

Yes but they were only selling "about as many systems" when people could hardly find them.

Now that they are on Amazon for example, they (as I said) have a sales rank of 10 or so, while the 360 is around 17.

Amazon sales rank is not really a linear step - the next step up from 17 does not sell X number more units than 17, just more units. But at the higer levels it takes usually quite a large jump to go from one sales rank to the next - so a difference in sales rank between 17 and 10 is actually quite large. Simply put, with console production actually starting to meet real demand the PS3 is catching up, and has anumber of releases upcoming (Motorstorm, Lair, etc.) that should be real system movers.

Momentum matter almost as much as market share and the PS3 has good momentum right now, better even (as had been said) than the PS2.

The reason why this is important is that (as I have said before) the only type of performance that third party developers care about is sales performance. The PS3 is currently selling at a rate similar to what the Gamecube and Dreamcast sold at (in both Japan and North America) meaning third party developers will (possibly) start treating the PS3 like they treated the Dreamcast and Gamecube; if you don't remember, both systems only had a handful of third party exclusive games from (very) close companies.

Now, I would say that Sony is correct in not rushing and dropping the price of the PS3 ... most of the damage that could be done from a high price has been done (hurting reputation, producing slow sales, etc.). Right now Sony needs to know whether their 'big' game releases will improve sales or whether the PS3 actually needs a price drop to even compete.


There has been damage done from the press to be sure but sales have not been slow, supply has sucked. As I pointed out demand is actually rather high still despite the negative press. And the PS3 is a far cry away from being a Dreamcast, which only ever sold about 10 million units worldwide - A big advantage Sony has is that major studios are already online, in a way the Dreamcast never had. And as I said sales rates are still better than for the PS2.

Re:Why reduce price when it's still selling well? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18176038)

Funny how Amazon goes out of stock for like two hours and then magically has them in stock again. Also, sales rank != sales. It's all relative and Amazaon has no motive to have it be accurate or even honest. In fact, it would be in their best interest to put slow selling items in the top ten list to generate visibility. Amazon posts no hard numbers so you can't tell how many are actually selling (and how many consoles Amazon sells at all). All we know is that the PS3 was outsold by three consoles in December, January, and likely in February. Unless they come up with some killer exclusive titles (since all the ports play better on the 360), that trend won't change. As for availability, my local well-traveled Best Buy (SF Bay Area) has had a stack of PS3s that measures ~60 cubic feet that hasn't moved in weeks. And before you say "But that stack could be constantly refilled"- one of the boxes has a distinctive rip so it hasn't moved in weeks. There hasn't been a problem finding a PS3 since the beginning of January. Just ask the guys at Penny Arcade.

Re:Why reduce price when it's still selling well? (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178244)

Exclusives like Motorstorm and Lair and Killzone and whatever the next Katmari is? The PS3 has a good deal going just with those.

And to claim in one breath that Amazon is fudging sales rank numbers, and then in another to claim they mean nothing - the most pitiful display of spin I have ever witnessed. Come out and post like a Man AC or continue to be laughed at for your two-faced suppositions.

Re:Why reduce price when it's still selling well? (1)

Chibi Merrow (226057) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178316)

whatever the next Katmari is

It's called Elebits. :)

Re:Why reduce price when it's still selling well? (2, Funny)

Chibi Merrow (226057) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178300)

Sony has finally, it seemed, ironed out demand problems

I agree. They've done an excellent job of killing practically any demand for their latest console. :)

Old-gen, New-Gen, Next-Gen, Last-Gen. (1)

gr3kgr33n (824960) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174134)

After reading over the comments thus far; a few things stand out.
  1. High cost is prohibitive to purchasing the system
  2. "My 360 is better"
  3. No exclusive Titles
I'm not going to lie to you. I have both the 60gig and the 20gig versions of the console. What made me buy, not one but two of these systems you might ask? I'll tell you. Its the Combinations of nice technology wrapped in one case.

I'm jumping off topic but I have a grievance to shout. The comments of My 360 is better look at my ZOMG Graphics and game play on Gears of War
Try comparing apples to apples. Gears of war is rendered off the latest Unreal engine which has been the industry standard in graphics for every version. The problem with comparing ports of the same game is the different architectures. Did the Devs take full use of the Cell Proc or did they simply recompile it for the Cell and not optimize it? Not to mention the Unreal Engine is not complete for the PS3. But I regress, moving on.

Exclusive titles come to platforms with a player base
It is true the PS3 dosn't have a large following. however the real reason this is such a shame is because the injustice done to gamers world wide. The world tries to move on, move to better technology, get out of the architecture slump and Corporations continue to hold us back. I'm not saying the 360 is a bad system, or the cost of the ps3 is justified, I'm just saying that Sony took a step tward the future. Stepping forward is costly, and Microsoft and its greed (you can not deny that comment and call yourself a slashdot reader) has successfully held the world of gaming back from moving in a new direction. I'm not saying that the ps3 is the correct direction, what I am saying is; as gamers continue to buy the 360, they continue to fuel the Giant that would have you stuck on the same architecture for the XBox 780 because it suits them not to move forward.
Demand more than a Microsoft branded, oversized laptop without an LCD

Sony:"Lets try something new. We will design and manufacture and new architecture and pass the cost to the user for the R&D and production"
Nintendo:"Lets have a little fun"
Microsoft:"Screw Sony. Screw the users. Keep the industry on an architecture we can support"

Re:Old-gen, New-Gen, Next-Gen, Last-Gen. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18174844)

-1 Idiot Fanboy. P.S. I own Sony, M$ and Nintendo. Love them all to date (no PS3 though) Sony took a step forwards to pwn all, greed, and very else. Harrison is a twat to boot.

Re:Old-gen, New-Gen, Next-Gen, Last-Gen. (1)

trdrstv (986999) | more than 7 years ago | (#18175552)

The problem with comparing ports of the same game is the different architectures. Did the Devs take full use of the Cell Proc or did they simply recompile it for the Cell and not optimize it?

That is entirely irrelevant. It's how the games are ultimately presented. To the end user if Splinter Cell looks better on the 360 than the PS3 (or vice versa) then it doesn't matter how that happened, simply that it happened. I have had my share of Shitty PS2 ports, despite the hardware of my GameCube being technically superior in every way (but storage space). The hardware is capable of more, but if the dev don't use it then it's wasted.

The same cannot be stated as the same for the PS3 / 360 where neither hardware is superior to the other. Several developers stated it's a wash between the 2. The PS3 has more CPU (cores) and the 360 has more RAM, (and a faster read speed on the DVD). So you will get games that are geared to at least run on the 360's 3 cores, but also the PS3's 256 megs of RAM leveling out the playing field.

Re:Old-gen, New-Gen, Next-Gen, Last-Gen. (3, Insightful)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 7 years ago | (#18175926)

The problem is that, certainly from the point of view of the consumer, PS3 isn't anything new. It's a PS2 with a few generations of silicon advancements incorporated, just like the Xbox 360 is an Xbox with newer silicon. Oh, and better online support and other minor tech, but it's still fundamentally more of the same.

Cell doesn't bring anything to the table but the possibility of more MIPS. As a computer architect, more MIPS is of course interesting to me, and the particulars of how the Cell works are fascinating. As a gamer, it's just more MIPS. Just like the Xbox 360 is more MIPS. That's no more a "new direction" than the PS2 was when it was released. It's the same direction, just trudging along Moore's Law silicon improvements and little else changes. The only difference is that Sony jumped out further ahead on the technology curve this time, getting something new and paying a price premium for it. Riding the bleeding edge is great if you are a hardcore gamer who buys Alienware boxes, but it is a terrible place to be for what is supposedly a mass-market consumer electronic device.

BluRay is the same deal -- all it really does is offer more storage. New direction? PS1 was CD, PS2 was DVD, PS3 is bigger DVD. Sounds like more of the same to me. Yet unlike CD with PS1 or DVD with PS2, BluRay is brand-new technology and thus much more expensive than a more established technology would be, and this is a premium the consumer is paying for.

The fact is that both Microsoft and Sony are greedy, and neither is trying anything new. Both are operating under the "same as before * Moore's Law improvement ratio" scheme of simply pursuing more performance. Sony thought they could beat MS by jumping out ahead on the curve, hoping consumers would be willing to pay the price premium for that decision. They also thought they could leverage the PS3 into victory for BluRay over HD-DVD, again charging consumers for that decision. Going faster down the same path is not the same as a change of direction. The only difference between MS and Sony this generation is that Microsoft executed on the bog-standard console game plan more intelligently than Sony did.

The only one actually trying anything different this generation is Nintendo. Which I'm grateful for, because the Gamecube was essentially the same as the PS2 and Xbox, a "me too" bog-standard console upgrade if ever there was one. It was N's worst console. Now they're back where they were from the NES to N64 days, as leaders and definers of industry standards. Whether it works for them or not, if you really want to give credit to those trying a new path, there is nobody to pick but Nintendo.

Re:Old-gen, New-Gen, Next-Gen, Last-Gen. (2, Insightful)

Chibi Merrow (226057) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178164)

Did the Devs take full use of the Cell Proc or did they simply recompile it for the Cell and not optimize it?

Or is optimizing for a Cell processor an absolute nightmare and so you're best off just getting your stuff running good on the 360 and just plain running on the PS3?

It is true the PS3 dosn't have a large following. however the real reason this is such a shame is because the injustice done to gamers world wide.

I would think that having to pay $600 for the ability to play the next "Shadow of the Colossus", "Gears of War", or "Ocarina of Time" (or insert your own favorite 'killer app'/'industry changer' here) would be a huge injustice to gamers. I think any gamer should have at least seen those three games (and many others), the same as any movie buff should see Casablanca or any science fiction fan should read Stranger in a Strange Land. But the fact of the matter is, if the bar for being able to experience the "next great thing" in gaming is set that high, either a) very very few people will be able to experience it, meaning its effect on future titles will be negligible or b) it'll cease being exclusive.

The world tries to move on, move to better technology, get out of the architecture slump and Corporations continue to hold us back.

As a Computer Scientist I'm practically insulted by this comment. The idea of throwing multiple processors (or piles of money, for that matter) at a problem is nothing "new" or "innovative". It's just an expensive copout to avoid good design. That's not to say Cell is a bad design. It's just a design much better suited to servers and supercomputer clusters, not video games. More processors doesn't automagically lead to better performance. As I've explained to students before, no matter how many Chihauhas you tie to your plow, they're not going to do a better job than an old stubborn donkey. That's really what the Cell is when it comes to gaming, a bunch of loud small dogs tied to a plow. If you can somehow make them all pull at exactly the right time maybe they'll pull off a miracle, but why go through all the trouble?

Meanwhile dismissing the XBox 360 as "same old same old" really isn't giving credit where it's due. The original XBox was literally a gimped Celeron PC with an nVidia graphics card. The 360 is a completely new, scratch built platform with custom Power PC CPUs; ie: it has little to nothing in common technologically speaking with its predecessor (except maybe the fact they're both made out of silicon, aluminum, and plastic).

And then with the Wii in the market, trying to claim Sony is the company trying to move the industry in a new direction goes beyond insulting to malicious.

Why do people think PS3 is expensive? (1)

Mark Gillespie (866733) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174384)

$500 is particulay expensive, when you look at what you are getting. Heck my car costs $300 for a service, for a can of oil, some plugs and a few filters..

PS2 cost $300 when it launched in 2000, factor in inflation it's $350 in todays money. Even factoring in the technology leap between 2000 and 2006, PS3 is considerably more advanced that PS2, for example DVD had at least a foothold in 2000, HD formats are still very new, and even the $500 basic model is still got a huge amount of tech in it. That technology leap is costing you $150.

People need to get grip on reality...

Re:Why do people think PS3 is expensive? (1)

HappySqurriel (1010623) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174546)

Some people would make a similar argument about a Porsche in comparison to a Honda Civic yet most people (even among those who have the money for a Porsche) would end up buying the Honda Civic rather than the Porsche; the reality is that most people are looking for a reasonably nice way to get from point A to point B and the 'Extra Value' of the Porsche is meaningless.

If you're only interested in the PS3 as a videogame machine the Wii or XBox 360 are (effectively) the same product at a much lower price; if you are looking for a 'videogame machine' you are looking for a fun way to spend your time, not necessarily the prettiest graphics.

Re:Why do people think PS3 is expensive? (1)

Chibi Merrow (226057) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178214)

Heck my car costs $300 for a service, for a can of oil, some plugs and a few filters..

$300? For a can of oil, plugs, and filters? What is that in, monopoly money? If I paid $50 total for those three services they'd better wash that bitch and put one of those hangy air freshener things on my mirror.

Also, this is a car, a necessity for most people to support themselves. That would be like saying "Hell, I pay $20k a year on my mortgage!" or "Hell, I pay $50/mo for my insulin!" $500 for a system that does not offer anything more superior to the end user than a system priced $200 less is not an expense most people would be willing to make. Someone who thinks that line of reasoning is unsound "needs to get a grip on reality".

Everyone I know who owns a PS3 (and that's not many people) has not been able to give me any answer as to why they bought it other than "Well, it's a PS3..." There's no draw there for anyone but those who a) Have too much disposable income or b) are Sony fanatics. The a) don't really care about the value of their purchase so far, because if they don't enjoy it they'll just spend money on some other fun pursuit (As an example, one friend spends in excess of $400 every Thursday night on liquor alone at the local Buffalo Wild Wings because he works too much and has no other use for the money) and most of b) that I know have already considered returning the thing, but are waiting because they can't find a place with a Wii (in stock, that is) to exchange it for.

Re:Why do people think PS3 is expensive? (1)

Mark Gillespie (866733) | more than 7 years ago | (#18179544)

Or perhaps it SEEMS expnsive in the US, as their economy is in such poor shape at the moment.. Either way $500 is not that expensive in the sale of things, and you get kick-ass hardware.. I suppose if you want to waste $300 on the unreliable and basic hunk of junk that the 360 is, then fine, but if you want quality, it does not come for free.

Re:Why do people think PS3 is expensive? (1)

Chibi Merrow (226057) | more than 7 years ago | (#18182856)

Or perhaps it SEEMS expnsive in the US, as their economy is in such poor shape at the moment..

It's a laugh a minute around here. You really think the US economy is in poor shape? Based on what? What indicators? What numbers? Lowest unemployment in years? Soaring consumer confidence? Seriously, share your wisdom.

Either way $500 is not that expensive in the sale of things

$500 for living in the PS3 ghetto. $600 if you want to actually live somewhere they don't deal drugs in your front lawn. And yes, $500 is expensive. I can get a very usable PC with a monitor and probably a printer for less than $500 that will probably play games better and longer than the PS3. I could see you not thinking $500 is expensive if you live in Canada or Australia, but that's because your "dollery doos" are worth significantly less than ours.

Shit, in Nevada $500 could get me two hours with the best woman in a brothel. $500 is not an everyday expense for 99.9% of people, it's something you seriously have to plan for. And I seriously doubt a $500 PS3 is going to give me as much ROI as two hours with the one of the best hookers in Nevada.

Re:Why do people think PS3 is expensive? (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 7 years ago | (#18179722)

There is no where around me that will do those car services for even close to either of thos prices (50 or 300) so I can only assume that car work is very differently priced depending on location.

oil change 20
plugs and wires 50 (I always do this myself,since the parts are about 25 and it takes less than 20 minutes)
Filters air filter is about 30 oil filter included with the change.

These are the low end of prices from places I would want to service my car (there are a few gas stations that do only oil for a few dollars less).

A hand car wash is going to cost 25 alone.

That said 300 is starting to be what I consider a big repair. I drive cheap cars and it has been years and years since I paid that much all at once. The PS3 probably costs as much as I spend in car maintanance in 18 months.

Re:Why do people think PS3 is expensive? (1)

Chibi Merrow (226057) | more than 7 years ago | (#18182972)

Well maybe I was exaggerating slightly, but I know I can go to some local places and get an oil change/fluids/filters for about $32. I'd just buy the plugs and do it myself due to how simple the labor is for it (as long as you aren't an idiot with the cables). My car only takes four plugs at about $2.50-$3 ea. And I didn't say it had to be hand washed, just that it better be washed before they give it back to me. ^^;

And yeah, recently I replaced my brakes and had my rotors turned (most significant maint. on the car so far) and I want to say that ran about $150. I did spend another $300 on tires there, but I digress... :P I've owned the car since 2001 and I'd say $500-600 is probably about two years' worth of maintenance for me (tires/oil/filters mostly). But I don't think that's a fair comparison, since it's MY CAR and I NEED it to SURVIVE. :)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?