@Enlightment

What you get is a video game machine. You can break down exactly what everything is and then try to claim it is relatively inexpensive, but that would be a stretch. By your logic, you could claim the Wii is the most expensive console this generation. That is the kind of ridiculous that logic is.

As for the 5 DVDs, yes I would be willing to do that. I don't see why everyone thinks it is a huge inconvinience. The jump seems unwarranted as well. The jump from CD to DVD was actually a lot more dramatic (relatively) but we did not see a huge jump in game length. Despite the fact that FF7 technically only used up less than half a DVD at best (3 CDs is 2.1 gigs tops where as a single layer dvd is 4.9), the next FF game to use a DVD (FF10) was not twice as long. FF10-2 was actually shorter in my experience. The jump in format size only makes sense after people have started to run into limits with the previous format. That just has not been the case for the vast majority of games.



It is like saying a Mercedes is too expensive for what it is. I spend more money than what a PS3 would cost me everytime I switch cars. The problem is, I am not willing to drop that kind of cash on a game system when there are cheaper alternatives. Using your analogy, I could buy a Lexus but I don't feel it is worth the asking price so I won't buy it. Given limitless money I would still find it to be too expensive for what it is. Game systems simply should not cost that kid of money.

@Gnizmo

Tell me how many people have 1080p HDTV's? Does the mainstream know anything about Blu-ray?

Links please!

I could link you to some reports I recall seeing that HDTVs are not a huge selling point for consoles if you like, but it would take a bit of digging. It isn't directly saying that I suppose, but it shows the shockingly low percentage of PS3/360 owners that actually know their systems are HD. Before I do the leg work though, can I ask why you want to see it? I don't think we disagree on anything.

Just thought you lot would like to see these two graphs.

One show the absolute value of the consoles at launch and the other shows the relative price of the consoles at launch.

http://curmudgeongamer.com/2006/05/history-of-console-prices-or-500-aint.html

Realistically speaking, I think we need to include a game and taxes (and possibly an accessory) into the pricing and that makes the PS3 cost (roughly) $500 initially. Now for "Core" gamers who are also big Sony fans this is not that big of a deal this isn't that big of a deal because they're going to get a lot of use out of it, and it makes up a very small portion of their yearly gaming budget.

When you move into more "Typical" gamers you'd find that the average one anticipates spending $500 to $750 per year on gaming; they may be willing to spend a little more in the year when they buy a console but a $300 and $400 console really eats away most of their budget on gaming in a given year.

As yoj move into the "Casual" gamer range you will find that the XBox 360 and PS3 (and probably the Wii) all cost more than they are typically willing to spend on gaming in a given year; these are the type of people who bought a Gamecube or PS2 at $150 and buy 1 to 2 new games in a year (probably a couple of value or used games as well). You may discount the importance of the more casual gamer market but it (potentially) represents up to 66% of the hardware sold.

Gnizmo said: @Enlightment don't forget the WI-FI and the High dev DVD player. The design I think the theoretical price difference is like 400$. So the Xbox360 is more expensive for what you get. The Blu-ray palyerr will get more valuable if the games get more bigger then they already are. What happens if a game is like 50 gig, are you willing to load 5 discs just to play your game? What you get is a video game machine. You can break down exactly what everything is and then try to claim it is relatively inexpensive, but that would be a stretch. By your logic, you could claim the Wii is the most expensive console this generation. That is the kind of ridiculous that logic is. As for the 5 DVDs, yes I would be willing to do that. I don't see why everyone thinks it is a huge inconvinience. The jump seems unwarranted as well. The jump from CD to DVD was actually a lot more dramatic (relatively) but we did not see a huge jump in game length. Despite the fact that FF7 technically only used up less than half a DVD at best (3 CDs is 2.1 gigs tops where as a single layer dvd is 4.9), the next FF game to use a DVD (FF10) was not twice as long. FF10-2 was actually shorter in my experience. The jump in format size only makes sense after people have started to run into limits with the previous format. That just has not been the case for the vast majority of games. I can understand that people say 400$ is expensive. I rather have them say I can't pay 400$ now or I don't have that budget. It's like saying Mercedes is to expensive knowing you can't afford it. If you can't afford a mercedes(PS3) you buy a FIAT(wii) or a Alfa Romeo(xbox) It is like saying a Mercedes is too expensive for what it is. I spend more money than what a PS3 would cost me everytime I switch cars. The problem is, I am not willing to drop that kind of cash on a game system when there are cheaper alternatives. Using your analogy, I could buy a Lexus but I don't feel it is worth the asking price so I won't buy it. Given limitless money I would still find it to be too expensive for what it is. Game systems simply should not cost that kid of money

Okee I agree there is a flaw in my explanation.

Wii has almost got the right price. It can be cheaper concidering there is still a console called PS2

The difference between an Xbox360 and a PS3 is great.

But lets break it down again. Xbox360 lacks a built in WI-FI, HD-DVD. These alone represent 300$

THis was only the hardware.

An Elite(this is the closest to an PS3) is like 380$ (without HD-DVD/Wi-FI)

A PS340gig is 400$ (with HD-DVD/WI-FI)

Now the prices are almost at the same level.

Now look what you get for your money hardware wise

 

THen you get the design. The PS3 already won a European award (design and tech specification) and a dutch award.

Build in transformer unlike the Xbox360 that has it transformer outside the box.

 

The wireless controller that does not use oldskool batteries unlike the xbox

The wireless Sixxaxis now with rumbble

 

The XMB and the ability to use it as a computer.

 

So if a PS3 is expensive, then an Xbox360 is expensive to and to me even more expensive, because you get less for that amount you pay

 

 

That doesn't make it cheaper though.

If I sold a computer for $40 it would be better than a used Superman 64 for $25 but which one is cheaper?

Enlightment said: Gnizmo said: @Enlightment don't forget the WI-FI and the High dev DVD player. The design I think the theoretical price difference is like 400$. So the Xbox360 is more expensive for what you get. The Blu-ray palyerr will get more valuable if the games get more bigger then they already are. What happens if a game is like 50 gig, are you willing to load 5 discs just to play your game? What you get is a video game machine. You can break down exactly what everything is and then try to claim it is relatively inexpensive, but that would be a stretch. By your logic, you could claim the Wii is the most expensive console this generation. That is the kind of ridiculous that logic is. As for the 5 DVDs, yes I would be willing to do that. I don't see why everyone thinks it is a huge inconvinience. The jump seems unwarranted as well. The jump from CD to DVD was actually a lot more dramatic (relatively) but we did not see a huge jump in game length. Despite the fact that FF7 technically only used up less than half a DVD at best (3 CDs is 2.1 gigs tops where as a single layer dvd is 4.9), the next FF game to use a DVD (FF10) was not twice as long. FF10-2 was actually shorter in my experience. The jump in format size only makes sense after people have started to run into limits with the previous format. That just has not been the case for the vast majority of games. I can understand that people say 400$ is expensive. I rather have them say I can't pay 400$ now or I don't have that budget. It's like saying Mercedes is to expensive knowing you can't afford it. If you can't afford a mercedes(PS3) you buy a FIAT(wii) or a Alfa Romeo(xbox) It is like saying a Mercedes is too expensive for what it is. I spend more money than what a PS3 would cost me everytime I switch cars. The problem is, I am not willing to drop that kind of cash on a game system when there are cheaper alternatives. Using your analogy, I could buy a Lexus but I don't feel it is worth the asking price so I won't buy it. Given limitless money I would still find it to be too expensive for what it is. Game systems simply should not cost that kid of money Okee I agree there is a flaw in my explanation. Wii has almost got the right price. It can be cheaper concidering there is still a console called PS2 The difference between an Xbox360 and a PS3 is great. But lets break it down again. Xbox360 lacks a built in WI-FI, HD-DVD. These alone represent 300$ THis was only the hardware. An Elite(this is the closest to an PS3) is like 380$ (without HD-DVD/Wi-FI) A PS340gig is 400$ (with HD-DVD/WI-FI) Now the prices are almost at the same level. Now look what you get for your money hardware wise   THen you get the design. The PS3 already won a European award (design and tech specification) and a dutch award. Build in transformer unlike the Xbox360 that has it transformer outside the box.   The wireless controller that does not use oldskool batteries unlike the xbox The wireless Sixxaxis now with rumbble   The XMB and the ability to use it as a computer.   So if a PS3 is expensive, then an Xbox360 is expensive to and to me even more expensive, because you get less for that amount you pay

 Oh my, the extra argument. Who cares about the extras? That's what blowin' up the price to start off with! So what the PS3 has wifi - I don't want wifi - I have a professional network and ethernet is still way more reliable than wifi. And the BR-HD debate? Cry me a river - I don't need either of them. I have well over 100 DVDs and have no desire to upgrade to HD. I have HD on my HD DVR and honestly, it's good, but not enough for me to upgrade my movies. Sorry ... save that value argument for someone who cares.

And based on current standings, a lot of folks agree with my logic. 

madskillz said:  Oh my, the extra argument. Who cares about the extras? That's what blowin' up the price to start off with! So what the PS3 has wifi - I don't want wifi - I have a professional network and ethernet is still way more reliable than wifi. And the BR-HD debate? Cry me a river - I don't need either of them. I have well over 100 DVDs and have no desire to upgrade to HD. I have HD on my HD DVR and honestly, it's good, but not enough for me to upgrade my movies. Sorry ... save that value argument for someone who cares. And based on current standings, a lot of folks agree with my logic.

*Raises hand* Iono about the others but I do agree!

W29 said: DMeisterJ said: If you think 400 is still too much for the PS3, then you need to not play video games anymore. You must not know that between the price of $100 to $200 is the mainstream sweet price. And when your comparing consoles with other consoles the consumer and sometimes early adopters go after the cheapest console. Wii is the prime example, its cheap and affordable. The PS3 is $400 that is still rather expensive. And if your expecting the mainstream audience to pick up on a $400 console. Then your crazy, they will more likely go after the Wii or the Xbox 360 Arcade bundle. PS3 still has some problems. Now if the 360 only had the Elite then it would be some comparing but the PS3 has no chance against the Wii even. Good luck Sony. Happy mainstream audience hunting!

Mainstream, Mainstream, Mainstream. This console was not made for the mainstream It was made for people who might not care about bc (like me) who either already have a PS2 or am through playing PS2 games. I don't have a PS2 anyomore but I don't have any more PS2 game I want to play. I really don't play games over again and again so the bc doesn't mean anything to me. The title worth playing on the PS2 I have played and have no feeling to play them again. $400 is not that expensive. XBOTS need to understand that the 360 was that price not six weeks ago. and the elite is still that price. and I'm not saying blu-ray is gonna beat HD-DVD but the fact that it has a blue ray player will definetly resonate with gamers and the general public who may want both and see the 400 price point. I mean, this system was 600 eleven months ago so I believe that sony is doing all that it can do to get the price down while trying to kepp profits afloat. maybe people like you won't be pleased until it is free... Who knows but four hundred was the sweet spot for ten million plus gamers who bought the 360 so maybe it'll be the sweet spot for some future PS3 owners. concerning the 360 arcade bundle. it is still not a deal. you get a memory card (512 I think?) and five arcade games. Wow... that's great. You can't save any demos, any movies or videos. So the whole marketplace makes no point for that price. So you go out and buy a ridiculously overprice propietary hard drive for 100 (20 gigs) or 180 (120 gigs) and then you're at $400 dollars. At least with the low end PS3, it retains all the functionality of it's big brother (Flash card reader's aside) and you get the same gaming experience.