PS3 too expensive? Really?

for the most part, your preeching to the choir here. Only FUD spreaders and xbox fanboys really bitched about it, and they wouldn't have bought it if it was $399, they'd have found some reason as to why the 360 was better. Don't read much into it, they are selling well...and it will only get better as things cool off with the Wii and 360 and more games come available.

Yup, its all true

PS3 too expensive?
Not at all!

Not to an enthusiast obviously..

But part of the "Playstation 3 will be BR's savior" is founded on the fact that the PS3 will maintain the PS2's dominance in the console marketplace. The problem is that by integrating the BR, and upping the cost significantly, it does put it out of reach of most of the traditional console gamers market.

Hopefully as production ramps up, the economies of scale will kick in and the price will be lowered to a more attainable level to most of the gaming market, but from what I read in other gaming forums, Sony does not expect to lower the price of the PS3 for the next 2 years, at least.

http://www.gametrailers.com/viewnews.php?id=4171

Its not just a good BD player...had several of those....its the most future proof and feature rich of all BD players....bar none.....not to mention the quickest functioning player on either format.
Its also a very good sa-cd player.

Totally too expensive.

It is first and foremost a game system. To get the market penetration and success that they have had with the last 2 Playstation home consoles they will have to drop the price in half at the very least.

For people who see the value in all of the additional stuff it has, it is worth it. However for a game system it is out of the price range of 99% of PS2 owners.

I have a 20GB, only for Blu-Ray playback at this point.

I am also a hardcore gamer.

It's a bargain for what it is, but way too expensive for what it should be.

Well said. Eliminate the Blu-ray drive and the PS3 would be the mother of all flops, it would be a dead product. I only got one for BD playback. Then again, I suppose if they dropped the BD drive, MSRP may be more inline with the 360, so it would have depended on Sony's pricing sans BD drive on whether or not it was stillborn.

its a big bargain!

but not for a game system compared to the competition. as the wii has proven not to many people care about high def blu ray - hd-dvd stuff

It's all a matter of perspective. To a gamer who doesn't care about HD movies or games, yes, of course it's too expensive. To someone like me who wanted a cheaper BD player now and will use it for some games, it's a bargain.

How can you eliminate the BD drive and play PS3 games at all? PS3 games are BDs. Am I mistaken?

I will echo the sentiments here that it is a bargain. I was nowhere near interested at launch. Then I got interested in BD due to the awesome slate for this summer. Then I started reading about the PS3. Now I love mine to death! I still think those who paid a kidney for one at launch are idiots.

My parents bought a 60gig for BD movies mostly, and the occasional game for a nephew that comes over, mainly demos.

They nearly $%@ when I said you can hook up a compact flash and then showed the slideshow.

X box360 + HD-DVD add on = $599
Sony PS3 60G = $599

This is how i see it.

"Optional" hd dvd add-on.

If you are into BD, then it's a bargain. But if you're not, and are just looking to upgrade your PS2 for your kids, it's too expensive. Sales have been disappointing (PS2 dominated gaming, which the PS3 is just not doing). Yes, it is selling, but it is not dominating like the previous generation, and that is due to price. Families are just not buying it for gaming. (There are plenty on the shelves in local stores in my area.) The posts from BD'ers that is a bargain miss the point -- you have to ask pure gamers what they think, not ask people on a BD forum.

OOohh...I had this arguement in another thread. Hi guys I am new here to AVS. Here is what I posted in another thread.....

Mauney....I understand but I just don't see it that way. Honestly...I see it as...I paid 399.99 for a game machine and 199.99 for a HD_DVD player. The key here is the OPTION. I could have bought the Toshiba. What would be the arguement then??? I paid $800 for my game/ hd-dvd player? No....the bottom line here is that I VOLUNTARILY gave up 200 dollars for a player I did not need nor was it forced down my throat. The coincidence here is that the player I bought happens to run off of a game system I purchased.

So say what you want about add-on equaling PS# and all that but this right here is THE BIG DIFFERENCE!!

Trust me....they Day I see a blu-ray player for 199.99.....I'd have no problem slapping down the cash for it.

"Where can you get a blu-ray player, dvd player, a computer, a communications device, a gaming device, a cd player, a place to download your pics, a place to plug in a bluetooth microphone and headset all for around $600?"

Depends, you can do most of that on a $400 XB360, but the real question is just how many actually care for most of that stuff. For me the PS3 is a bargain because of its BD playback and MP3 playback, for my neighbor who just has a 32" SDTV and no plans on getting a HDTV and doesn't listen to music its a overpriced toy. The fact is that J6P doesn't really care for the options the PS3 provides right now, so it is overpriced for the majority of the audience that made the PS brand popular in the first place, and alinating your core consumer is never the smartest of buisness practices.

Here is what I find odd....again even though I am an HD_DVD owner...I am by no means here to bash and I am not a fanboy but there are things I have noticed. If Sony is pushing the blu-ray format, and the PS3 is the most affordable player to date....not to mention that it can do more than just play movies....why are so many other companies trying to build stand-alone blu-ray players that cost more? Me personally, if Sony did that to me....I would feel like I got sold out or something. Can anyone shed some light on that for me?

(I know someone is gonna say that not everyone cares about games and stuff but still....the PS3 can do a MULTITUDE of things....so why bother trying to compete with my own stand alone at a higher price?? It just makes no sense.)

Price per feature makes the PS3 a damn bargain in my eyes, but in the end $600 is $600 and a lot of people dont have that kind of money.

i just can't believe it doesn't upconvert.....:shakeshead:

Except with the XBox 360 we get a videogame console. The PS3 has an extremely limited library with about 1 decent game. As a former PS3 owner I can atest to this.

I agree that iit is a good price for everything you get. I personally though, have never bought all my electronic equipment at once. For me, $600 at a time is alot of money, and very hard to justify to s/o spending that amount for a game system and hd player. For the other things ps3 does, I already have that stuff. I dont own hd-dvd or bd at this time. I will by the first player that hits under $200 though.
I can easily get a cc card, have no interest for 6 months, and pay it off. But if I did this everytime something new came out that I would enjoy, I'd get a new credit card everyday. Unfortunately for me, right now all hd formats are too expensive and would not be a good financial decision. I am like alot of average people. Middle class, good income, lots of other priorities. If I was single with little to no responsibilities(that was only 2 yrs ago for me, not meant as an insult) I'd have both bd,hddvd, ps3, xbox, wii. But sad to say, I'm growing up.

With backwards compatibility you get a huge library, which is a benefit to those who do not own a PS2. As others mentioned, it is all about perspective. To some, a brand new Ferrari F430 for $150,000 would be a ripoff, others would think it a great deal.

I wonder if the PS3 or 360 will ever get under $200.

#1 game console $250
#4 game console $599

Maybe standalone players likely offer better performance. Maybe better processing, power supply, structural details like isolation, DACs, analog outs.......... Why build 2K cd players when a $200 dvd player can play cd, dvd, vcd, cd-r, dvd-a/sacd, etc? Why make separates if receivers can do it all? We will see if future gen stand-alone BD players will improve upon the PS3. If it does, the PS3 still has high resale value if i don't want it for gaming anymore. Had I bought a 1st gen BD player, it'll be worthless by then.

And as a current PS3 owner, I can attest to the fact that Resistance, Virtua Fighter 5, and Motorstorm all make for great gaming. (And I actually kinda liked flOw.)

Three is more than one. Three AAA titles is more than 360 had less than five months in. And VF5 will eventually come to 360, but when? Late Summer, possibly later if there are any delays.

Except with the 360 you don't get HDMI or lossless audio of any kind. Saying the 360 has more games after the console's been out for less than five months when the 360's been out for 16 months seems kind of silly to me.

Meanwhile, the PS3 offers you top tier HD movie playback (along with lossless audio in the forms of both TrueHD and LPCM) and top tier HD gaming. 360 gives you top tier HD gaming with few real exclusives with any namebrand recognition (Halo 3) with casual consumers and only good (not great) HD DVD playback via an add-on whose audio features are broken along with promises for new changes that have not shown up yet. If Amir is to be believed, those audio changes could have been done months ago, but Microsoft is sitting on them. Makes you really enjoy that $200 price for the garish add-on, no?

The PS3 will get its games. The 360 still hasn't come out with a Halo-level game. And no, Gears of War isn't it. Gears of War is the product of insane hype, a solid developer with a solid vision of an extremely short game, insane graphics, and an excellent modification of what came before it. Gears of War will be remembered as an incredibly short-lived experience that brought into focus yet another sci-fi action franchise on a platform chock full of fine sci-fi action franchises. Ducking for cover, not getting shot too much, having squads were all done before. They refined it, which is good, but it's not Halo-level good.

Which means that it squeaked into AAA status, but only because of the sheer hype for a great, fantastic game... any fantastic game please for MS's platform after a year of waiting. Because Dead Rising was good, but not great. GRAW was above average good, Oblivion was great and coming to PS3 and MS believed it was going to be on PS3 day 1 right up until the week before when it was delayed. Microsoft needed a great, fantastic game to be THE reason to buy a 360 instead of a PS3 and they hyped Gears of War to be it.

Was it? I don't know. I know enjoyed Resistance more than Gears of War. I think it was the cinematic presentation that really made me enjoy Resistance more. Gears of War's story felt... familiar. Told in that familiar way. Few surprises. Few changes. With gameplay with which I was familiar except for some change ups. In fact, the best thing in Gears of War imho was the reloading system.

So I'm still waiting for Microsoft to give me a deep, vast, fall into me and never come out great game like Halo. As it is now, PS3's getting most of the great games from last year that 360 got and if that happens, then where is the title advantage for 360? Where are the 360 exclusives that match Motorstorm and Resistance? What does MS have coming to even match God of War II? Not to mention Heavenly Sword? Or Lair? Or White Knight Story? Or Warhawk? I think last holiday season's twosome of Gears of War (a remarkably short game with a remarkably shallow multiplayer) and Viva Pinata (...) didn't do such a hot job of really solidifying 360's title advantage as anything except sheer months away from being overcome.

Especially when Lost Planet and Dead Rising are a sequel away from being multiplatform.

GRAW2, Splinter Cell, FEAR, Oblivion are all coming to PS3. These were many of the big reasons to buy a 360.

So what's left? Gears of War (by a second party developer that could easily go to Sony if given money to), Crackdown, Viva Pinata, Perfect Dark Zero, Kameo, Geometry Wars.

That's seven titles. Since Sony's already got Resistance, flOw, Motorstorm exclusive, I'd say Sony's doing pretty good to match half of Microsoft's exclusive content in four months. And with just announced content, they're well on their way to matching it. GT > Forza, at least last time.

But see, here's the kicker. It doesn't matter. None of this matters. Sony and Playstation do have the casual franchises that casual gamers care about, but guess what. Sony doesn't intend to push those gamers to go PS3 yet. In fact, I suspect they have good reasons not to want them to go HD before they have HD sets. Instead, they're perfectly content selling them low-price, low-cost-to-manufacture PS2's.

And about the time the PS3 becomes a moneymaker and when those consumers have HD sets, they'll have a BD-capable PS3 ready and waiting for them chock full of titles.

The casual consumer obsessed with saving money doesn't want to pay 500 or 600 for a PS3 no more than they want to buy a sci-fi-action-heavy Xbox platform by microsoft for 300 or 400. They're the ones perfectly content to buy a PS2 for sub-200 and enjoy great games and wait out the pricecuts.

That's why 360's year advantage and 10 million sold to stores numbers don't really matter. The audience that Playstation uses to make its high numbers hasn't cashed into the HD gaming war yet. Sony knows it, Microsoft knows it. Why do you think Microsoft keeps trying to do things like Viva Pinata and other tricks to try and lure in the casual gamer (Live Arcade)? Microsoft is afraid that they'll wind up with the same enthusiast-heavy bias as last time, which had them play second fiddle to Sony. And I know I have personally spoken with a lot of gamers who had PS2's that either say they're waiting for the Playstation 3 to lower in price and will just play their PS2's or who have bought into the PS3 with or without games because they didn't see Xbox in the same light as Playstation.

Is Microsoft's effort working? Well, I've seen dustbunnies on pallets of 360's that seem to suggest it is not despite heavy discounting on 360's AND it's cash-cow, Gears of War. Marking down a 360 top-tier title so soon after release is practically unheard of and yet it was done for several weeks in a row a month or so ago.

So let's face it. The PS3 is expensive to the casual consumer, but Sony has them sated with the PS2. Microsoft has nothing at all in that pricepoint. Meanwhile, Nintendo priced them above that tier to ensure they made money on hardware. Sony rakes in the low-cost console cash, Nintendo and Microsoft struggle for the around-300 pricepoint with the Core vs Wii (where Nintendo dominates because of how much money N makes per console vs MS), and Sony and Microsoft struggle for the much smaller high end enthusiast market while positioning themselves for the coming years when the high end enthusiast drops down to mid-range and then low-end.

Sometimes, I wonder if people have never watched a console war before. I mean, this is the way it always happens. And Sony's done pretty well the two other times they fought one. Have a little faith.

It is strange that you argue about the 360's year advantage and all that stuff when Sony did the exact same thing with the PS2. You criticize Gears as a short lived experience and you wanna call resistance a Halo like game? Don't think so....both are on the same lot....just face it....launch titles are massivley important...and this time around.....the PS3 does not have much to show. Couple that with the fact that you are losing some exclusives (VF5, GTA4, Unreal3, so on and so on) and as you mentioned for the exclusives you do have...the xbox has titles to equally match it...(GT4 to FM2...MGS4 to SC series) and last but not least.....the ports...you mention a bunch of titles that we already have soooo....as a gaming console.....why bother?

"So what's left? Gears of War (by a second party developer that could easily go to Sony if given money to), Crackdown, Viva Pinata, Perfect Dark Zero, Kameo, Geometry Wars."

Got news for you....these games were publuished by Microsoft game studios. The developers for these games are first-party....in short...You'll never see them regardless of the cash. Don't hate because the 360 has an enviable lineup....and the fact that the PS3 is getting whooped by a toy called the Wii...(which by the way also rocks if you have not played it.)

I'm sure the PS3 will be a worth while investment...I personally can't wait for FFXIII and Kingdom Hearts...but c'mon...600 dollars? It will be a year or two before it shows up here at this house.

Actually it REALLY IS TOO EXPENSIVE! Think about it, its a game system, people for the most part (the general public) don't look at it like its a Blue Ray Player. I was amazed when at Target last night I heard a kid comment, "Look mom, its ONLY $600!". It would seem that children (IMO the target of all game systems) even believe it is too expensive at this point.

On another note, not that many general users will use this thing as anything else than gameplayer first, Blue Ray players second, and none of the other features third. Most people aren't going to spend the time to figure out Linux on it, and most TV's now have USB and SD card slots with picture viewing abilities built into them. Group these facts in with the fact that Apple TV is coming soon, as is IP TV (which Sony is heavily going to support) and you are back again with nothing more than a game system.

Oh don't forget the fact that most places are charging almost $100 for an HDMI cable for the PS3, and if you don't have an HDMI tuner you may need a 20 - $50 optical cable, and then the $25 Bluetooth remote and you are pretty darn near $800, far from inexpensive!


Thats just my take though.

That's silly. I wouldn't pay that much for a HDMI cable unless it had Audioquest, Tara Labs, Kimber Kable, or any other well-established cable company. Even that move is questionable to many here, but I can afford a little "audio jewelry." Any vendor pushing Monster Cable, HDMI 1.3 cable, or any "specifically designed for the PS3 HDMI" cable are criminals.

Anyone with internet access and a mailing address can find a short 6ft run of HDMI for under $25.

here's a quote from another thread: