Even though its pricey, many people will still buy it. Just think about some of the stories from the 360 launch...
[UPDATE 5] US Sony reps confirm scaled-down November 17 debut; Japan to get only 100,000 on November 11. Worldwide 2006 ship target now 2-2.4 million units--1-1.2 million of which will be for North America.
This morning in Tokyo, Sony Computer Entertainment president Ken Kutaragi announced that only 500,000 PlayStation 3s would be available in the US and Japan at launch, and that the console's European debut had been pushed back until 2007.
Of the 500,000 launch PS3s, 100,000 will go on sale in Japan on November 11, and 400,000 will hit store shelves in North America on November 17. "We decided to focus on the Japanese and US markets," Kutaragi told reporters at a Tokyo press conference before apologizing for the delay, according to the Associated Press. Reuters echoed the numbers and said that Kutaragi had lowered the worldwide 2006 PS3 shipment target from 4 million to 2 million.
When initially contacted by GameSpot about today's PS3 news, Sony reps said only that the company had "not announced specific ship numbers for Japan or North America." They also said that, despite the European delay and the reports of reduced shipment numbers, the previous estimates still stood. "[We] have announced that 2 million will be available in the world come November 11 and 17, and 4 million by the end of the calendar year," said a spokesperson.
However, later in the day, Dave Karraker, SCEA's newly appointed head of corporate communications, told GameSpot that the wire-service figures were correct. "400,000 is just the day-of-launch figure," said the executive. "1 to 1.2 million units [will be] available in North America by December 31." This afternoon, Karraker confirmed the reduced international numbers to The Rocky Mountain News. "Worldwide, there will be between 2 to 2.4 million units available in North America and Japan by the end of the year," he said.
Karraker also claimed that, while reduced, the US PS3 launch numbers bested those of another next-generation console. "By the end of the year, we will have...more than double what Microsoft sold through of Xbox 360 [in 2005]." He reiterated this sentiment to MTV News. "The supply we have at launch is comparable to what was available for the PlayStation 2, not Xbox 360," said Karraker. "The total allocation for units in North America...is just less than what we had for PS2 and more than Microsoft had for Xbox 360."
Both the PS2's October 2000 launch and the 360's November 2005 debut were plagued by widespread sellouts, long lines, and occasional scuffles at US retailers. Sony estimates it had around 500,000 PS2s available day of launch. By contrast, NPD reported that Microsoft sold around 326,000 units by the end of November 2005. However, the hard-to-find next-gen console moved just another 281,000 units during December, bringing the 2005 total to around 607,000 units--half the number of PS3s Sony believes it will sell this year in North America.
Speaking to MTV News, Karraker urged calm among prospective PS3 purchasers. "People shouldn't fixate on the day-one allocation number," Karraker he said. "They should instead be more interested in the overall units available through the holidays, which will be 1 million to 1.2 million, which are significant amounts that will provide retail supply week over week with no dips in available stock." This was likely a veiled reference to the fact that many 360 retailers did not have the console in stock for weeks--or months--after it went on sale.
Though the flurry of various launch figures was initially confusing, one thing has always been perfectly clear. Sony is officially sticking to its original PS3 sales estimates for its current fiscal year, which ends on March 31, 2007. "The previously announced PlayStation 3 shipment forecast of 6 million units globally within the fiscal year ending 2007 is not changed," the company said in a statement issued early this morning.
Karraker also offered an explanation for the PS3's European delay and US-Japanese supply problems. "The PlayStation 3 is a revolutionary, as well as evolutionary, product. If we were simply putting out PlayStation 2.1, it would be much easier to hit a worldwide launch," he said. "As it was, Ken Kutaragi set very ambitious goals for the PS3, based on what he felt we could achieve. The simple fact is that many of the components for the PS3, particularly the blue laser diode, had never been produced on a mass scale before."
The blue laser diode is a critical component of the high-capacity Blu-ray Disc drive that is at the center of the PS3. Sony is pushing the cutting-edge format, which can hold up to 50GB on a single-layered disc, to be the high-definition successor to the DVD format. Microsoft is backing a rival format, HD-DVD, and will offer an external HD-DVD drive this fall.
But for all of Blu-ray's promise, manufacturing players for the format has proven more than a little problematic. In February, Sony hinted blue laser diode production problems could delay the PS3 from its then-scheduled Spring 2007 launch. The new November launch date was confirmed at Sony's Electronic Entertainment Expo press conference in May, the same month Sony announced the US launch of the Blu-ray format had been pushed back. Meanwhile, in July, several Taiwanese business newspapers, including the Commercial Times, reported that Sony was falling behind in production of blue laser diodes, although Sony would not confirm those reports.
Analysts were swift in their response to the PS3 news. UBS's Michael Wallace predicted the delay could have an alarming ripple effect with third-party publishers. "We also think this delay could cause some of our companies to push some of their PS3 games out until March 2007 to take advantage of a larger installed base," he said in a statement. "We note that Activision (three launch titles), Electronic Arts (four to five launch titles), and Take-Two (three titles by January 2007) currently have the greatest exposure to the PS3 at launch, so they could be impacted the most by this delay."
Today's PS3 developments caused Wedbush Morgan Securities' Michael Pachter to lower his entire US annual software sales estimate--just issued yesterday--from three percent growth to two percent. He also tweaked his European annual game-sales estimate from one percent growth to a one percent loss. "Our prior forecast assumed that Sony would ship 2.3 million PS3s to the US and Europe in 2006," said Pachter. "Our revised forecast assumes shipments of 1.5 million to the US (unchanged) and zero to Europe (down from 800,000)."
Needless to say, the PS3's delay and any supply issues will be a boon to Sony's rivals, Nintendo and Microsoft. "There will undoubtedly be some 'substitution effect' from lower PS3 shipments, with a portion of the shortfall offset by higher sales of PlayStation 2, Xbox 360, and Wii hardware and software," Pachter said. "We have not adjusted our model to reflect this substitution...but we suspect that 25 to 50 percent of the shortfall in PS3 software sales (an estimated $124 million in Europe) will be offset by sales of software for the other platforms."
vegonomics. http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=212 that about says it all thanks Scott.
400K .. AHHH!! I still can't believe that... That's only 8,000 per state... NYC alone will want 1,000,000 units for gamers and resellers! haha
Blu-ray would be awesome for me to put all my anime and stuff on, too bad it'll cost a fortune (for me) cuz i just got a new computer
Out of the recent moves that Sony has made I think the Blue Ray has been the best so far. Due to the fact that Blue Ray Holds more Data (close to 50 Gigs) I think that the Blue Ray is a Huge improvement over the DVD. for example i was burning the whole DBZ Collection into dvds I took me about 12 dvds to have it completed. I know I could had compress with winzip or winrar but it would had taken the whole day to do that. If I ' ve had a Blue Ray I wouldn't have had to use all those DVDs. I could had put all DBZ and DBGT episodes in one single Blue Ray !. It's that simple
Yes, Sony would've done better to just use DVD and bring the PS3 out sooner, at a lower price. They didn't want to do this though because they are interested in pushing Blu-Ray to market acceptance with the PS3. The thing that Sony doesn't seem to understand is that even though UMD was a successful medium for games, trying to get it into movies didn't work. Thus Blu-Ray will probably be relegated to the same.
i know this is a ps3 thingy, but i like what nintendo is doing. making money for every system sold. microsoft and sony's production prices are so high that to sell the system, they have to take a cut and lose money to sell the system. the wii is going to make money from the start. this will actually make the wii probably the first system to have a price cut that won't affect profits. i'll just go out and say this. i don't think that this generation was the right time to use blu-ray or hd dvd. eventhough you are opening the doors to use those different drives, you can use a reliable system until the bugs are fixed with your new drive. microsoft was smart enough to do that. the competition between blu ray and hd dvd is slowly picking up. i would have waited until the next console war to get one of these technologies. about 3 or 4 years from now, i would use blu ray for my console, because you have the 50 gb option.
Thought y'all might want to read this interesting piece of news I gleaned off another website (IGN): ------------------------------ TGS 2006: Xbox 360 Goes 1080p The fall software upgrade expands resolutions September 20, 2006 - According to an official release by Microsoft at its Tokyo Game Show 2006 press briefing, the Xbox 360 will be able to support 1080p games and videos. According to the press release, the fall update will usher in the upgraded resolution capability. "[Microsoft's] fall software update, scheduled for release later this year, will allow all Xbox 360 consoles around the world to output game and movie content in 1080p resolution." According to representatives from Microsoft, the update will allow for all existing X360 titles to be upscaled to 1080p. The Xbox 360 HD-DVD player will not be required for 1080p playback, since the update will be available through Xbox Live. ---------------------------------- This was one of the very few user-experience differences between the two systems... with this gone, there's even less of a difference between the two consoles now. Another reason the PS3 is VASTLY overpriced.
"The intelligent thing for Sony to have done would have been to stick with DVD for now and release a BluRay or HD-DVD add-on later (after the HD issue settles a bit), much like MS is doing: that would have shaved a huge chunk off the system price." THANK GOD someone finally gets this. According to Sony, the delays and lowering of shipping numbers is due to the damn BD-ROM drive. So not only would DVD have lowered the price, but it probably would've gotten here sooner too. And it would probably be less problematic than an expensive, brand new drive format. I agree with everything else you said, too. By the time Sony can drop the price to a reasonable level, there'll be better hardware out. I am finding the capabilities of the system hard to justify the price and it's because of that damn Blu-Ray drive. By the way, I had a lot of fun with the 3D0 in it's time. Some of the games were a lot of fun, and I really liked the daisy-chain feature of the controllers. Though that's another thing that bothers me about the PS3. Trade off a rumble feature for a wonky motion sensor? No thanks. For once I think Sony's new controller is a step down from the previous iteration (though it IS half a step above the Batarang).
rarson- "Whoa, you mean there are others out there??" We're out there dun... apparently not a lot of us, but we out there :). I agree with you on two points: First, Microsoft will not drop the price of the 360 for a loooong time: it doesn't need to with Sony's ridiculous pricing scheme. Sh1t, even Nintendo's releasing the Wii at a higher price point than most people expected for the same reason. Second, basing educated predictions/guesses based on the NeoGeo or 3D0 story (the 3D0 is technically a much better comparison though). The 3D0 was a technological quantum-leap ahead of any other console at it's time, offering previously unheard of possibilities and innovations unavailable at that time- exactly what Sony's saying about the PS3 (difference is that the PS3 isn't that much better than a 360, they're actually about par with the PS3 having a veeery slight edge. Look at the screenshots or tech-specs). Unless Sony is waiting till the last minute to throw MS a curveball (and at this point I don't know what they could possibly come up with), looking at videogame history and gamer tendencies we can all take a pretty good educated guess as to how this ditty's going to turn out. The intelligent thing for Sony to have done would have been to stick with DVD for now and release a BluRay or HD-DVD add-on later (after the HD issue settles a bit), much like MS is doing: that would have shaved a huge chunk off the system price. Personally I would have liked to cop a PS3, but a 360 will do me just fine for now. Think about this: in 2-3 years or so when the PS3 price drops by maybe 100 to 200 beans or so (costing Sony $$$'s in the process), Moore's Law dictates that component prices will have dropped further and more importantly, new and more powerful technology will be available. The old price-reduced PS3 will still cost the same or slightly more than whatever new joint Microsoft or Nintendo will have cooking- joints with better technology. Mdolla and Mario Inc might even have the luxury of skipping the then "next-gen" and simply release souped-up versions of their existing offerings using cheaper components. Maybe a 360 or Wii with a significantly bigger HD? Built in HD optical drive? Increased memory or an upgraded videocard? An extra processor? All of the above? All for about the same or less than the discounted PS3.
The 360 is starting up a second year now and it's price won't drop in 2006. When it does drop, don't expect much more than a $50 reduction. MS has been selling this thing for a year now and they're STILL losing money on it! The way I see it with the PS3, it'll do horrible after the initial launch. Sony will probably panic and within a year, drop something meager like $50 off the price, and it will continue to do bad. If Sony still has any smart people running the company, the PS3 won't see a 360 price point for at least 3 years. Otherwise, they'd be losing way too much money on the console to make it up with software Another thing: keep in mind how expensive Blu-Ray discs currently are to manufacture. Sony's going to be limiting themselves once more by making less profit off each game (exactly what happened to Nintendo with the N64), and they're going to lose 3rd-party developers (exactly what happened to Nintendo with the N64). And to top it all off, they are going to be limiting their overall sales with games that are $60-70. I'm not a blog reader but I've just read a few sites out there. It seems that even many of the hardcore gamers aren't planning on buying one on launch day! I don't consider myself hardcore because I allow myself to purposely stay half a generation behind to reap all the money-saving benefits that accompany that choice. But if the console looked good enough, and appeared to be worth it's price (or if I a game so bad I couldn't wait for it), then I'd buy it from day one. I have a feeling a lot of people are going to snatch up a PS3 only to try and sell it on ebay, and I don't think they're going to be making much profit, if any, off the console. And Sony will lose a ton of money because of it, since most of those people won't be buying software with it. $200 is the mass-market price point, which is why I wish that Nintendo will give us an option of a no pack-in system. Sony is arriving late to the game with a high price point... hmm, sound slightly familiar? Let's look at the XBOX's US price drop history to see what to expect from Sony: Nov. 2001: Launched at $299. May 2002: Dropped to $199, in response to Sony doing the same. May 2003: Dropped to $179, again in response to Sony. Mar. 2004: Dropped to $149. As of last September, MS had lost pinnacle of console technology at the time. If given the best developers, they could've made some amazing titles. But it's high price drove developers away from the system, as I predict the PS3's price will.
Mkeegs79 Third, Prices drop and when it does floods of people will get it just like when the PS2 dropped to 200. Yeah, its not going to be 200 but its nothing like any other console also. Yet more fanboy rubbish............................If the PS3 COSTS £425 IN THE UK HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE TO GET TO A SENSIBLE PRICEPOINT ? ? ? ?i.e. £200 ,2 Years i reckon !!!!!!! thats a 50% price reduction !!! thats a long time to get to a mass market price point.SONY ARE TAKING A MASSIVE GAMBLE..........AND THEIR NOT JUST PUTTING THEIR COMPUTER DIVISION ON THE LINE EITHER.
akuma7703- "Another rational mind joins the fray. Kudos." Whoa, you mean there are others out there?? Regarding the PS2 library versus the XBOX library, don't forget that the XBOX is a year younger than the PS2. It came out a year later, and is now being replaced a year earlier, so naturally the PS2 has a lot more games for it (doesn't mean that the majority of them is actually GOOD though). I own Sony stock. It went from a just about record high to a steady downfall ever since the PS3 info started trickling out. I wish I had sold it before. Every week it's some kind of new bad news.
500,000 ? They were wrong about their original estimate whats to stop them not reaching that ? they are clearly having serious production difficulties..............can we trust anything SONY says , clearly NO
Kwzy ***Sony is doing the right thing!*** Thank you for that informative and insightful comment. What would we have done with your explanations of Sonys thoughts and actions? Man, thank goodness for people like you to show us the error in our ways.. Maybe all of our arguements should be 6 words long like yours is...naw, what's the fun in that? Kevin firstname.lastname@example.org
"rarson- ...if you want to be sure your money is on the right format, then you'll have to wait until the BD/HD DVD war is over. That leaves only two consoles you can buy right now: the 360 and the Wii. While I'm of the persuasion to wait a few years until the consoles come down in price anyway, with buying a 360, you know you won't be making a format decision error. The same can't be said of the PS3..." Another rational mind joins the fray. Kudos.
@TheAllSeeing! Dawg, whenever a game was released on BOTH the Xbox and PS2 the Xbox version was always better graphically if it was tweaked to take advantage of the additional hardware/power. For this reason you'd see generalized reviews granting both consoles equal scores or specific and independent reviews granting the Xbox higher scores, case in point: Splinter Cell Chaos Theory (Hardware Optimized) PS2- 7.1 Xbox- 8.6 2002 FIFA World Cup (Hardware Optimized) PS2- 7.4 Xbox- 8.0 In the beginning and middle of the Xbox lifecycle the PS2 had more games released for it due to developer support (quantity of consoles not quality) and thus there were more games and reviews for the system- it's simple mathematics. Also you have to remember that games reviewers usually don't review across systems- that's why there are different sections for each console. Games reviewed are compared to other games on the same platform, not cross-platform- it wouldn't be fair to the PS2 as it packs less than half the processing and graphic power of the Xbox. Thus a 9.0 reviewed PS2 game is not a 9.0 by Xbox or GC standards (if not gameplay-wise, definately graphically). Review scores do not usually extend across platforms- unless the game was simply ported over directly from the PS2, in which case the disparity was clearly evident ie: Tony Hawks Underground (PS2 port) PS2- 8.9 Xbox- 8.2 Metal Gear Solid 2 (PS2 port) PS2- 9.6 Xbox- 8.7 PS: I selected these particular games because I personally own OR have played them on both platforms extensively.
TheAllSeeingI ***I prefer the games for Sony's machines and you only have to check out the reviews on gamespot to see PS2 has far more higher rating games than the Xbox.*** Sony did have exclusives that some people preferred, and the same for the XBOX. I personally liked them both.. But your comment is a little misleading. The reason PS2 has many more top rated games is due to simple quantity. The PS2 had a TON more games than the XBOX. The law of averages dictates the PS2 is bound to have more higher rated games by default.. The question, when the same game was on both consoles, which got the higher score , and by how much. Odds are if you look closer the score comparisons the scores were probably between 1.0 points of each other. Just something to keep in mind, kevin email@example.com
Actually, sorry, I've got that backwards. If it includes HDCP, then most people who own HDTV's right now are going to be looking at a standard signal. If it doesn't, and the ICT is set on a particular HD movie, then you're still going to be looking at a standard signal.
Here's the thing: if you want to be sure your money is on the right format, then you'll have to wait until the BD/HD DVD war is over. That leaves only two consoles you can buy right now: the 360 and the Wii. While I'm of the persuasion to wait a few years until the consoles come down in price anyway, with buying a 360, you know you won't be making a format decision error. The same can't be said of the PS3. By the way, another thing that I haven't heard about is whether or not the PS3 will include HDCP. While it's clear that the basic model PS3 won't support high def, neither will the high-end model (for movies, at least) in a few years if it doesn't have HDCP capability. Of course that'll require movie makers to actually use HDCP, but come on. Put a piece of copyright protection in front of a greedy company and they'll surely use it.
Excellent points rarson. And to all those who seem to think MGS4 is the holy grail of videogames (and I do like the MGS series- tho I think Splinter Cell is a much better series IMHO), do not forget the one truly EXCLUSIVE title that more people around the world are waiting for more than any other, the guaranteed console pusher. Halo 3. Halo 2: $125 million in 1 day. (Spiderman (theatrical release) held the previous entertainment record at $144 Million- and it took 3 days to raise that). This was the videogame that made the world realize that videogames were no longer just "videogames", that they could be even more viable than hollywood and the music industry. In the eyes of the non-gaming world, this was when videogames "grew-up" (but we know better ;) I'm not plugging the game by any means as I like both MGS4 and Halo... but seriously Halo WILL outsell MGS4 and any other console exclusives COMBINED that you want to throw in there.
Whoa, is this the most comments in a thread ever?! For me the term "Next Gen" is a little mis-leading and implies PS3, 360 & Wii are all consoles of equal stature. I believe the PS3 is more technologically advanced than it's competitors and therefore will have a longer lifespan. I'd put money on the PS3 still going strong when M$ rush out the new incarnation of it's Xbox. I view the 'next gen' battle as a marathan and not a sprint and it does not bother me (much!) that we'll not see PS3 here this year. I'm not going to buy one of the other machines just to jump on the next gen band wagon. I prefer the games for Sony's machines and you only have to check out the reviews on gamespot to see PS2 has far more higher rating games than the Xbox. The price of the PS3 is high but I paid £300.00 for the PS2 and for what the PS3 comprises of I'd gladly pay the extra if I can spare the cash next year, at least I have more time to save and fingers crossed the launch games will be more polished now!
Regarding Blu-Ray, I believe it will be relegated soley to a medium for PS3 games. Right now Blu-Ray isn't stacking up to HD-DVD in terms of quality delivery, and it doesn't surprise me seeing Sony's record of quality control. If the hardcore movie buffs don't buy into Blu-Ray, then Sony's pushing of the format with the PS3 will probably actually hurt the system as a gaming system. BD-ROMs are notoriously expensive to produce, and the quality control issues of the drives certainly won't help things at all, and with the forced inclusion of BD-ROM, Sony is pushing the cost onto the consumer, whether they like it or not. Sony typically has a bit more quality control problems than most companies. I wouldn't touch a first-gen PS3 with a 10-foot stick. They are practically gaurenteed to have issues... which on a $300 console is fine. But on a $600 console, I think Sony will end up with another class-action lawsuit on it's hands. Microsoft's strategy with the HD-DVD add-on is smart. The drive isn't forced onto consumers and the HD market won't affect the actual console. If HD-DVD fails and Blu-Ray takes over, MS can always make a new add-on if they really want to. The way I see it, neither HD-DVD nor Blu-Ray are necessary formats for the time being. Standard definition DVDs look fine to me. Sony has a track record for making unnecessary competing formats and trying to force them on consumers: Beta, SACD, DVD+R, Mini-Disc, Memory Stick, Memory Stick Duo, and now Blu-Ray. I'm sick of it, and that's a major reason why I won't be buying a PS3 within the next 3 years.
Mkeegs79 ***Nobody knows how much the game are going to cost so stop whining about something you dont know.*** True, we really don't know the price (one dev stated a price of $60, which hopefully will be the case), but then again neither do you. I'd much rather "expect the worst and hope for the best" than expect a low/normal price and then get a sticker shock (I've had enough of that from the PS3, thank you very much). Why are you sticking up for a price point you know nothing about? ***Second, it will sell. There are so many people going to buy it. Just because YOU are not doesnt mean that over 400,000 wont be.*** Sure it will sell. VERY RARELY has a launch allocation of any console NOT sold out. The question is how will it sell once the initial "oh look it's new console buzz" wears off, and people realize just how expensive it is for a console. ***Third, Prices drop and when it does floods of people will get it just like when the PS2 dropped to 200. Yeah, its not going to be 200 but its nothing like any other console also.*** Yes the price will drop, it always does. The question is at what price point does the average consumer/joe gamer (just fyi, the casual games make up around 95%-97% of the entire gaming market) find it appealing? Sony is reportedly losing TWICE if not MORE the amount of money that Microsoft is on the 360. How low do you think the price is actually going to go? A reduction to $500 would be a big deal for Sony, but not the casual gamer. Still too expensive. Even if it dropped to $300, that would probably take years to reach that point. We'll see how it does I guess... ***Fourth, Games matter more than anything!*** Yes they do indeed. That's a great point!! We all love Games!! (Although it doesn't really matter if people can't afford the system to play them on, now does it?) ***Fifth, I am taking advantage of the blue-ray. You can whine about it being expensive but I am thinking of EVERYTHING it provides.*** Blu-Ray is a benefit for the PS3 from a tech standpoint. But all it provides (from a gaming perspective) is more storage. It will provide NO GAMEPLAY benefit from a normal DVD, save maybe the time when a game goes mutil disc, then it's on one disc as opposed to two. OOHHH! Big advantage. As a player it's cheap. Then again as a player it's, er well cheap. We'll see how it looks compared to normal Blu-Ray players. ***Sixth, Betamax was before Sony was huge. Sony NEVER try to expand minidiscs, and UMD is not a mulitformat disc. It only plays on the PSP. So saying blue-ray is going to flop so easily is ridiculous. PS3 is a good way to push the format if you like it or NOT! *** Whether or not it was before "Sony was huge" isn't the point. All this says is that sony has tried to push their own standards on the public in the past. So did Sony not "try" to expand the minidisc, or did they just not manage to get anywhere? I can assume you "looked into this" and that your info is valid, or is this you trying to back your compnay of choice without any info to back it up? Why is UMD called "Universal Media Disc" if it was only designed to play on the PSP. Seems kind of silly to me. The odds are Sony had a plan to use it for other devices, but once they saw the UMD movie market fall to almost non-existent, they otped not to follow through. Again I have no real proof of this, but I am sure you do with all your Sony knowledge do, right? From a business perspective the PS3 is a great way to push Blu-Ray. Of course it won't help matters if 95%-97% of the people don't buy the console because it's too expensive. Kind of a catch 22. In the long run this may be a great move for Sony, then again it could flop. No one really knows.. ..but people here have as much right (even more so) to question Sony methods and actions as you do to blindly promote them. My two cents, kevin firstname.lastname@example.org But that's never stopped a fanboy
Tseng ***Bottom line, the people that are going to be buying PS3's on launch day will be people that like the games.*** That's only partially true. The people that are going to buy the PS3s on launch are the ones that A) can even find one and (MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY) B) AFFORD ONE. People compained about the high costs of the 360 bundles at launch, and to think it won't be more of the same (if not worse) it ridiculous. Bottom line. I do agree that there is no real reason (not yet anyway) to have games on the same media format as our High Def movies, but that was Sonys decision (and seeing how Sony gets a royalty from every Blu-Ray disc sold (what I hear anyway) it's not hard to see why Sony made this decision). Not saying it's the right decision. I firmly feel the Sony fanboy base has this silly idea that Blu-Ray = "Magical Gaming Experience". A word to the wise, it's just as easy to put a crappy game on Blu-Ray as it is on DVD/HD-DVD or whatever other format you choose. Kind of blows that out of the water doesn't it? With it's ONLY benefit being more storage space, people need to realize a few things. Games can cost upwords in the millions of dollars to produce, and that's just for a normal DVD (where they usually don't even use up all 9GB worth of space). So people think all of a sudden just because they have 2.5x the storage space that devs are going to double and triple their production budget? That's mighty egotistical of people. With a budget that could exceed 10 million dollars+, if the game fails to do well, the company loses a pretty substantial bit of money. So it's a VERY BIG RISK to increase the budget "just to fill the space on the disc". Sure they could use poor coding and compression to fill it up, but that would hamper gameplay to some degree (compression is there for a reason). They could make 400+ hours of CG movies, but again that's more development costs added to the games production costs. So what is a dev to do? Simple. Keep doing things the way you are now. Don't be sloppy in your coding or compression schemes. Don't go over board adding extras that A) you don't really have the budget for and B) won't benefit the game other than "filler space".. Graphics will of course be improved, that's a given. But even a game as good looking as Oblivion on the 360 only takes up around 6GBs from what I have read. So is using up 4x more storage going to give us 4x times the graphical improvement? No. There are hardware limitations (and yes even the almighty PS3 has them) that limit the graphical quality regardless of how much storage space you have. It's only benefit would really be that when the time comes for a multi disc game, it could be done on one disc as opposed to two. But if a game as long and open ended as Oblivion doesn't even take up a whole 9GB DVD, what are the odds of others games taking the anywhere near 25GB? Just something to think about, kevin email@example.com
akuma7703 Just wanted to say thanks for the kind words. As always you're objective comments put things in a proper prespective.. ..glad to know there are a few people intelligent enough on these forums to make logical statements. ;-) Thanks my man, kevin firstname.lastname@example.org
Mkeegs79 ***Wow! I just many fanboys dissing the PS3 all because of one thing. "A price." Yeah, there will be a shortage but the only thing people complain and whine about is price. That proves everything else is going well for Sony, especially when they STILL have "most" of their original third party exclusive games.*** (First, glad to be back after being banned due to my replying to someone who insulted me via PM, but that's neither here nor there.) People ARE concerned about shortages (that's what a lot of these posts in this thread are about), and yes people ARE concerned about the price, because like it or not price dictates everything in life : what you eat, what you wear, what you drive, where you live, where you go to school (college, etc)..not to mention what we do for entertainment (play games, etc)... ..so to say that people are "whining" about the price like it's no big deal is not a fair statement to make. People have every right to be concerned about the price of everything in life. Maybe you have forgotten that in the past consoles have almost always launced at or below the $300 price (normally either $200 or 300). We had the rare exceptions..Neo Geo at $500-$600, the Saturn at $400, the 3DO at $600..not even the Neo Geo (whose life span was greatly lengthened due ot it being arcade hardware and that supported it as much as it's niche console user base) reached anywhere near mass acceptence, and even it was totally a niche product (I am sure the Saturn did better than the Neo, but it was far from thr runaway success of the original Playstation).. ..and yes, even though much of the "failure" of the above mentioned consoles was due to lackluster games (although 3DO and Sega at one point were two of the top game developers around), another factor was indeed the price. Why doesn't everyone live in a 10,000+ square foot home, with a mercedes or a porche, along with a swimming pool, tennis court, and let's not forget the 60+ inch plasma/DLP (my preference given the choice) TV in however many rooms you desire? The answer is so very simple : price. Maybe you'd realize if the price wasn't so high more people would be concerned about the shortage..but I can tell you this much. NO ONE (and I mean NO ONE) I have talked to is buying a PS3. No one I know really even cares about it, and the reason (yet again) is simple : Price. So before you start calling people who comment negatively on the PS3 price a "fanboy", think about the circumstances surrounding those comments.. On to your second point, yes Sony does still have some third part exclusives left (and just FYI, MGS3 was the only MGS not to go multi-platform..MG1 PS/PC, MGS2 PS2/XBOX, MGS2 Subsistance PS2/XBOX..well except metal gear acid, but a lot people don't even count those since they are card battle games).. My point being, unless Kanomi has a ton of cash and don't care about making extra sales (or Unless Sony paid them oodles of cash, which given their current financial state that's somewhat doubtful), I have a feeling MSG4 is bound to go multi-platform at some point. Maybe not at launch, but last gen a lot of "exclusives" were just time based (meaning released on console "A", and then on console "B" 6 months later, etc..), so that's is what may happen to MGS4.. ..and again maybe not. Maybe Sony aqquired TOTAL exclusivity on MGS4, although I have doubts as to whether or not that is in Kanomis' best interest (they could probably DOUBLE the sales of MGS4 if it went mutil-platform, say to the XBOX 360..no offense guys but I don't think the Wii could handle MGS4). Sony (as do all the big three) will always have their own exclusives, it's the name of the game.. but as it's been stated before, with the cost of game development going into the millions of dollars it's a pretty fair bet most devs will opt to put as many games multi-console as they can, to help against any loss a less than stellar selling title may invoke on the company. My two cents, Kevin email@example.com P.S..(good to be back) ;-)
I hope everyone tries to buy a ps3, I am also hoping ps3 is really as good as they say, that way it will drive competition for all game companies, and make them all work harder to try and create the next cutting edge games, and accessories... Think if ps3 does this, MS will do this to stay equal with them, same with nintendo, the wii has a motion sensor, how long until MS create a controller for the 360 wit ha motion sensor? If it catches on with the wii...probably not long... see, so nintendo, sony, and MS doing well is good for everyone, the real winners are the gamers!
Oh wow what a surprise...sony always keeps their word... I hope you all buy a ps3, since there are so many of them...just camp over the game shop 2 days earlier....and have 600 george's europe will probably have 50000 units .... I'm not really for nintendo, but they seem the only guys keeping their promises....and still most of us ewill not care....i hope ps3 fails, since i'm tired of all those ps or ps2 coming out almost a year later comparing to their us launches
I hope sony uses one of their high quality lithium-ion batterys as a backup for the game saves in case the power goes down while you are playing. I hear they have alot laying around these days.
It will be VERY buggy. I won't buy the first launch unit. Never. I'll wait a year at least so it drop price and be less buggy. Generally, a "first launch" console doesn't last 2-3 years or so. Problem with the optic eye, hard drive, stability, etc... it's always like this!
"Who says we have to use the same format for movies that we do games anyway?" Good point. A very expensive, but good point. "massive support it is getting from 90% of the production studios" Inaccurate. I'll post the relevant data when I get off work tomorrow. Be good fellas.
Bottom line, the people that are going to be buying PS3's on launch day will be people that like the games. Resistence, Motor Storm, and a few other interesting launch titles, not to mention the future powerhouses MGS4 and FFXIII. If you don't like the games, you don't buy the system. I will shell out 600 for a PS3 because 1: I am interested in a lot fo the PS3 titles coming out in the next year and 2: I can still play my PS2 games on it. Blue-Ray is pretty far down on why I am buying the PS3, but it's not a bad perk. Besides, even if Blue-Ray goes the way of Betamax as far as movies are concerned (unlikely cosidering the massive support it is getting from 90% of the production studios plus Dell, Apple, and a dozen other companies), it is still a great format for games. Who says we have to use the same format for movies that we do games anyway?
Ever heard of the Memory Stick? Sony tried to push that HARD and it fell to the cheaper and more widely available Secure Digital and Compact Flash formats. As many of us are saying it is a good system but IF, and only if, the price drops will we pick up a PS3. It sure as hell isn't worth it at 600 beans plus tax. That's not fanboy talk....that's rational thinking. Read threads properly before posting homes. LegionOSH: "I will be the first to tell you I think the PS3 is good tech for the money (only an idiot and fanboy would argue otherwise), but I'll also be the first to tell you $600 is too high for the 97% of the gaming market that consist of casual gamers..." Myself: "..the PS3 is a marginally better system (as I said before) but for me that isn't enough to warrant a $200 plus tax price hike. No way, no how. I could invest half that change in upgrading my PC's graphic card to a beast that's light years ahead of either the 360 or PS3". "Me, I'm patiently waiting. we're still in the DVD era (and will be for the next year or so). By the time the HD era is in full effect and the format wars are more clearly defined, IF the PS3 price drops significantly I'd probably pick it up primarily as a Blu-Ray player, secondly as a gaming console" ShadowWvr: "..they both have their pros and cons, but I think Sony's DRM scheme is overkill, and they are destroying our chances to be able to do whatever we want with our own media..." Objective and rational thinking. Get ish str8 homes: this is not about right or wrong, this is about cats's with different but RATIONAL opinions discussing/debating.
Wow! I just many fanboys dissing the PS3 all because of one thing. "A price." Yeah, there will be a shortage but the only thing people complain and whine about is price. That proves everything else is going well for Sony, especially when they STILL have "most" of their original third party exclusive games. Really though. All these people whining and crying are people not even buying it. Just a bunch of fanboys. That is so sad. You all just HOPE the PS3 does bad so you feel that your investment was well worth it OBVIOUSLY! Otherwise why want Sony to crubble? Competition breeds innovation and great games. You people need to grow up. I have a 360. I think it is ok. You all make it sound like it is the best gaming system in the world. Grow up!
maybe sony will include rumble in their controllers for another 100$ and the PS3 might sell, cause they have "a lot " of units at launch...
Nobody knows how much the game are going to cost so stop whining about something you dont know. Second, it will sell. There are so many people going to buy it. Just because YOU are not doesnt mean that over 400,000 wont be. Third, Prices drop and when it does floods of people will get it just like when the PS2 dropped to 200. Yeah, its not going to be 200 but its nothing like any other console also. Fourth, Games matter more than anything! Fifth, I am taking advantage of the blue-ray. You can whine about it being expensive but I am thinking of EVERYTHING it provides. Sixth, Betamax was before Sony was huge. Sony NEVER try to expand minidiscs, and UMD is not a mulitformat disc. It only plays on the PSP. So saying blue-ray is going to flop so easily is ridiculous. PS3 is a good way to push the format if you like it or NOT!
You know I keep hearing people say "inflation this, inflation that, etc, etc, etc".. The past few generations consoles have launched AT or NEAR the $300 price point (some less), so to say all of sudden that $600 is the "price it should be" is just silly. People need to remember that. Much like the way games have been around $50 for the longest time. If we took the "inflation" angle and applied it to games every previously $50 one would costs over $100, etc, etc. That train of logic only goes so far people. Unlike the fanboys I will be the first to tell you I think the PS3 is good tech for the money (only an idiot and fanboy would argue otherwise), but I'll also be the first to tell you $600 is too high for the 97% of the gaming market that consist of casual gamers. I hope the PS3 does well, but I know $600 is out of a LOT of peoples budgets (mine included) for a console...when you factor in the games, accessories, controllers, etc, you could very well be paying upwords of $800-$900 (close enough to the $1,000 mark to lump it into that price bracket)..no casual gamer will drop that kind of cash for any console, unless that have an obscene amount of money and are just shopping for the "latest and greatest".. ..or unless "little jonnnys" well to do parents want to stop their spoiled son from screaming so they buy him one since he saw the ad for one on TV and he "has to have one" or he screams like a baby.. Anyway, MANY people feel that $600 is too high a price, so if you are going to single me out and try to flame rest assured others DO feel the way I do about this. To compare to the Neo-Geo is not too far off of a comparison, except the games were 4x the price of normal, which luckily the PS3 won't have..if you don't like Neo-Geo comparison, how about the 3DO? A $600 system (some were $700) with a CD based format that was the supposed "best tech of the time"..anyone remember that one? (yes the comparisons been made before) ..but there are also rumors of $70-$80 games, which is not going to help the PS3 in it's cause I feel. I don't the time to go into everything, but this is a general idea of my feelings about the subject. Kevin firstname.lastname@example.org
No, if you read ManofTeal's post again you'd see it's not a direct dollar-to-dollar price comparison. The point is simply that it is highly likely that people will go for the cheaper system that yields a similar experience IF the price difference is that significant. Some people (early adopters, brand loyalists, fanboys etc) will most definately splurge on the PS3- and in all honesty I wanted to get one simply for the bluetooth controllers and wireless net which I think are great ideas- but most of the general public, casual gamers, parents and the working middle-class will not think it prudent to spend that much money on a console even if they have the ability to buy one, just as in the case of the NeoGeo.
It's gonna get pretty ugly once this thing finally comes out. Folks on the message boards are already bragging about how horrificly they're going to rip off 'stupid' people on Ebay for this thing. :( If you don't really want it, maybe you should just leave it on the shelf for someone who actually does. At least it'd be one moment in your life you'd know you weren't just ******* someone else over for a buck. "I don't know which species is worse...."
To the people refrencing the Neo Geo to the PS3....that is INCREDIBLY INACCURATE! The Neo Geo first off released for around $650 in *1990* And most games were $200. Now take inflation rates over a period of 16 years. With inflation rates, that NEO GEO today, would cost about $950-$1000, games would cost close to $300, and last I checked, the PS3 was $500 and $600. And the games are targeted to be $60, just like the 360. And I have an Xbox 360, I LOVE it, and I was fascinated with Kameo, Oblivion, and many other games. And I bought the Premium-$400. I also bought the wireless adapter-$100. Now, with that factor added in as well, I'm looking at $500. So yeah, I'm gonna spend $100 more than what I spent on my 360.....but in comparison to the PS3, I will gladly shell out $100 more dollars for the Blu-Ray DVD player, that has a 60GB hard drive-and not 12gb, and comes with wireless internet--not sold seperately.
Playing Xbox One games on somebody else's console will also require a check-in every hour. Full Story
- Posted Jun 6, 2013 3:41 pm PT
Xbox boss Don Mattrick believes concerns over connectivity are overblown, recommends Xbox 360 for those without an Internet connection. Full Story
- Posted Jun 11, 2013 5:52 pm PT