PS3 600 dollars? Sony is on crack

[Orius]

And as for all the rumors surrounding Sony's patent making disc media unplayable in multiple devices: they would be extremly stupid to do this. Preventing rentals would give both MS and Nintendo an advantage. I've read that they may have patented it not out of greed, but to prevent competitors from developing and using the technology. Still, given some of the stupid and arrogant things Sony has done to consumers, it wouldn't shock me.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Report: Developers are Steering Away from PS3

There's never been a company that has dominated the video game business for three straight console generations. Can Sony pull it off? It's not looking good as the high price seems to be putting off not only prospective consumers but also developers, and that could be a vicious circle.

Is Sony's PlayStation 3 in trouble before it even launches? Sony has been the undisputed champion of the last two console generations, towering over the competition, but now it seems like every analyst, developer and industry pundit is placing a laser sight directly on Sony's forehead.

The biggest problem would appear to be the pricing for the system. Even the lower priced $500 SKU is expensive, and $600 seems ridiculous to most. Ever since Sony revealed this pricing strategy at this year's E3, the company has been put on the defensive, arguing that it's a "computer" and that with the inclusion of a high-def Blu-ray player it's really a "bargain."

Sony CEO Sir Howard Stringer himself has admitted that the console is expensive and that consumers are paying for its "potential." In the PS3's native Japan, the reaction has been less than pleasant, with more than 90 percent of developers in a recent survey stating that the price of the console is just too high. And indeed it seems that this high price is affecting whether or not certain developers decide to develop for the PS3. Sony's PlayStation business has always been backed by incredibly strong third-party support, but now for the first time that could be in jeopardy.

According to a BusinessWeek Online report, some developers are actually steering resources away from the PS3 in favor of the more affordable Wii from Nintendo and even the Xbox 360. Hirokazu Hamamura, president of publisher and game industry researcher Enterbrain, believes that Sony's next-gen console might not be a smash hit the way previous PlayStation systems have been. "Many developers think the console's initial high price will lead to slow sales and are holding off on creating games for Sony," Hamamura explained.

"At its autumn games preview on July 13, for instance, traditional Sony ally Electronic Arts spent far more time showing off innovative Nintendo games than it did titles for the PS3," emphasized BusinessWeek. "EA announced six Nintendo Wii launch titles and showed long working demos for two of those. But it offered only a short clip of a car-racing game for PS3. EA says it's still testing the potential of the PS3."

Ultimately, developers and analysts agree that in order for the PS3 to be a success in the long run, Sony will have no choice but to bring the cost of the system down as fast as possible. "It's likely Sony will have to discount more...and faster" than planned, commented JP Morgan analyst Hiroshi Takada.



by James Brightman

http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=13291

 

[Orius]

Oh yeah, that's great news to a Sony-hater like me. If the Japanese developers balk at making games for the PS3 because they think there's not enough units sold for them to make a profit, that's going to hurt Sony, since pretty much all of their big games are 3rd party.

 

[takyris]

Not to snark, but was Brightman trying to fill space on a slow news day? That article takes a fundamental "duh" premise, packs in a couple of sound bites, and stretches for a conclusion that is properly doomsaying.

(Not that I think it was bad of Flexor to post it here, mind you. It's on topic and conversation-provoking. I just disagree with it.)

Speaking as somebody who heard his wife say the sexiest words ever a few weeks ago ("Honey, I think we should get a PS2") and who picked up said PS2 last week specifically so that his wife could beat his butt at Guitar Hero, I've got no plans to get a PS3 soon. But I'm not a curve-leader. I'm a curve-follower. I'm barely able to see the curve from where I'm standing. I just got an Xbox last year. Not an Xbox 360 -- an Xbox.

But there are so many geeks with so much money that, well, I don't think the PS3 is going to be hurting. It'll do what the 360 did -- sell high at first, then slump until games that take advantage of its technology come out.

BioWare's Mass Effect is planned as an Xbox 360 exclusive (I'm not saying that it's a sysem-seller, although I've heard a few people mention it as a reason for them to get the 360), but if you go to BioWare's site and check their menu, they have "Dragon Age," "Mass Effect," the MMO, and "New Next-Gen Game." I wouldn't be terribly surprised if the next-gen game was possibly being developed for more than one platform, or if one of those platforms happened to be the PS3.

 

[Jdvn1]

How many controllers do the PS3, XBox 360, and the Wii come with? What's the price of extra controllers (well, of the previous gen controllers, since the next gen isn't quite out yet)?

 

[John Crichton]

How many controllers do the PS3, XBox 360, and the Wii come with? What's the price of extra controllers (well, of the previous gen controllers, since the next gen isn't quite out yet)?

It's the usual for all, same as last gen. One controller per system and no games. I imagine the controllers will be somewhere between $40-50 for both the PS3 & Wii. Extras like controllers are where companies really cash in.

 

[KenM]

It's the usual for all, same as last gen. One controller per system and no games. I imagine the controllers will be somewhere between $40-50 for both the PS3 & Wii. Extras like controllers are where companies really cash in.

I remember when the Atari 2600 system came out. It came with two joysticks. 2 paddle controlers and a game. IIRC, it cost $150.00.

 

[Vigilance]

But there are so many geeks with so much money that, well, I don't think the PS3 is going to be hurting. It'll do what the 360 did -- sell high at first, then slump until games that take advantage of its technology come out.

That's what I keep hearing and the initial response to my OP was people going "no 600 bucks is fine, PS3 will be fine".

I'm still skeptical. I *am* Sony's target audience for the PS3. I got a PS2 at launch and there are two PS2's and 4 computers in my house right now.

But $600 bucks for something that does NOTHING ELSE but play games, plus 80 bucks a pop for the games themselves is simply out of my games budget. Sony can tell me its a computer all they freaking want. That doesn't change the fact that Im not going to use it for work, Im going to use it for gaming.

A video card for my current puter and more gaming there seems to make more sense until the price comes down to 300 bucks or less.

And since I know someone will say it, I'll answer it now: if the price never goes below 300 bucks, I just will do without.

From a dedicated gamer like me, these should be words Sony doesn't want to hear. Their response that "it's not a toy, it's a PS3 and it's the ONLY PS3" just makes me laugh. They clearly think people will buy it at ANY price.

Some will. I have a feeling many won't.

Chuck

 

[DonTadow]

FYI Squaresoft has already hinted that the next series of Final Fantasy's will not be exclusive to the playstation 3. After 12 its everyman for itself. Square tested the waters when it released FFXI for the XBOX.

Also, Konomi has not agreed ot an agreement to launch Metal Gear exclusively on the PS2 either. Rockstar has already said they will be releasing the next GTA on both systems.

I do believe that the days of exclusive third party titles is over . And I"M a big sony fan so its kinda disapponting to hear that news, but the reasoning makes complete sense. The company's were loosing money by not doing simultaneious releases.

Also, titles like Dragonquest and Xenosaga may not be as big as a gta in america, but they are HUGE in Japan and thats the important market. You can redo pong and please the American gamers (IE tabletennis) but you have to have solid RPG hits to please the Asian gamer, thus the reason why MIcrosoft tanked.

Microsoft has also said that they are willing to seriously open up the pocket books if they can get a really good exclusive title (though asp reviously stated this is very unlikely).

As for the origiinal dollar. Of course we'll pay 600 bucks. IF you do the inflation math, the Atari came out at ..what 200 300 dollars which would be well over 600 bucks in today's dollar. We'll buy it, smile and then have a thread about how angry we are that we paid so much.

 

[drothgery]

I remember when the Atari 2600 system came out. It came with two joysticks. 2 paddle controlers and a game. IIRC, it cost $150.00.

Inflation from 1977 to 2006 puts that as about the equivalent of $450 - $500, depending on how you calculate things, though I think the indexes overstate things for consumer electronics.

But the real issue is subsitutes. If people think a 360 is a good enough substitute for a PS3 (and it's certainly equally capable as a gaming machine, so differentiation will be on pricing, availability, marketing, and the rare exclusive games), then paying half again more for a PS3 is silly, and few after the initial fanboy rush will do it.