Blu-ray players are selling as low as $299.99 Already very cheap.

Production costs have gone down alot since launch. I expect production costs to fall pretty fast, because most of everything in there was completely new technology. I remember when LCD TVs prices fell to half in one year.

I'm expecting something around Thanksgiving on the PS3 pricing.

bdbdbd said: Killzone3 said: Who you kidding. The only reason those Br supporters are BR supporters is for the PS3, they all want more Br player in people homes. PS3 also is a big reason BR player costs came down so fast, make more it costs less. Sony really does not give a rats ass about hardware BR supporters, its the software that is winning the war. PS3 wins Br wins, Br wins it really helps the PS3. Thats been the idea from the begining.   Just like they did with the UMD? You see, if you have only one company supporting the hardware, it won't be a big success. When hardware manufacturers turn to competing media (because they can't compete Sony, since it's selling with a price, what others can't compete), movie publishers follow because of a)hardware support b)what happens ”behind the scenes”. No one wants to work under a single companys monopoly (which Sony has with UMD and could gain with BD). Idea with BD in PS3 has been that PS3 would help the Blu-Ray (which it really does), not vice versa. You see, Sony works for profit, not for PS3, if they make more profit by sacrificing PS3, they will do that. @ResiRiley: They are not in the console business for 10 years with the PS3, they are in it for 5. PS2 was also in for ten years, and they still released PS3. Without delays, PS3 would have been out earlier, released after 6 years of PS2 release and without 100M+ sales, it would have been dead at the same day the PS3 came out. With the current pace, PS3 will be dead at the same moment PS4 is released.

PS3 was released earlier than Sony Wanted because Microsoft and Nintendo were eager to leave that generation . Sony was forced into the next generation so they wanted the machine that would still be a valid entry in 2 years when they more than likely would have wanted to enter the Next Gen. If Sony wanted to move to Next Gen so early games like God of War II would have been on PS3. There was Never a time that Sony claimed the PS3 would have been out by 2006.

 

Killzone3 said: Who you kidding. The only reason those Br supporters are BR supporters is for the PS3, they all want more Br player in people homes. PS3 also is a big reason BR player costs came down so fast, make more it costs less. Sony really does not give a rats ass about hardware BR supporters, its the software that is winning the war. PS3 wins Br wins, Br wins it really helps the PS3. Thats been the idea from the begining.

Sorry, but I disagree. The original idea was: PS3 wins no matter what, becomes Trojan horse for BR, BR wins. Remember, Ken Kutaragi (PlayStation father) was fired for a good reason. He made a mistake, a big one. Sony realized that even before the PS3 release. Now they need to justify the PS3 price, labeling it a definitive multimedia rub, super-computer, whatever.Furthermore, I cannot think of any videogame that started bad and then recovered and become first after its second year. So IMHO 2007 is the make or break year for the PS3. After that it can improve a bit, but will never be the leader.

Oh, and Sony needs to stop with all this 10 years cycle BS. It isn't up to a company to dictate that. The videogame industry as a whole will dictate that. If MS releases a super uber new console in 4 years, then Sony would need to follow them shortly, because by then their super ultra PS3 would be as outdated as the PS2 is today when compared to the PS3. The only reason behind the 10 years cycle thing is their desperate attempt to justify their insane $500 price tag.

opcode said: Killzone3 said: Who you kidding. The only reason those Br supporters are BR supporters is for the PS3, they all want more Br player in people homes. PS3 also is a big reason BR player costs came down so fast, make more it costs less. Sony really does not give a rats ass about hardware BR supporters, its the software that is winning the war. PS3 wins Br wins, Br wins it really helps the PS3. Thats been the idea from the begining. Sorry, but I disagree. The original idea was: PS3 wins no matter what, becomes Trojan horse for BR, BR wins. Remember, Ken Kutaragi (PlayStation father) was fired for a good reason. He made a mistake, a big one. Sony realized that even before the PS3 release. Now they need to justify the PS3 price, labeling it a definitive multimedia rub, super-computer, whatever.Furthermore, I cannot think of any videogame that started bad and then recovered and become first after its second year. So IMHO 2007 is the make or break year for the PS3. After that it can improve a bit, but will never be the leader. Oh, and Sony needs to stop with all this 10 years cycle BS. It isn't up to a company to dictate that. The videogame industry as a whole will dictate that. If MS releases a super uber new console in 4 years, then Sony would need to follow them shortly, because by then their super ultra PS3 would be as outdated as the PS2 is today when compared to the PS3. The only reason behind the 10 years cycle thing is their desperate attempt to justify their insane $500 price tag.

MS already released a uber new console and its been getting its ass kicked by the uber old PS2, and its still getting its ass kicked.

Its very simple when you invest so much money on a product, you want it to be out in the market for a long time to make money.

 

 

Killzone3 said:   MS already released a uber new console and its been getting its ass kicked by the uber old PS2, and its still getting its ass kicked. Its very simple when you invest so much money on a product, you want it to be out in the market for a long time to make money.

So what? MS and Sony can WISH as much as they like that their current consoles stay in the market for decades, but they cannot guarantee. They simply cannot guarantee that. And if they cannot guarantee, they cannot publicly state that, otherwise they would be lying (and in Sony's case, they are).

@Northstar: I believe that it was supposed to be out sping 2005, and after it got delayed, it was supposed to be out late 2005, and after that delay early 2006, and after that delay they got it out Q4 2006 in Japan and US and Q1 2007 in PAL regions. I could be wrong in the 2005 announcements, but they did aim to (early) 2005. In minimum, it was delayed by a year (and the reason was propably the Cell, even that Sony claims the reason to the Blu-Ray).
Sony has used the "Sega method" with all their home consoles, they have always aimed for early release to get some sales before competitors release their consoles. For example, 360 has pretty good situation compared to PS3 just because of its year headstart, if they would have had reseases at the same time, PS3 would lead 360 at the moment.

I agree with optcode, market doesn't follow what a single company wishes it to follow. Ten years is possible, if you have the 100M selling console, but if you don't, then you don't have the ten years, unless you want to ride a dead horse (like M$ did with Xbox). People start to replace their old consoles with the new generation ones when they arrive and replace them in 5-10 years, some even skip one generation.

bdbdbd said: @Northstar: I believe that it was supposed to be out sping 2005, and after it got delayed, it was supposed to be out late 2005, and after that delay early 2006, and after that delay they got it out Q4 2006 in Japan and US and Q1 2007 in PAL regions. I could be wrong in the 2005 announcements, but they did aim to (early) 2005. In minimum, it was delayed by a year (and the reason was propably the Cell, even that Sony claims the reason to the Blu-Ray). Sony has used the "Sega method" with all their home consoles, they have always aimed for early release to get some sales before competitors release their consoles. For example, 360 has pretty good situation compared to PS3 just because of its year headstart, if they would have had reseases at the same time, PS3 would lead 360 at the moment. I agree with optcode, market doesn't follow what a single company wishes it to follow. Ten years is possible, if you have the 100M selling console, but if you don't, then you don't have the ten years, unless you want to ride a dead horse (like M$ did with Xbox). People start to replace their old consoles with the new generation ones when they arrive and replace them in 5-10 years, some even skip one generation.

First of all X-box only lasted 4 years ... how is that riding a dead horse? I think its more abandoning consumers. Secondly I can not recal and Console manufacturer ever skipping a generation at all ever. Atari came out with the Jaguar but that wasnt the same Atari that released the 2600 ,and even if you count that  the Jaguar was a horrid Failure.

I believe even the anouncement of the PS3 was a response to Microsoft's development of their next system. sony does not want to tell people we are not really working on the next system since the PS3 is doing so well and then when the new Microsoft system comes out Consumers know Sony is not making a system anytime soon so they can get this new Microsoft machine instead of waiting for Sony's machine. Anyway you look at it Sony's hand was forced by Microsoft into the next gen. Since as I said before No console manufacturer has ever skiped a generation of consoles.

Edit: Opps I just re-read and you were talking about consumers skipping a generation of systems. I still have a hard time buying into that too since the userbase continues to grow every generation. just for example I know people that have a PS2 but did not have a PS1 but I do not know anyone that owns a PS1 but not a PS2.