Playstation 3 Pricing Announced

[Refefer]

Site (http://joystiq.com/)

Two systems: base, running for $499 and an advanced running at $600.

Lotta money, but better than I had invisioned. Looks like sony is going to be taking a huge hit from each console, though word on the street is that this console is supposed to last 10 years. We'll see

[faster100]

10 years or until xbox is revamped again

[Demiurge]

This is going to be interesting, just based on the pricing alone. It'll be interesting to see how many people bite on them. I was concerned about the XBox 360 just based on the price, but it's a great unit. How much more will this really offer up over the 360 to justify the price difference? The price could easily make the 360 the alternative to most buyers at it's price point.

[tommyboy]

what happened to the good old days when you only had to dish out 200 bucks for videogame hardware. The only reason I would buy the ps3 for this price is because blu-ray players will cost more than $500 anyways but I don't have an hdtv right now so I don't even need a blue ray

[Demiurge]

what happened to the good old days when you only had to dish out 200 bucks for videogame hardware. The only reason I would buy the ps3 for this price is because blu-ray players will cost more than $500 anyways but I don't have an hdtv right now so I don't even need a blue ray

The gaming generation 'grew up' and took their kids along with them. They can definitely command these prices, but this is a new high here. That'll be the interesting part. Then again the average age of gamers is over 30 now.

[neomagus00]

The gaming generation 'grew up' and took their kids along with them. They can definitely command these prices, but this is a new high here. That'll be the interesting part. Then again the average age of gamers is over 30 now.
gamers in general, maybe, but i'm not so sure that applies to consoles... i could be wrong, though

is there any difference between the high-end model and the base other than a bigger HD?

[Sami]

First buyers will take the hit, just like in HD-DVD players now, then the prices will go down. I might take a jump to the console world depending on Blu-Ray prices but I'd still be mainly playing my games on my computer.

[Shizelbs]

Maybe if I wanted to buy a BR player that looked like complete crap. I mean, has anyone tried to watch a DVD on their PS2? Its the worst player ever. Maybe Denon should make the PS3, then I would buy it.

[Demiurge]

Maybe if I wanted to buy a BR player that looked like complete crap. I mean, has anyone tried to watch a DVD on their PS2? Its the worst player ever. Maybe Denon should make the PS3, then I would buy it.

This is why I question the systems value.

[tommyboy]

Maybe if I wanted to buy a BR player that looked like complete crap. I mean, has anyone tried to watch a DVD on their PS2? Its the worst player ever. Maybe Denon should make the PS3, then I would buy it.

You are 100% correct about the dvd feature on the ps2, it sucked, bad. Even if the ps3 was 300 bucks, i still don't think I would buy it. When I bought a ps2 in 2001 for $300, it just sat on my stand collecting dust. The dvd player sucked and there wasn't the games were sub-par (in my opinion). I guess what Im trying to say is that when I buy a game system, I want to play games, not do all this extra **** that I can already do with my computer. The ps2 was the only system I have paid more than 200 dollars for it was by far the worst I owned. So i guess im afraid ps3 would be the same way.

[Shizelbs]

Seriously, why buy the PS3 when the Xbox 'could' look just as good, and my decent nothing special DVD player is going to look better playing movies anyways. Whoopdedoo, I've got a BluRay player. Same stupid boat as my totally rad HTIB has 700W!!!

Which reminds me, next time somebody asks me how many watts my speakers are, I am going to punch a baby.

[Refefer]

So... how many watts are your speakers? Bet mine sound better. Got them for $500 from a guy in the parking lot outside my work, they have like 17 drivers in EACH ONE!!!! They're totally sweet and normally cost $3000, or so he said, they have like 2173 watts of power!!1!11!

:D

</shameless sarcasm>

[michael_w]

The thing does have some pretty crazy specs but I don't know... that's a lot of cash for a gaming console. I think I'd almost rather put the money towards upgrading my computer and stay out of the console war.

So I'm not the only one that gets frustrated by that question too. Usually goes something like:

"So how many watts is that amp you just bought?"
(me) "Hmm it puts out around 80"
"What?!? And you paid how much?? My car amp puts out like 1600 peak and I got it for $150"
(me) "Oh yea...? good luck with that :rolleyes: "

[Refefer]

heh, I remember going into bestbuy to test out their klipsch sb-3s with my t-amp. yeah... the guy looked at me like I was insane when I said I'd be testing them with a 5 watt amp.

[cheddar]

With Halo 3 delayed until Spring 2007 there's only going to be one must have during Christmas for the console gamer (or their parents) with cash. Let's face it, Sony will see millions of PS3s flying off the shelves this holiday season...

[Demiurge]

How do you figure? I think you're wrong. Sony at a higher price point will only help Microsoft, it's obvious. Especially if there are shortages.

[cheddar]

I've seen production figures of between 4-6 million ps3s by Christmas. If there are shortages, then ps3 already wins. And I think that it's really about killer apps. Halo 3 might have been the ps3 killer if they could have simulatneously lowered 360 prices with a holiday must have like that. But what are the die hard console gamers going to brag about for Christmas now? "Hey dude, I just got a 360, wanna come over and see it?" Ya, right.

Like I said, for the gamer with money (and I think there's more out there than one might think, Sony's had to have done a ton of market analysis beforehand), "Hey dude, wanna check out my ps3?" is gonna be the rage. Anybody remember tickle me elmo? If that giggling paper weight can be a top Christmas seller...Christmas buying isn't always rational, for many, it's about buying love...

And a dad still gets to rationalize the purchase by saying he can watch blu-ray on the flat screen that he's had for more than a year now with no HD content...even if the player isn't so good.

[Demiurge]

Halo 3 didn't sell me my XBox 360, nor all of the other units that have been sold thus far. Microsoft's price point is far lower than that the PS3. Those who already have the 360 will be able to buy an HD-DVD drive for their system, which isn't a selling point for either system, IMO. In any event, Microsoft still offers it, and it's the format with the big head start. I don't know anyone who uses their gaming system as their sole DVD player, or even at all, but why beleauger the point?

Sony is also banking on a technology that is 2nd in line -- HD-DVD will have 2 quarters of sales before Blu-Ray. Would you put your money with Blu-Ray? I wouldn't. Especially knowing it's not even a seperate.

You talk about Sony's market analysis -- how good is it? They've been getting their asses kicked lately and this is said to be the last go around for them if this system isn't a hit. Microsoft has money to burn, and Sony doesn't.

I'm probably going to own both units, but like the 360 I will wait and see how things shape up before I put my chips in. Getting gamers to spend $400 on a console was thought to be a stretch, and now they're going to try to get gamers to spend $600? Hey -- since I own a business I can tell you that the less expensive unit is going to be more popular when they more expensive alternative doesn't offer much else. Blu-Ray isn't what I would bank my money on, but that's what Sony has done.

[cheddar]

But isn't that the point? Nobody is going to pony up extra dough to buy Microsoft's HD-DVD player when they've already spent $400 bucks on the console. But Sony is willing to lose hundreds of dollars on each console so that each and every one of those millions sold means a blue-ray player in a household. I'll bet that none of the stand alone HD-DVD players sold before blue-ray comes along appoaches anything close to those numbers.

Microsoft's player is a non-starter, Sony is hoping that the ps3 becomes the media hub for the living room for the next decade. I'll admit it's a somewhat risky proposition with the future of HD players in uncertainty. And I'm not arguing against lower prices selling more units all other things being equal. But Christmas is the great unequalizer with newest and best, bragging rights, and buying love all wild cards that could tip the balance in Sony's favor.

To tell you the truth, I'm waiting till next year to buy the 360 when the price drops out of the stratosphere. But as many on this forum are evidence of, newest and best often trumps patience and frugality...I'm not saying that's a bad thing ;).

...Oh ya, the first stand alone blue-ray players will come along this summer. Very expensive, but I bet there are people out there that will buy these too...

[Demiurge]

But isn't that the point? Nobody is going to pony up extra dough to buy Microsoft's HD-DVD player when they've already spent $400 bucks on the console. But Sony is willing to lose hundreds of dollars on each console so that each and every one of those millions sold means a blue-ray player in a household. I'll bet that none of the stand alone HD-DVD players sold before blue-ray comes along appoaches anything close to those numbers.

Microsoft's player is a non-starter, Sony is hoping that the ps3 becomes the media hub for the living room for the next decade. I'll admit it's a somewhat risky proposition with the future of HD players in uncertainty. And I'm not arguing against lower prices selling more units all other things being equal. But Christmas is the great unequalizer with newest and best, bragging rights, and buying love all wild cards that could tip the balance in Sony's favor.

To tell you the truth, I'm waiting till next year to buy the 360 when the price drops out of the stratosphere. But as many on this forum are evidence of, newest and best often trumps patience and frugality...I'm not saying that's a bad thing ;).

...Oh ya, the first stand alone blue-ray players will come along this summer. Very expensive, but I bet there are people out there that will buy these too...

The point is that Microsoft offers an alternative, not to mention neither of us have any idea what it would cost. The ball is in Microsofts court on that one because they could sell them for $100 and it wouldn't hurt them. It would still be cheaper than the PS-3, and it would be the more popular format (at least as it stands now, as it's the only format).

I'm just saying that people aren't buying their gaming systems for the DVD players, and that's all Sony offers extra from the 360, and it's an unproven technology. HD-DVD has had some great reviews lately and it's already in the marketplace. As far as the media hubs -- XBox 360 is already a media hub with XBox Live, movie trailers, music, and game demos.

You're catching on to my point about Sony too, they've laid all their chips on the table for this one. I'm not saying it can't work, but from a business perspective I see it as one hell of a risk, but then again they had nothing to lose. It's either do something risky and lose your business or do nothing at all and lose your business. The chance of them winning is what is up in the air -- and I just don't see it, but I hope they do. The more competition the better.

I'm just interested to see how far parents go, the Sony price point is a new high, and yes, XBox 360 was too, but this is $200 more! It'll be interesting, that's for sure.

It's amazing that in all this Nintendo isn't even considered a player anymore. That's too bad, but if you've watched all the E3 stuff even the experts say that Nintendo is small time and that the real battle is between Sony and Microsoft.

[cheddar]

Quoting prices for the HD-DVD add on is just wild speculation, but even if it is $100 that's $499 for an xbox with 20gig drive vs. $499 for a ps3 with 20gig drive. And there's no way microsoft is going to fall on its sword for HD-DVD to bring the price that low with no movie library or HDTVs to sell and only a secondary, late on the scene interest in who wins the format war. Remember the cheapest HD-DVD players right now are $499 at the cheapest and the 360 can't even do 1080p. Again, nobody is going to pony up more money for microsoft's player since they can already use the 360 just fine as it is. Your price is $100, I would think that even selling it at cost you're way off.

That will mean that the lowest common denominator will continue to be the 360 with its low capacity optical drive vs millions of blue-ray players world wide by Christmas...geez, it's only $100 dollars more than a 360 with the same size drive, and you get a blue-ray player.

[Demiurge]

Well, I am tired of repeating myself. Have fun with your PS3.

[cheddar]

Since you're probably getting both, you have fun with yours too ;).

[venomclan]

I personally think that Sony is pricing too high. Using the PS3 as a BR player will probably be poor quality playback. One thing to consider is the software prices. BR discs are more expensive. Nobody is going to pay $80 a game.

Here is a quote from a regular at another site I visit. Interesting stuff:

"Hi all,
As you know I work for IBM. I'm currently at a technical symposium here in Orlando,Fla. As you may or may not know, IBM partnered with Sony on the new processor for the PS3.
Today, we just had a presentation of the processor chip that is the core of the new PS3, from the Master Scientist involved in the creation of the product no less. The power of this unit in 3D apps is just astonishing. A side by side comparison of medical 3D images where the slices are drawn onto a screen was shown. In the current technology, one slice takes 2 seconds each, with a the complete image taking 6 minutes to build. On this new processor, the entire image is drawn in 2 seconds. All without needing a custom GPU at all. Since we did not get to see a PS3, I can only imagine what type of gameplay you're gonna see. The $500 price point will be a steal."

Venom

[lanion]

There is certianly another choice : Nintendo Wii...

If you have been watching E3 news like I have, you will find that Nintendo is having an amazing show and right now is far more imperessive than Microsoft or Sony.

[Demiurge]

There is certianly another choice : Nintendo Wii...

If you have been watching E3 news like I have, you will find that Nintendo is having an amazing show and right now is far more imperessive than Microsoft or Sony.

I have been watching E3, and Nintendo doesn't even get mentioned as a competitor. ;)

[cheddar]

It's that new Wii feedback controller thingamagig. Yep, no matter what the prices are, who wins, who loses, it's shaping up to be a great year for console gaming!

[VR3]

There are four things wrong with the PS3 that makes me not want it...

1) It looks like it could cook my food.
2) It costs to much
3) Sony makes it
4) Dosnt have Halo 3

The first 3 are far more important, with the 3rd one being like 99% of the reason.

Sony is a joke, I bet the PS3 wont do half the rated specs, just like the PS2.

[Mjr7531]

It's hard telling with all of this, it's all speculation.
And for what it's worth, the Wii will not cost more than $200, It's hopefully going to be less.
Each system has its own strength, and yes for all of you non-beleivers, Wii has been the most popular booth at E3, with everyone (even hardcore not-Nintendo fans) checking it out.

Like I say, we just need to see how it fleshes out, but most importantly, stop arguing and play. ;)

[drew spelts]

To rehash what venom quoted. The other day I was watching the news. There was a quick little excerpt about the PS3. For a long time I have hated PS and have been loyal to X-box. The tides are about to turn. The program showed some japanese dudes playing some games on a 40" HD (probablye plasma) TV. I literally couldn't breathe. I told everyone to shut the hell up so I could watch the program. this did not go over to well with my folks but what the hell. I am tired of hearing all the speculation over here (I secretly enjoy it but don't tell anyone). The GRAPHICS OMG. Let me just say that if I were to choose solely on graphics this christmas I know I'd be purchasing a box with a little cute logo like "SONY" printed all over it. Now my judgements on systems are almost soley based on graphics. My only worrie for sony is that they will not produce the games that are "killers". The system will TOTALLY hold its own in any show down with the 360 24/7. I hate hate hate sony controllers and their games are generally so so for me and I have never owned one because of all this but hot damn this new kitten will be purring for me to come over and play with her for many moons. I am not here to insult anyone or the 360. I am just here to state what I have seen from both camps now and how I feel on the subject. And if the BluRay player does't suck then more power to the unit because then I will have true HD for my HD TV.

[tommyboy]

I have been watching E3, and Nintendo doesn't even get mentioned as a competitor. ;)

I have been checking out a lot of polls on the internet that asked which company took the cake as the most impressive system from e3 and the overwhelming majority picked the wii.

example:http://www.gamefaqs.com/poll/index.html?poll=2374

I was expecting the 360 to maybe drop $100 right when the ps3 comes out. But since the price of the ps3 is 200 dollars more than the 360, there is no reason to now:( ... This might mean too that the wii might be more than 200 bucks.

sorry that I making a lot of points in this post but the ps3 controller is so stupid. can't sony be just a little original and not make their controller exactly like their ps1 controller 10 years ago? I kinda liked the one from e3 last year because at least it was different!

[Demiurge]

I have been checking out a lot of polls on the internet that asked which company took the cake as the most impressive system from e3 and the overwhelming majority picked the wii.

example:http://www.gamefaqs.com/poll/index.html?poll=2374

I was expecting the 360 to maybe drop $100 right when the ps3 comes out. But since the price of the ps3 is 200 dollars more than the 360, there is no reason to now:( ... This might mean too that the wii might be more than 200 bucks.

sorry that I making a lot of points in this post but the ps3 controller is so stupid. can't sony be just a little original and not make their controller exactly like their ps1 controller 10 years ago? I kinda liked the one from e3 last year because at least it was different!

Too bad Yahoo News doesn't still have the link I saw on Monday in which 3 different gaming 'experts' said that the Wii wasn't even competition for the PS3 and XBox 360.

[Mjr7531]

Too bad Yahoo News doesn't still have the link I saw on Monday in which 3 different gaming 'experts' said that the Wii wasn't even competition for the PS3 and XBox 360.

As lame as this sounds, that's what Nintendo wants. Oh well, we'll see how it goes (Like I haven't said that a dozen of times ;)) I'm excited to see how Nintendo does, with the DS, it was a sleeper, and then absolutely took off, I hope the Wii does the same, it would be good news for everyone.

[frdranger]

Hmm, I think I will pass on the Playstation 3. I currently own an Xbox 360, and I love it to death. Plus, I find the games for the Xbox 360 more appealing than the Playstation 3's lineup for the next year or so. Alot of people think that just because the PS3 supports Blu-Ray, the games are going to be better because you can hold almost ten times the content on a Blu-Ray disc over a DVD. True, but, if you have a developer that lacks talent in say art design, or CG, or sound than it wouldn't be any better or worse than an Xbox 360 title.

[Kris Siegel]

is there any difference between the high-end model and the base other than a bigger HD?
$499 Has a 20GB hard drive instead of a 60GB. It is also missing WiFi and a Sony Memory Stick slot. I heard it has less USB ports too but that hasn't been confirmed. Also, the PS3 will weight 11lbs. And people thought the original XBox at 7.7 lbs was heavy, heh.

Seriously, why buy the PS3 when the Xbox 'could' look just as good, and my decent nothing special DVD player is going to look better playing movies anyways. Whoopdedoo, I've got a BluRay player.What do you mean 'could' look just as good? It does and can even surpass it.

Sony's PS3 has more raw power than the XBox 360, this is true, but during real usage, it's probably about the same. Sony's cell processor has 8 SPEs (you can think of these as cores, like an Intel dual core, this has 8). 1 is reserved for redundency (so this 1 can never be used for games). 1 (possibly 2) is reserved for the Operating System for the PS3. The PS3 can claim 1 SPe at any time for its Operating System. That's 3-4 SPEs developers cannot use. This makes it about as powerful as the Power CPU in the XBox 360 that has 3 cores.

Plus, most gaming systems have decent graphics when the first generation of video games comes along but when it gets to the 2nd and 3rd generations, the graphics get better. XBox 360 is coming into their 2nd generation of games.

Both systems can do HD. Both systems will look great. It's not a matter of the XBox 360 'could' or 'might' look as good as the PS3 because it can and will.


With Halo 3 delayed until Spring 2007 there's only going to be one must have during Christmas for the console gamer (or their parents) with cash. Let's face it, Sony will see millions of PS3s flying off the shelves this holiday season...
Delayed? It was never delayed. They have never announced a release date or even a time frame offically.

Sony won't be seeing "millions" of PS3s flying off the shelves. First off, they're only planning to have about 2 Million systems available by the time christmas rolls around with about 4 million total at the very end of 2006. They won't have 6 million total until April (this information was released this past week).

Secondly, did you see the lines to even look at the Wii at E3? People were standing 6-8 hours in line to play with the Wii for 5 minutes.

This is what the holiday season will look like:
Wii (According to Sega, the Wii will be under $250. It's expected to be around $200 but no offical figure is available)
Super Mario Galaxies
Zelda: Twilight Princess
Super Smash Brothers: Brawl
Metroid Prime 3
Mario Cart (this may end up being released in early 2007 though)
Splinter Cell 4: Double Agent (looks awesome, btw)
Maden
I could keep going on but those are the main titles

XBox 360 (Microsoft dropped the standard XBox 360 and the primuim is expected to drop in price well before the holidays to $299)
Splinter Cell: Double Agent
GTA4 (The XBox 360 verison will come out about a month or so before the PS3 version and you'll be able to download episodic content from XBox Live regularlly; the PS3 will NOT have this feature)
Gears of War
Sonic the Hedgehog

Again, just like with the Wii, those are the titles most are looking forward too. Halo 3, Fable 2 and so on will be very awesome but there is no release date so who knows if we'll see them at Christmas time or not

PS3 (Priced at $499 and $599)

GTA4
I'm still looking for any good games for the PS3 to be out in time for Christmas...

Some games like Final Fantasy XIII, Metal gear Solid, etc are not expected to be released until after 2007.

Heck the PS2 might do better than the PS3 at Christmas time. Final Fantasy XII and God of War II will be out soon. You can buy a Wii and an XBox 360 and be at the price of a PS3 and you can play the same games!

I have a PS2 and I've always been a fan of Playstation but I just can't see PS3 succeeding.

I've seen production figures of between 4-6 million ps3s by Christmas. If there are shortages, then ps3 already wins. And I think that it's really about killer apps. Halo 3 might have been the ps3 killer if they could have simulatneously lowered 360 prices with a holiday must have like that.
You're right, it's about the killer apps. Unfortuantely, Sony doesn't have ANY before Christmas and only a handful after Christmas. Also, according to Sony, they won't have out more than 2 million consoles to buy by Christmas time.

But isn't that the point? Nobody is going to pony up extra dough to buy Microsoft's HD-DVD player when they've already spent $400 bucks on the console. But Sony is willing to lose hundreds of dollars on each console so that each and every one of those millions sold means a blue-ray player in a household.

You're missing the point. The HD-DVD add-on isn't related to games but it's for those people who already bought an XBox 360 and decide "I wanna watch some HD-DVDs... since I got my XBox 360 I'll just go pick up the cheap add-on". The HD-DVD add-on is expected to be in the area of $100, cheaper than just about all HD-DVD players so anyone who happens to alreayd have an XBox, they can just grab 1 of those.

Sony is expected to lose about $400 on every console. If manufacturing doesn't get cheaper and Sony really does sell the 10 million consoles they want to sell, they would have lost about $40 billion dollars on PS3 sales alone. Do you know how hard that is to make up?

[VR3]

Do you have any idea how much I want the PS3 to flop and Sony be out of the market?

ALOT

[Shizelbs]

Then do your share and buy a 360. :)

[VR3]

I am...

I am just waiting for Halo 3 - just saving up all kinds money between now and then...

Plan to buy a larger/HDTV along with the 360 when I do.

I dont have a reason to buy it now... Only 2 games have caught my interest, Gears Of War and Halo 3.

If the 360 goes down to 300 holiday season, Ill be all over it

[tommyboy]

If the 360 goes down to 300 holiday season, Ill be all over it

not likely... but keep hoping

If it does, Ill be buying two systems this fall

[lanion]

Too bad Yahoo News doesn't still have the link I saw on Monday in which 3 different gaming 'experts' said that the Wii wasn't even competition for the PS3 and XBox 360.

Monday was before Nintendo's press conference and before anyone got to play it at E3.

[kingkip]

Do you have any idea how much I want the PS3 to flop and Sony be out of the market?

ALOT


Why? Competition breeds newer, better, faster and cheaper systems. You don't want any one company owning a market, as that typically ruins it for consumers. Cable TV anyone?

[cheddar]

Geez,

Some of you hate Sony like other people hate Microsoft for its bloated over priced OSs. Not sure how to respond to that. To each their own hate, I guess...


Sony's PS3 has more raw power than the XBox 360, this is true, but during real usage, it's probably about the same. Sony's cell processor has 8 SPEs (you can think of these as cores, like an Intel dual core, this has 8). 1 is reserved for redundency (so this 1 can never be used for games). 1 (possibly 2) is reserved for the Operating System for the PS3. The PS3 can claim 1 SPe at any time for its Operating System. That's 3-4 SPEs developers cannot use. This makes it about as powerful as the Power CPU in the XBox 360 that has 3 cores.

Kind of speculation here since you're talking about two different technologies. PowerPC chips have been around for more than a decade in Macs and even Apple decided not to use them anymore and go with Intel. Although IBM makes both the PowerPC and the Cell, it's the Cell that's cutting edge and just released.


Both systems can do HD. Both systems will look great. It's not a matter of the XBox 360 'could' or 'might' look as good as the PS3 because it can and will.

I like the quotes from others that have actually seen the graphics for themselves. They seem to have a different opinion. And from the clips I saw, I really thought it was live action at first.


Delayed? It was never delayed. They have never announced a release date or even a time frame offically.

Bungie even jokes on its own site that Bill Gates has been spreading rumors for awhile now. And the biggest quote from Bill was that Halo 3 would square off against PS3 this Christmas.


Sony won't be seeing "millions" of PS3s flying off the shelves. First off, they're only planning to have about 2 Million systems available by the time christmas rolls around with about 4 million total at the very end of 2006. They won't have 6 million total until April (this information was released this past week).

Last time I checked, Christmas was at the end of 2006. So, you're saying that until like the week before Christmas, Sony will store 2 million PS3s in its warehouses or is capable of producing like 1 million a week before New Years but only 2 million for the entire two months before? You're not making much sense here. There will be millions available by any count and the first movers and people joining the hype will buy almost all of them. What happens after that is far more uncertain.


You're missing the point. The HD-DVD add-on isn't related to games but it's for those people who already bought an XBox 360 and decide "I wanna watch some HD-DVDs... since I got my XBox 360 I'll just go pick up the cheap add-on". The HD-DVD add-on is expected to be in the area of $100, cheaper than just about all HD-DVD players so anyone who happens to alreayd have an XBox, they can just grab 1 of those.

Actually more game levels and more complex graphics requires more game data. I remember swapping disks on Doom3 (PC) exactly because its bleeding edge gameplay required a lot of disk space. With the 360, even if you can swap disks, you're limited to less than 20 gigs of hard drive data. Blue-ray holds like 50 gigs on a disk, that's why they need the bigger hard drive on the premium edition.


Sony is expected to lose about $400 on every console. If manufacturing doesn't get cheaper and Sony really does sell the 10 million consoles they want to sell, they would have lost about $40 billion dollars on PS3 sales alone. Do you know how hard that is to make up?

With economies of scale it's not if it will get cheaper, but when. If you don't like the price, then just don't buy it when it comes out. Wait a year or so, and you can have it at a lower price. Mass production of the Cell processor and blu-ray drives will bring component prices down. Besides, Sony will be making up for the hardware loss with blu-ray movie and HDTV sales.

A lot of you seem pretty serious about this hating Sony stuff (or at least seeing doom and gloom in their future). So if you don't believe me, I'm ok with it. Let's all just wait until Christmas to see who is right. I'm with 7531, let's stop arguing and play...

[lanion]

If Blu-Ray succeeds (if it does, they will have PS3 to thank I'm sure) they get a cut from every Blu-Ray disc... that will be a ton of money for them.

[drew spelts]

I personaly really like the 360 (don't own one due to the cost) and have been a huge fan of Halo 1 but to me Halo 2 is horrible. I mean a guy that can drag a 10 ton (thats 20,000 punds for those that don't know) spiky looking bomb across a steel flore all by himself can't hold a gun on target while he squeezes the trigger????? God dang it all to hell...thats just moronic. After I played the first level I quit and told my friend to put in a different game. Still to this day I have never played more than the first level of Halo 2 and never will it just sucks, the guy sucks. My long winded point is that for me if halo 3 is going to intice me into buying a 360 the guy (mark III) has to be able to hold the gun on a target and not let it go haywire once I start juicing him. Halo 1=Sweatest game ever for the Xbox Halo 2= a game I will never play again for the Xbox. They had it right the first time, why oh dear god did they have to change the one thing I really liked about that game in the sequil? If the Halo 3 follows Halo 2 play action it will just be one more reason to push me to the PS3.

[LiquidSound]

Don't think it's been said..but wouldn't surprise me at all for sony to "unexpectedly" come out at a lower price. Some people would get a "sale" mentality.

John Carmack..FPS master said, himself, the PS3 is MUCH harder to program games on. Interesting...

I'll own it.

Tekken...come get some.

[tommyboy]

Don't think it's been said..but wouldn't surprise me at all for sony to "unexpectedly" come out at a lower price. Some people would get a "sale" mentality.


won't happen, they are losing too much money as it is, sony went way over their heads when making this system. I think it will sell well but not nearly as well as the ps2 did.

[Demiurge]

For the record, I don't hate any of these companies. I have the most disdain for Sony because I have no clue what they think they're doing here and it doesn't make any sense to me. I can say the same for Nintendo, but if they think they have a hit on their hands and people are going along with it, excellent. Like I have said before I will believe it when I see it. The only way I would consider buying the Wii is if they decide they are going to get a little more well rounded with their gaming contracts. I can only take so many overtly cartoonish looking games -- it's not my style.

I am a proud owner of a lot of Nintendo systems, PS1 & PS2, XBox, and XBox 360. It's all about what these companies can offer someone like myself, so far Microsoft has been the only company that's been impressive -- Sony and Nintendo have to win me back. If they make a killer system with killer aps -- I'll be all over them both.

[bknauss]

$499 Has a 20GB hard drive instead of a 60GB. It is also missing WiFi and a Sony Memory Stick slot. I heard it has less USB ports too but that hasn't been confirmed.

Also missing HDMI and rumored to be missing wireless controllers. Although the $600 beast might be missing wireless controllers also.



Sony won't be seeing "millions" of PS3s flying off the shelves. First off, they're only planning to have about 2 Million systems available by the time christmas rolls around with about 4 million total at the very end of 2006. They won't have 6 million total until April (this information was released this past week).

And this is for a world wide launch. It'll be the 360 all over again this coming Christmas.


Secondly, did you see the lines to even look at the Wii at E3? People were standing 6-8 hours in line to play with the Wii for 5 minutes.

This is what the holiday season will look like:
Wii (According to Sega, the Wii will be under $250. It's expected to be around $200 but no offical figure is available)
Super Mario Galaxies
Zelda: Twilight Princess
Super Smash Brothers: Brawl
Metroid Prime 3
Mario Cart (this may end up being released in early 2007 though)
Splinter Cell 4: Double Agent (looks awesome, btw)
Maden
I could keep going on but those are the main titles


After all of the dogging Nintendo took, they came out and dropped the hammer. A new controller and a new type of gaming. Good strategy. I'm still miffed about no HD though.



XBox 360 (Microsoft dropped the standard XBox 360 and the primuim is expected to drop in price well before the holidays to $299)
Splinter Cell: Double Agent
GTA4 (The XBox 360 verison will come out about a month or so before the PS3 version and you'll be able to download episodic content from XBox Live regularlly; the PS3 will NOT have this feature)
Gears of War
Sonic the Hedgehog


No GTA4 until Fall 2007. There was a misprint or a screw up by Peter Moore during the Xbox speeches. Also it should be restated that GTA4 is not a psuedo-exclusive for Sony anymore. Don't have to wait a year to get the latest GTA on a non-Sony system.

Gears of War looks like a must-own.



PS3 (Priced at $499 and $599)

GTA4
I'm still looking for any good games for the PS3 to be out in time for Christmas...

Some games like Final Fantasy XIII, Metal gear Solid, etc are not expected to be released until after 2007.


Only games right now that might make me buy a PS3 are MGS and GT. But with the 360 coming out with another version of Forza, that want list might get knocked down to MGS.


You're missing the point. The HD-DVD add-on isn't related to games but it's for those people who already bought an XBox 360 and decide "I wanna watch some HD-DVDs... since I got my XBox 360 I'll just go pick up the cheap add-on". The HD-DVD add-on is expected to be in the area of $100, cheaper than just about all HD-DVD players so anyone who happens to alreayd have an XBox, they can just grab 1 of those.

I might buy that HD-DVD drive just because its so cheap. Its a safe bet to spend $100 now, check out HD-DVD, and if its lasts, you can upgrade to a good player with much better video.

[Kris Siegel]

Some of you hate Sony like other people hate Microsoft for its bloated over priced OSs. Not sure how to respond to that. To each their own hate, I guess...

I don't hate either. I own a PS2 and an XBox and think they're both great and I was even planning on getting a PS3. I didn't even get a Game Cube until recently because I've never been a huge fan of Nintendo's consoles but I'm all for getting a Wii. It's not that I hate certain companies; I just want the best consoles and games.


Kind of speculation here since you're talking about two different technologies. PowerPC chips have been around for more than a decade in Macs and even Apple decided not to use them anymore and go with Intel. Although IBM makes both the PowerPC and the Cell, it's the Cell that's cutting edge and just released.

The PowerPC processor isn't the same kind that Apple uses. IBM makes many kinds. Before the 360 came out, many were speculating they might be able to run OS 9 or OS X on it but the processor is too different (plus, there is some other hardware restrictions since it's a console). They are both cutting edge. The Cell is a great processor, but it's very difficult to program for (I've done multi-threaded applications before and it can get a bit messy) and since the console itself will be taking many of the PSEs, I wouldn't expect it to be much more, if any, powerful than the 3-core PowerPC chip. Comparing Raw power, there is no contest but comparing how the console will be used, it'll probably be on par.

Besides, Microsoft's XBox 360 has more memory throughput from what I read which is crucial for pushing large amounts of data so that'll hlep it out a lot.


I like the quotes from others that have actually seen the graphics for themselves. They seem to have a different opinion. And from the clips I saw, I really thought it was live action at first.
I've seen screenshots and played games on the XBox 360; they both look great and, depending on the game, the graphics look on par to me. Also, during the presentation and at many of the PS3 kiosks they were running at 1080P, something that just about all TVs cannot display so that may not be accurate as to what you may get at home. Besides, gaming shouldn't be all about the graphics anyway. Yeah, awesome graphics are nice, but what good are they if there isn't any good game play?


Bungie even jokes on its own site that Bill Gates has been spreading rumors for awhile now. And the biggest quote from Bill was that Halo 3 would square off against PS3 this Christmas.

Bill was hoping but there was never an offical release date set.



Last time I checked, Christmas was at the end of 2006. So, you're saying that until like the week before Christmas, Sony will store 2 million PS3s in its warehouses or is capable of producing like 1 million a week before New Years but only 2 million for the entire two months before? You're not making much sense here. There will be millions available by any count and the first movers and people joining the hype will buy almost all of them. What happens after that is far more uncertain.
Sony said it'll have 2 million at launch and 2 million additional units by the end of 2006. It's possible that the additional units could come in after christmas but I'm sure a good amount of them will come in before christmas. I thought I wrote my original comment off an article I was reading but can't find it again so just ignore it :p



Actually more game levels and more complex graphics requires more game data. I remember swapping disks on Doom3 (PC) exactly because its bleeding edge gameplay required a lot of disk space. With the 360, even if you can swap disks, you're limited to less than 20 gigs of hard drive data. Blue-ray holds like 50 gigs on a disk, that's why they need the bigger hard drive on the premium edition.

That is not the reason for the hard drive. You don't install games on consoles, you just play them. You won't be storing all that data onto the hard drive, that would be way too slow. The hard drive in the XBox 360 is used for download games, additional data (like GTA4's episodic content) and saving music and games onto it. Sony's hard drive will be used for similar things: saving games, music downloads (they're going to have an iTunes like interface so you can buy music) but they won't support episodic content (not sure why but according to rock star it won't, which is why its XBox 360 version will have the extra content and the PS3 won't).

Also, I wouldn't expect to see many dual layer Blu-Ray discs (50GB) as they cost much more to produce than single layer(23GB). Using DVDs does have its drawl backs since it'll only hold around 9GB of data compared to Blu-Ray's 23GB but in this generation of consoles I don't think we'll have much of a problem. Games are slowly increasing in size but very rarely will you find a game over 2-4GBs.


A lot of you seem pretty serious about this hating Sony stuff (or at least seeing doom and gloom in their future). So if you don't believe me, I'm ok with it. Let's all just wait until Christmas to see who is right. I'm with 7531, let's stop arguing and play...
I don't hate Sony stuff. In fact, I really like some of the things they've produced (PS2). I just don't see the PS3 succeeding. If some good games come out on it I'll definately buy one but so far the only good game I've seen coming out for it is Metal Gear Solid and that won't be out until after 2007.

[karpiel666]

Hmmm. I thought that xbox360 and ps3 are supposed to dominate pc gaming?
yet people dont seem to be willing to shell out 500 bucks for one, yet they are willing to pay that much for a graphics card ofor a pc.:confused: Seems to me like that sums up the console vs. pc war for now.:rolleyes: I am amazed that with all the claims they have they are selling it for 500, I was expecting it to cost atleast 1k bucks.:D

[Demiurge]

I don't know anyone who can seriously say that any console will be better graphically and all that than a top of a line PC. With that comes a lot of other variables, do you upgrade your Video Card every six months or every year? PC gaming for me has always been a huge money pit, and I have all but given up on it at this point. Just isn't worth it anymore.

Besides, I like being able to have my friends over to sit on my comfortable furniture and play a game on one screen without having to lug a huge box along and a bunch of cords. Consoles definitely have their place, and I am back to them again after a long stint with PC gaming.

So I am not sure that the 'War' was ever really valid to begin with. Both have their advantages and their weaknesses.

[Sami]

$500 goes a long way in PC gaming. Sure you need lots of money invested to get all the advantages the newest games offer but $500 is enough to rival the gaming experience of consoles. I doubt I'll be in the console camp anytime soon.

[drew spelts]

I just think that the consoles have the upper hand of playing on a large screen. However,PC's have 10 Times the buttons which is also nice for certain things like multitasking your barage of attacks. That is something that i dobt I will ever see on a console.
And to quote kris Siegel, "Yeah, awesome graphics are nice, but what good are they if there isn't any good game play?" It is my personal opinion that awsome graphics inspire great and new ideas for game play, not just to make the blood look more realistic.

[lanion]

a $600 is good for gaming for 1 or 2 years tops... then all the new games start looking really bad when you go to minimum settings... just not worth it to me anymore. I can afford a PS3, but I cant afford a PC good enough to play Crysis well for a long time. I have a 6800gt, and thats faltering with newer games now at high settings...

[karpiel666]

last time i checked you could hook a pc up to any screen, so that dosent really have any impact on my choises. Ill stick with pc caming untill i see something on a console that makes me go :eek: in the way that crysis dose.

[avelanchefan]

One other thing I want to point out about the Wii. Nintendo has sytsted that they want the Wii to be for the casual gamer. They want the titles to be simplistic enough to sit down and play it for an hour and not having to worry about finishing some level. (Like smash brothers, and Link also) Look at Oblivion, or the Grand theft Auto Vice City & San Andreas. This required you to invest at least a minimum of 2 hours. These are not games that you could sit for an hour and leave them.

Me I am all for getting the Wii. It looks like the Patton houshold will own all three consoles.

[Sami]

I just think that the consoles have the upper hand of playing on a large screen.
How's that?

lanion, the same goes with consoles, they are good for a year or two. Then the games fall behind the competition. It's not like they are in any better position than computers. First you bought PS2, now PS3, maybe XBox360 in between. The same moneypit really.

[Demiurge]

I strongly disagree. 1 or 2 years? You're lucky to get 6 months to a year out of just a VC at the rate in which games change. I know, I was in that camp, and still have a decent PC because my graphic design work requires it.

More titles for console and the me the graphics have always looked better than the PC since getting the 360. I don't have a top of the line PC, but it's up there. Plus, the game play is better.

Like I said before, both have their advantages, but I am much happier with the consoles now. Especially with the on-line gaming aspect of it.

[Sami]

I strongly disagree. 1 or 2 years? You're lucky to get 6 months to a year out of just a VC at the rate in which games change.
I still play games w/o any problems with several year old 6600GT and P4 3.4GHz. I know the VC could use upgrading, but it still works at 1680x1050 resolution. Nobody needs 100fps rates. The rate the games change, that's the catch really. Consoles are stuck with what they have now so there isn't room to grow on games where the PC games keep getting better and better. You need a totally new console to take that leap into new generation of games so how is it any different from upgrading your PC?

I need a computer so getting a console for games would require having both a PC and a console so for me the console route would be much more expensive. And really a downgrade in games (see below). At $150-200 I might consider it as a secondary system for rare occasions.



More titles for console and the me the graphics have always looked better than the PC since getting the 360. I don't have a top of the line PC, but it's up there. Plus, the game play is better.
Graphics, I'll give the edge to PC's but those are our opinions. I HATE the console gameplay, mouse+kbd is so much easier and better than those clunky pads. Titles, I thought it was the other way around but that might have changed. Of course you have the online game rentals for consoles but not for PC, which is the only thing consoles have the edge from my perspective.

[unc2701]

Just saw this today:

http://cache.gizmodo.com/images/2006/05/relative.gif
Inflation adjusted console prices.

Really doesn't play too much into the XBOX306 vs PS3 argument, but the good olds days aren't all that good.

[Demiurge]

What is that chart supposed to prove?

[unc2701]

Also interesting, now that I look more carefully: Nintendo has always kept things fairly cheap and their console prices are actually decreasing over time.

Edit: Uhhh... like I said, it has nothing to do with xbox vs ps. It does show that people are totally willing to pay $400 or more for a console.

[Demiurge]

Also interesting, now that I look more carefully: Nintendo has always kept things fairly cheap and their console prices are actually decreasing over time.

Edit: Uhhh... like I said, it has nothing to do with xbox vs ps. It does show that people are totally willing to pay $400 or more for a console.

Oh, just asked because it didn't make sense, and you'll see why...

The graphics and wow factor are a big factor in people shelling out the money for these systems. I'd like to see their inflation data. I'm old enough to remember buying the Nintendo when it first came out, as well as my brother being 10 years old having a lot of the older systems and I never remember anyone gasping for air over the prices.

In any event Neo Geo and 3DO are some of the biggest flops in console history so sales figures would have been inmportant to include in the graph otherwise it's worthless. The most popular system are in the '$400' and under category, assuming their inflation data is accurate. Not to mention it doesn't account for the graphic achievements that would get people to spend more money and all of the other advances in gaming over the years.

[jdhdiggs]

It also looks to me that the PS3 will fail based on past trends. The cost is too high. When you look at the systems launched close to eachother, the first system ftom that generation under $350 seems to "win" and the ones over $500 never "win".

I wonder if my parents still have my turbo graphix 16?

[unc2701]

Ok, just spot checked a few using a CPI inflation calculator and they seem accurate.

[Demiurge]

Any response for the rest of it? No? Like I said, without sales figures the graph is useless. Althought I know 3DO and Neo Geo were huge flops and apparently expensive for the time. Puts PS3 in a dangerous territory.

[unc2701]

Agressive much? Seriously, I have no point, 'cept that the "good old days" really weren't that different. I just threw that out there since I saw it this morning.

[tommyboy]

Any response for the rest of it? No? Like I said, without sales figures the graph is useless. Althought I know 3DO and Neo Geo were huge flops and apparently expensive for the time. Puts PS3 in a dangerous territory.

but the 3DO and neo geo didn't have a predecessor that was the best selling console of all time. the ps3 will be fine, not as popular as the ps2 but will still sell a lot.

[drew spelts]

I see games all the time made by 3DO so I do not believe that even if playstation "dies" it will completely disapear. So I guess thats kinda good news??? However I am not sure if another company bought 3DO or what happened but there are probably 100 games that they have developed since the actual 3DO.

[cheddar]

I think the Atari 2600 was the runaway hit of its generation and it cost $659.41 in today's dollars. Wow. That's a testament to what screaming kids can accomplish. There weren't many over 18 gamers in 1977 ;). And this was for pong...

[drew spelts]

amazing how a good game of pong can make you sit down with a friend and play. Next thing you know, an hour has flown by.

[cheddar]

It also looks to me that the PS3 will fail based on past trends. The cost is too high. When you look at the systems launched close to eachother, the first system ftom that generation under $350 seems to "win" and the ones over $500 never "win".

I wonder if my parents still have my turbo graphix 16?

Actually, the NES was over $350, was more expensive than either the Atari 7800 before it or the Sega Genesis after it, and it still cleaned their clocks. The PS2 was also more expensive than the competition before or after, and we know what happened there ;). And the Atari 2600 was over $600 on the chart and it was a big winner.

And I know what drew means about pong. Same thing happens solo with block buster...or tetris...something zen in there :D.

[jdhdiggs]

You missed the point, but thanks for playing...

"About $350" What's with all the anal retentive skidmarks on the board now days.

The Atari 7800 was merely an update and not that much of an upgrade so the NES did wipe it out (It was a new generation). Look into the performance generations and you will see that the first one introduced, if reasonably priced, seems to win that generations war. The PS2 beat GC and XB because it was the first out and had a reasonable price, not because it was better. XB held on some because it was arguably the better product and sold at a similar price.

Unfortunately, the PS3 is not heads and shoulders above the 360 in an apreciable performance way for the standard consumer and has a much higher cost. If the trend the chart shows continues, this could be a huge loss to Sony. The alternative would be that it signifies a new age in gaming where the gaming center becomes an entertainment hub. Here the 360 has hope of winning, but the gap in cost an performance tips a bit towards PS3.

As for the 2600, it's only real competition came from the intellivision which came out over priced. The preceding systems had flaws, those after it were not an increase in performance or too $$$.

[cheddar]

No need to get hostile. Seems like you also tripped up with the Playstation as well. At $400 (don't get anal...) it was far more expensive than the N64 released just a year later at $250.

Sales figures:

Playstation 100,000,000
N64 32,930,000

;)

[krabby5]

You are 100% correct about the dvd feature on the ps2, it sucked, bad. Even if the ps3 was 300 bucks, i still don't think I would buy it. When I bought a ps2 in 2001 for $300, it just sat on my stand collecting dust. The dvd player sucked and there wasn't the games were sub-par (in my opinion). I guess what Im trying to say is that when I buy a game system, I want to play games, not do all this extra **** that I can already do with my computer. The ps2 was the only system I have paid more than 200 dollars for it was by far the worst I owned. So i guess im afraid ps3 would be the same way.

The PS2 was easily the best system as far as quantity of great games...what sort of games do you like?

wow...I've never met ANYONE who bought a PS2 and hated it...especially after their crappy launch titles got out of the way..

You must not like consoles period..so, no, the PS3 wouldn't be for you

[krabby5]

The point is that Microsoft offers an alternative, not to mention neither of us have any idea what it would cost. The ball is in Microsofts court on that one because they could sell them for $100 and it wouldn't hurt them. It would still be cheaper than the PS-3, and it would be the more popular format (at least as it stands now, as it's the only format).

I'm just saying that people aren't buying their gaming systems for the DVD players, and that's all Sony offers extra from the 360, and it's an unproven technology. HD-DVD has had some great reviews lately and it's already in the marketplace. As far as the media hubs -- XBox 360 is already a media hub with XBox Live, movie trailers, music, and game demos.

You're catching on to my point about Sony too, they've laid all their chips on the table for this one. I'm not saying it can't work, but from a business perspective I see it as one hell of a risk, but then again they had nothing to lose. It's either do something risky and lose your business or do nothing at all and lose your business. The chance of them winning is what is up in the air -- and I just don't see it, but I hope they do. The more competition the better.

I'm just interested to see how far parents go, the Sony price point is a new high, and yes, XBox 360 was too, but this is $200 more! It'll be interesting, that's for sure.

It's amazing that in all this Nintendo isn't even considered a player anymore. That's too bad, but if you've watched all the E3 stuff even the experts say that Nintendo is small time and that the real battle is between Sony and Microsoft.

well..that and the fact that the PS3 will not be limited to 9 gigs of space for their games,....which could be huge

[cheddar]

I heard that DOA4 takes up 5GB already. While I think most games will still fit comfortably, you have to wonder what will not get made or cut out of later generation games to make them fit this older technology.

[jdhdiggs]

No need to get hostile. Seems like you also tripped up with the Playstation as well. At $400 (don't get anal...) it was far more expensive than the N64 released just a year later at $250.

Sales figures:

Playstation 100,000,000
N64 32,930,000

;)

Right, but IIRC, N64 advertiszed the hell out of the N64 and showed how much better it would be than the playstation (Basically, it would be next gen)

Sony is trying the same this this time. Only problem is that PS3 is not next gen over the 360. Even Sony's specs are collapsing down to the 360 level, added to BR troubles (only single sided disks, cost overruns, delays, ets..) and Sony's history of missing even the final published specs. I just don't see this ending well for Sony.

BR should do better, but right now it looks like a Betamax technology.

[cheddar]

$500 goes a long way in PC gaming. Sure you need lots of money invested to get all the advantages the newest games offer but $500 is enough to rival the gaming experience of consoles. I doubt I'll be in the console camp anytime soon.

And the 360 has been out for less than a year and you already have to shell out more dough for an hd-dvd, WIFI, maybe a larger HD at some point. And the box doesn't come with HDMI or 1080p, both upcoming standards for HDTV. Ability to update definitely has its advantages, but it seems to cost you on consoles too.

[Demiurge]

Cheddar, could you be any more biased? Please, just let me know.

[cheddar]

Cheddar, could you be any more biased? Please, just let me know.
Hey, truth be told, I am a happy xbox owner and play Halo 2 all the time. I have never owned a playstation of any kind and only got interested in it when I heard they would be selling a blu-ray player at a huge loss (along with a console attached). I will almost certainly be getting a 360 when Halo 3 comes out.

It's just that some of the information about the demise of the PS3 just doesn't ring true for me and there weren't many voices taking the other side, so I put in my two cents. If everybody was stacked up against the 360, I would probably not post so much.

[cheddar]

Right, but IIRC, N64 advertiszed the hell out of the N64 and showed how much better it would be than the playstation (Basically, it would be next gen)

Sony is trying the same this this time. Only problem is that PS3 is not next gen over the 360. Even Sony's specs are collapsing down to the 360 level, added to BR troubles (only single sided disks, cost overruns, delays, ets..) and Sony's history of missing even the final published specs. I just don't see this ending well for Sony.

BR should do better, but right now it looks like a Betamax technology.

So I guess your trend didn't hold up very well if the first console of its generation could come in at $250 and still got clobbered by the last generation. There seem to be a lot of exceptions to your rule.

All I'm saying is that price seems to only be part of the equation for how successful a console eventually becomes. And even the US market can only take a console so far. Flopping in Japan can have serious consequences. The Sega Genesis did very well against Nintendo in the US but ended up losing because it did miserably in Japan and the rest of the world.

Here are some interesting numbers from the generation hit parade...

Units sold:

Atari 2600 - 51,000,000
NES - 60,000,000
SNES - 49,000,000
Genesis - 35,000,000
Playstation - 102,000,000 (March 2005)
Playstation2 - 103,600,000
XBOX - 24,000,000
GC - 21,000,000

And the PS2 only has a 55% US marketshare. It's a sobering thought when you think that Genesis had 65% north american market share at one point. The XBOX won't make it if it continues to have problems internationally. Seems like part of the problem is brand perception in Japan, no matter what the specs.

[jdhdiggs]

So I guess your trend didn't hold up very well if the first console of its generation could come in at $250 and still got clobbered by the last generation. There seem to be a lot of exceptions to your rule.

Units sold:

Atari 2600 - 51,000,000
NES - 60,000,000
SNES - 49,000,000
Genesis - 35,000,000
Playstation - 102,000,000 (March 2005)
Playstation2 - 103,600,000
XBOX - 24,000,000
GC - 21,000,000


Cool data, Can you add $/Mips or fillrate or processing? That might be more telling.

I don't see the first part of your comment. Enlighten me...

Don't get me wrong, I hope both 360 and PS3 make it, compition is good. The problem is it looks like Sony dropped the ball in a similar way to Nintendo in the last gen.

[cheddar]

Hmm,

Sales data is a lot easier to find than processor data, especially for the earlier consoles. Can't promise anything.

As to the first part, it seems that your main point was that the first in a generation, reasonably priced (below $350) and capable makes it. Demiurge and others think that the price of the ps3 and comparable cabability of the 360 means that millions of ps3s won't fly off the shelves this Christmas.

Nintendo improved their machines all the way up through the N64 while keeping prices pretty low. Yet they steadily lost market share as the N64 didn't even do as well as genesis with only 32 million. Sega, although not as pricey as the ps3, also had arguably the better machine when the genesis was launched. And although it did better than the xbox, which is also arguably better than the ps2, nintendo still beat it pretty soundly.

So, I'm just saying that price and capability are factors, sure, but those factors just aren't sufficient to explain the final sales numbers especially for Sony.

Sony's first playstation started out as the optical drive for nintendo. And when nintendo balked at the deal, sony hacked it together and sold it independently. Not cutting edge, but it was Sony building what looks to be a market of over 150,000,000 potential units sold over the lifetime of a generation. :eek:

Now the 360 hopes to sell 4-5 million units by June. Then people will settle in and wait for Christmas. So where's the other 145,000,000 units going? Granted, many of the buyers will wait for prices to come down, their current box to show its age, or the games to come out that they like. However a chunk of them just might come from those over 100 million world wide happy sony customers. There's certainly enough of a market out there to see millions of ps3s fly off the shelves at Christmas. And other comments to the contrary, it's Microsoft that needs to prove its marketing department can sell a console to an international market, not Sony. The xbox didn't even make genesis numbers in a much larger console market. ;)

[cheddar]

Here's the CPU processor data for each system. Make of it what you will. They pretty much fall out along what I would expect. Price/whatever is going to go down because of the great leaps in processing power between each generation without the corresponding rise in inflation adjusted prices.

Hey! I finally made Polkster :D!

2600

MOS Technology 6507, a cut-down version of the 6502, running at 1.19 MHz
No separate graphics processor. 128 bytes of RAM. 4kROM cartidges.
2 bitmapped sprites

NES

CPU: Nintendo 2AO3 8 bit processor running at 1.79MHz
Main Ram: 2 KB
Palette: 48 colors and 5 grays in base palette; red, green, and blue
Sprite sizes: 8x8 and 8x16 pixels
Maximum onscreen sprites: 64

Genesis

CPU: 16-bit Motorola 68000 running at 7.61 MHz
Ram: 64 KB
Resolution: Most games used 320x224 pixels.
Palette: 512 Colors
Vram: 64 KB
Optional optical drive add-on (Japan, did this ever get to the US?)

SNES

CPU: WDC 65C816 16 bit processor running at 3.58 MHz, with 16 KB of RAM
Resolution: Most games used 256x224 pixels.
Palette: 32,768 Colors
Maximum onscreen sprites: 128

Playstation

CPU: 32-bit R3000A RISC running at 33.9 MHz
Ram: 16 Mbits
Vram: 8 Mbits
Palette: 16.7 million colors
Resolution: 256 x 224 - 740 x 480

N64

CPU: MIPS 64-bit RISC CPU
CPU Clock Speed: 93.75 MHz
Memory: RAMBUS D-Ram 36 Mbits
Graphics Processing Functions: Z buffering, anti-aliasing, realistic texture mapping
Resolution: 256 x 224 - 640 x 480 dots

PS2

CPU: 128-bit Emotion Engine running at 294 Mhz
System Memory: 32MB Direct Rambus
Memory Bus Bandwidth: 3.2 GB per second

GC

MPU (Micro Processing Unit): Custom IBM Power PC Gekko running at 485 Mhz
Main Memory Bandwidth: 2.6GB/second

xbox

CPU Type: Intel Pentium 3 Processor technology
CPU Clock Speed: 733Mhz
Memory: 64MB of RAM
Memory Bandwidth: 6.4GB/sec

[jdhdiggs]

You need to drop the 360 from the Xbox, Cool info.

Are you sure PS1 sold that many units? I can't remember a single person I know ever having one....

[cheddar]

Oops :rolleyes:! I found the PS1 data on several forums and websites and they were all pretty consistent adjusting for dates posted. It probably also includes the second release when they made the mini one and sold it for cheap. Testament to third world sales? I dunno...

[aaharvel]

Oh, just asked because it didn't make sense, and you'll see why...

The graphics and wow factor are a big factor in people shelling out the money for these systems. I'd like to see their inflation data. I'm old enough to remember buying the Nintendo when it first came out, as well as my brother being 10 years old having a lot of the older systems and I never remember anyone gasping for air over the prices.

In any event Neo Geo and 3DO are some of the biggest flops in console history so sales figures would have been inmportant to include in the graph otherwise it's worthless. The most popular system are in the '$400' and under category, assuming their inflation data is accurate. Not to mention it doesn't account for the graphic achievements that would get people to spend more money and all of the other advances in gaming over the years.

not a videogame guy anymore but i remember those days. $700 for a 3d0 and games that cost $200 A PIECE for the NEo-GEo.

However, those machines were hardly multi-media capable either. Maybe it'll be different for the ps3. Although I haven't played videogames since the old days of SOTN on Playstation some 10 years ago, I might shell out the money for a PS3 when it comes time to be wanting a universal player that can cd, sacd, blue-ray and high-def. $500 doesn't sound all that bad considering it's abilities.. IF you're thinking on a multi-media scale.

[tommyboy]

not a videogame guy anymore but i remember those days. $700 for a 3d0 and games that cost $200 A PIECE for the NEo-GEo.

However, those machines were hardly multi-media capable either. Maybe it'll be different for the ps3. Although I haven't played videogames since the old days of SOTN on Playstation some 10 years ago, I might shell out the money for a PS3 when it comes time to be wanting a universal player that can cd, sacd, blue-ray and high-def. $500 doesn't sound all that bad considering it's abilities.. IF you're thinking on a multi-media scale.

Don't forget the ps2 with the dvd player, it was TERRIBLE. The ps3 will be the same way, better off getting a seperate blu-ray after they drop in price.

[drew spelts]

Don't forget the ps2 with the dvd player, it was TERRIBLE. The ps3 will be the same way, better off getting a seperate blu-ray after they drop in price.

They could possibly learn from their mistake and actually make a decent player out of the system. IMO if the blue ray player that is in the PS3 is better than my OPPO then I am sold on blue ray all together.

[cheddar]

That is not the reason for the hard drive. You don't install games on consoles, you just play them. You won't be storing all that data onto the hard drive, that would be way too slow. The hard drive in the XBox 360 is used for download games, additional data (like GTA4's episodic content) and saving music and games onto it. Sony's hard drive will be used for similar things: saving games, music downloads (they're going to have an iTunes like interface so you can buy music) but they won't support episodic content (not sure why but according to rock star it won't, which is why its XBox 360 version will have the extra content and the PS3 won't).

The exclusive episodic content has to do with xbox live, not the hard drive, and I just confirmed that games like gran turismo will load significantly more data like track info. etc directly onto the hard drive decreasing load times from menus to just a few seconds. No more waiting 20 sec. for the race to start or switch game chapters loading from the optical drive. I guess that's why the 360 could release a core without an HD and the premium PS3 has a 60gig drive.

[krabby5]

You need to drop the 360 from the Xbox, Cool info.

Are you sure PS1 sold that many units? I can't remember a single person I know ever having one....

I assume you aren't serious?

[jdhdiggs]

I assume you aren't serious?

Uh, yeah, I'm serious...

[polksda]

A big problem with both the PS3 ($499 version) and the Xbox 360 HD-DVD add-on is that they're analog output only for video, meaning that the studios can disable 1080i output by enabling the ICT on titles (none of the current HD-DVD titles have the ICT flag enabled, meaning you can get 1080i on HD-DVDs on component output, but that is no guarantee for future titles). Neither the PS3 nor the Xbox 360 will upconvert SD-DVD to 720p or 1080i over component video.

You need to buy the $599 version of the PS3 to get a digital video output (HDMI).

I think a lot of people are going to be confused by this, and I don't think that ultimately PS3 will be the savior of Blu-Ray that everyone thinks it will be...

[cheddar]

Yep,

First generation stuff is always confusing in electronics. But that's even more incentive to go with a solution that may be "good enough" for now with a major investment in a quality stand alone in a few years when all the dust is settled. I remember when I had to learn what "progressive-scan" dvd players were. :rolleyes: Do they even make non-480p dvd players anymore?

BTW, ICT with the flag on only down-rezes to 960 x 540. Not HD, but still 50% better than 720 x 480 SD. And the first generation stand alones aren't any less confusing. Toshiba's HD-DVD players won't do 1080p even with HDMI and neither format's 1st gen players (Toshiba, Sony, and Samsung) upconvert to component output (at least according to crutchfield). So if you were a 1st generation HDTV buyer without HDMI, you're out of luck.

[polksda]

BTW, ICT with the flag on only down-rezes to 960 x 540. Not HD, but still 50% better than 720 x 480 SD. And the first generation stand alones aren't any less confusing. Toshiba's HD-DVD players won't do 1080p even with HDMI and neither format's 1st gen players (Toshiba, Sony, and Samsung) upconvert to component output (at least according to crutchfield). So if you were a 1st generation HDTV buyer without HDMI, you're out of luck.

Just a few comments:

1. The Toshiba HD-A1 and HD-XA1 won't do 1080p *right now*, but it's widely considered that this will be enabled via firmware at some point (it's not a hardware limitation). Of course there are no guarantees.

2. You're not limited to HDMI. If you have DVI input that is HDCP-compliant, all is well. My Mitsubishi WS-65613 does not have an HDMI input. I'm using an HDMI-DVI dongle, and it works just fine.

[cheddar]

Just a few comments:

1. The Toshiba HD-A1 and HD-XA1 won't do 1080p *right now*, but it's widely considered that this will be enabled via firmware at some point (it's not a hardware limitation). Of course there are no guarantees.

2. You're not limited to HDMI. If you have DVI input that is HDCP-compliant, all is well. My Mitsubishi WS-65613 does not have an HDMI input. I'm using an HDMI-DVI dongle, and it works just fine.

I wasn't trying to say anything bad about first movers. There's almost always work arounds, that's part of the fun *agony* of getting the 1st gen stuff. I was just saying that the confusion is more of a 1st gen thing and applies to all the stuff out in the first year ;).

[michael_w]

Yet another perfect reason to wait until they get settled down a little bit come out with a second generation. It'll be cheaper and hopefully have any known bugs patched already.

[cheddar]

Ya, I know. But my HDTV keeps sending out these vibes...

...uuuuuppppggrade. mmmmust fffeed mme HD. yyyou ggget tto ppplay PS3 as a bbbonus...:eek:

[Kris Siegel]

Do they even make non-480p dvd players anymore?

When I worked at Circuit City 2 years ago they only sold 1 non-progressive DVD player for $14.99 and it was not manufactured anymore. They were selling $20 progressive scan DVD players so I'd assume they don't sell any non-progressive scan players anymore.

[tommyboy]

to me, hd is overrated. I love my 32" analog sony and won't buy a new tv until mine explodes;) . Audio though, in my opinion, is a different story. I know this sounds really stupid but one of the biggest reasons I bought an xbox is because the games are dolby digital. Sound is what puts you into movies/games, not a better picture.

I know most of you agrees don't agree but...

[Sami]

Both have their points, and we all have our preferences. I switch between my HT room and bedroom depending on the movie and the mood I'm in. HT has much better audio with great bass while bedroom has much better picture with 2.0 audio. I'm fixing that since the bedroom setup is new.

I can watch movies with big beautiful screen with poor audio, I did that with the TV's speakers before setting up the LSi15's in 2.0 setup. I still don't consired that a great audio setup but it does the job. Now, a 30" set, no, I can't do that no matter how great the audio is.

[Demiurge]

Just as long as you don't try to tell us that HD isn't better, because it clearly is (no pun intended). ;)

I do know that I don't give a crap about 1080i, and 1080p, that's for sure. You're talking about small beans with that, but the difference between the old TVs and the HDTVs is astronomical.

Sound is great for some games (Splinter Cell type games, G.R.A.W., etc.), but for most it doesn't matter and just gets annoying -- besides at my house we're usually playing music while we're playing games anyhow.

In any event, as far as this discussion goes....I am not a fan of people reviewing stuff that have biases. I just want the best gaming experience for my buck, and I think that competition is good. I'd rather see Sony succeed than fail because it keeps prices down in the long run, but I am skeptical at this point.

[tommyboy]

Just as long as you don't try to tell us that HD isn't better, because it clearly is (no pun intended). ;)

I do know that I don't give a crap about 1080i, and 1080p, that's for sure. You're talking about small beans with that, but the difference between the old TVs and the HDTVs is astronomical.

Sound is great for some games (Splinter Cell type games, G.R.A.W., etc.), but for most it doesn't matter and just gets annoying -- besides at my house we're usually playing music while we're playing games anyhow.

In any event, as far as this discussion goes....I am not a fan of people reviewing stuff that have biases. I just want the best gaming experience for my buck, and I think that competition is good. I'd rather see Sony succeed than fail because it keeps prices down in the long run, but I am skeptical at this point.

I'm definitely not saying analog looks better the hd, I worked at CC for two years, i know the difference. I just feel that in movie experience, in my opinion, the picture quality on my tv good enough for me. Before I quit, I was looking at the 34" sony xbr tube but decided i didn't need it right now.

Now, about the sound in video games, i would have to disagree with you. The sound even on my gamecube (only pro logic II) sounds awesome. Surround sound helps a lot in FPS knowing where enemies are. When I went to a friends house to play his xbox 360 on the 50 sony with no surroun sound, I was very dissapointed. The picture looked great but the tv speakers are just aweful. I would rather play the 360 with an analog tv with surround than play on a big screen with no surround. thats just me.

tommyboy

[Demiurge]

Like I said, sound is great for some games, like Splinter Cell, G.R.A.W. and games that use audio as an integral part of the game. I like games like that, however most games tend to get really repetitive with the audio that I just can't stand them. I wish more gaming companies would integrate good audio into their games.

As far as TVs, I'm weird, I would rather have a smaller TV with a sharper picture than a giant TV that doesn't look good. I'm very happy with my HDTV, and I have yet to see a better picture on a big screen. I paid as much as a big screen, but got a good picture.

[krabby5]

Uh, yeah, I'm serious...

I don't know anybody who DIDN'T have a playstation back in the day..those who were into video games, anyways..

their market share was crazy

[tommyboy]

Like I said, sound is great for some games, like Splinter Cell, G.R.A.W. and games that use audio as an integral part of the game. I like games like that, however most games tend to get really repetitive with the audio that I just can't stand them. I wish more gaming companies would integrate good audio into their games.
.

Yeah, I could understand that,some game companies put a lot more money into graphics and nothing on audio. Few games I love to play on Surround: Halo 2, resident evil 4, metroid prime 2, Brothers in arms. other than those (mostly FPS) surround isn't a must.

[tommyboy]

I don't know anybody who DIDN'T have a playstation back in the day..those who were into video games, anyways..

their market share was crazy

I was in middle school at the time and everyone had a PS1. I had one too but never liked the games (except for ff7 and twisted metal), I mostly used it for playing cds.

[Demiurge]

I gave a presentation in one of my technology classes back in high school using the PS1 with my project partner. I think we showcased the original Resident Evil. Eveyone was pretty amazing at the graphics....look how far we've come just since then. I bought that unit when it just came out, so I think it was new for most of those people too at the time.

[cheddar]

Don't forget that HD disk formats include minimum 7.1 high resolution sound formats. So if you've got the equipment, you win with both video and audio. I don't know how much of that will trickle down to the console games, but the PS3 is capable of 7.1 surround.

You guys might be interested in this:

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6147812/index.html