PS3 to sell for less than $500?
 

What are all of your thoughts on the pricing for this machine? I mean, the dual video cards it's sporting ALONE retail for $1,100 roughly. Does this mean that we'll be seeing a game console in the $1000 range?? Not according to this article:

PS3 article regarding price

Interesting info if you ask me.

Not bad for a good looking fridge.

http://www.minstrum.net/vrac/ps3fridge.jpg

P.S. I love the system design, just thought the pic was great.

I will buy it without thinking twice if the price is $400. Which would equate to about $500 with two games.

LMAO nice pic.

I'll wait a year if the price is around $500. Once demand cools off and startd heading downward, console prices always go along with it.

I tell myself that everytime something nifty is released, but then end up saying "fuck it, I want to play NOW" and end up buying it. :(

Yeah, I know. And right after I wrote that, I just read the MGS4 thread and found out that it's on the PS3. So now, I'll probably buy it.

lol hardknock, their powers of persuasion are immense aren't they? ;)

$1000? Jeez, that kinda defeats the purpose of consoles eh? Computers are made to be sold for over 1000 bucks and consoles were made to be sold for people who can't afford to shell out $1000 much less, $500 bucks for it.

$500? Sure, I'd buy one... *enter the modchip*

Keep in mind, also, that the PS3 will be so much more than just a gaming console, it's a whole media entertainment center. So I could honestly understand a $700 pricetag. That's all jabber right now though, and it does look like it will sell for $400, which is realistic and still a VERY good price.

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too much for me.

Excellent fridge there Logan.

I'll wait until it's down around $200 before I buy one...

I love my ps2, and with the spec of this, its the only console in a long time that I am considering buying/pre ordering close to its release date.
Its the first console in a long time that I am really excited about playing on for the first time...

"the dual video cards it's sporting ALONE retail for $1,100 roughly"

not to be a jerk, but its a single graphics chip, but it has dual HDMI outputs... totally different.

now, as far as the price goes, i'll say sony will let it go around 399usd. or take a bath and go for 299 just to smoke microsoft and nintendo.... either way, i'll end up getting one.... and a revolution... and maybe 360....god, the new consols are so awesome!

I agree. I don't think Sony will push over $399 for the PS3...I actually think they may start it off at $300 like the PS2. Either way, I'd pay $400 for a PS3 any day of the week, and I'm strapped for money. It's worth it if 2 or 3 must-have games come out for the system. Maybe that's just the pure gaming soul speaking from me though!

-Lasereth

Ah my apologies, I must have misread the article then or read it too quickly.

Perhaps but I'm not gonna buy PS3 just because it's got all bells and whistles, I'm gonna buy it for the games it can run. If gamers wanted the whole 9 yard entertainment center, they would've went out to Futureshop or Bestbuy and buy it separately.

It's like having HP or IBM trying to sell you a computer that has all kinds of shit including DVD burner, a $600 video card, AMD FX cpu, etc when you only need a computer to run your word processor.

Comparsion might be little off but you get the point.

And if Sony's history holds true, they will wait years before they budge on the price. Remember how long PS2 was still $249 when Gamecube was down to $99 and Xbox down to $149?

399 here I come bring out the Mastercard... over that... I just don't know

Well, the whole Sony corporation reeks of this arrogance. I mean, remember the 'you don't bitch about great architecture' bit from the PSP designer?

If they were smart, I would think they would see how well the 360 does before they set the price in stone. I would think being almost a year behind instead of ahead will do a bit of damage to Sony's market share this time around. Keeping the price of the PS3 out of $400-$500 dollar range ought to do a bit to alleviate the lost ground.

However, Sony being Sony, I imagine it's going to be in the $400-$500 range with no forseeable price drop and their argument will be something along the lines of..."if you want to buy quality, it comes at a price."

I will happily shell out 400-500 for a ps3, its ~36% better then the xbox360 and 400-500 would place it at about 36% more expensive, sounds like a good deal, also releasing it a year after the xbox will not hurt the sales, its obviously a superior console so people will buy the shit out of it. Sony is a farcry from handing over its title to the number #1 console.

If it's going for $500, I'll buy it on launch day. If it's more, then I'll just have to save more money. I will own one ASAP either way. I just hope they also have some good games at launch.

How on Earth did you arrive at those figures? 36% better?!? One - how do you assign numerical values to the hardware itself? Basing it just off of specifications released?? Two - Once you have, how do you assign numerical value to the interactions between that hardware (which, in my opinion has more to do with performance than the number of "symmetrical cores" a system has) to come up with ~36% better?

No one to my knowledge has run any sort of benchmark software on any of the next generation consoles. So, I'm really interested in how you drew that conclusion.

No, Sony isn't going to lose the race entirely this next generation, but with the money Microsoft is going to be putting into the release of the 360, the easy to work with developer tools (I've read they're much easier to work with and around than Sony's) and the year they're going to be on the market sans Sony is certainly going to do wonders to bridge the gap between Sony and Microsoft concerning the market.

What if they don't? Are you still willing to pay $500 for a real pretty system that plays sub-standard games?

I'll probably end up buying a ps3, but it's going to have to have a catalog of good looking titles before I can justify to myself spending $500 on it.

Same goes for the 360 and Revolution as well. Sure the consoles are neat, but it's the games that are going motivate me to lay down the extra dough and the extra space in the living room.

For the most part, PS2 games have been inferior to Xbox games regardless of hardware specs. And games on both systems are always better on Xbox. So PS3 can have the best hardware on the planet in it, but if the developers keep putting out crap, who cares?

Quality > Quantity is why Xbox > PS2

But that's the current systems, with which Xbox has the hardware edge. That probably won't be the case with the next gen systems.

So by that rationale, multiplatform games will always be better on PS3? That's bullshit. PS2 has a huge amount of quality games that outclass those of an Xbox. That's why PS2 is leading with 100,000,000 million of units sold. And Xbox is in the second place with 18% marketshare.

I refuse to get baited into a fanboy flamewar about consoles. I hold to my opinions.

And I hold on to mine. You say Xbox is a better console, I say PS2 is. Simple, eh?

And my reply was as much fanboy as yours was.

Hm, PS2 actually was the first to drop their price, around the same time as Nintendo, if I'm not mistaken.. then XBox followed suit.

As far as XBox vs PS2.. I dunno, I've played games on both and IMO, PS2 holds the crown. Games are just too... clunky feeling on XBox (the ones that are cross platform, anyway).

Plus I still hold firm to the belief that XBox is just a simplified PC.. which it is. Every game for XBox is available on PC or another console. For the games on PC, they look better and play the same, IMO. Halo, KOTOR, etc.

i'll wait for a price drop also.......
no way i'm paying over $300 for any system.

100,000,000 million units? haha... that's 100,000,000,000,000. That's over 16,000 ps2s per person on the planet. :lol:

Oops. Someone just got owned.

However, in regards to the original quote which this refers to, xbox games are of a higher quality than most ps2 games. MGS3 is the big exception.

Ya got me. That's a lot of PS2s :hmm:

Agreed. Mark this day in history, an Xbox and a PS2 owner somehow came to an agreement within 3 posts on a message board.

First, I'm not paying $500 for a videogame machine itself. I have the money, but its out of my behavioral regularity to spend that much cash on something that would primarily play videogames. The extra multimedia features will supposedly be nice, but most likely not enough to sway my decision. Now, I WOULD be willing to pay $500 for a system launch. That is, I'd get the system, an accessory or two, and a couple of games for $500. I'd feel somehow justified that the $500 was well spent (don't ask me why).

My second point goes beyond the intentions of the original thread starter, but I think that the point has shown itself in the preceding posts. I think that is interesting how people pledge allegiance to particular companies (Microsoft, Sony) rather than the actual systems (Xbox, PS2). People who have owned an Xbox, seem to want to get an Xbox360, people who have a PS2 seem to want to get a PS3. However, all we have to go on is a few screens. Few of us, if any, have ever been afforded the opportunity to see any Xbox360 or PS3 games being played in real time (not trailers), let alone play them yourself. I guess when people make decisions that have some stakes tied to it (spending some serious money, and spending time researching game systems) they feel that in order justify the decision, they must follow the company they bought from, rather than the actual products. I feel that a companies past success does not equal a must buy for the next generation. I think the same dynamics are in place with the Apple vs. PC discussions. I love my iBook, and when I purchase a new laptop, I'll feel compelled to get an Apple again, without taking a look at what else is out there.

My third point is more of an observation: I've been playing video games since Mario Brothers. I know that videogames were played before my time, but I'm not that old. The way I see it, no company as of yet has dominated the market for more than two generations. Nintendo owned the NES, and the SNES generation (arguably). Sony has owned the PS and PS2 generation (arguably). Its tough to stay on top. If the short history of videogames repeats itself, then there may be a new champion for this generation.

Finally,
My decision process is pretty simple.
If the Xbox360 is around $300-350 at launch and the games bring something to the table that I can't experience in the systems I already own, I'll most likely get one.

If the PS3 is around $300-350 at launch, and by buying it, I have can experience quality games that I can't play on my Xbox360, I'll probably buy it. If its around $500 at launch. The system will have to prove itself to me convincingly before I shell out that kind of dough.

If the Revolution is truly backwards compatible with Nintendo's back catalog, I may have to get one for nostalgias sake.

In all honesty, yeah probably.

It seems like when they release a new system they'll have at least one game that I can stand playing, even though it may not be the best game ever. Fanboy stuff and all that, but this thing is a must-have for me.

Some good news.. even if it's just conjecture at this point engadget.com has a story saying that the ps3 might be under $400 just like the ps and the duece.. let's hope so.

http://engadget.com/entry/1234000490044560/