History To Repeat Itself With PS3?

Dr. Eggman writes to mention a 1up article looking at the way things were when the PS2 launched vs. next week's PlayStation 3 launch. The question: can history repeat itself? From the article: "PS2: Released one year after the lower priced Dreamcast, lauded for its great games, ease of development, and superior online service. PS3: Releasing one year after the lower priced Xbox 360, lauded for its great games, ease of development, and superior online service. PS2: Competition from Nintendo: A smaller, cheaper 'family friendly' console with a 'focus on gameplay.' PS3: Competition from Nintendo: A smaller, cheaper 'family friendly' console with a 'focus on gameplay.'" The article also looks at how things have changed for Sony since the last time around.

The Other side of the coin

It's a good article, in particular because the link at the end of the page gives a link to 10 reasons the PS2 won't be able to repeat the success of the PS2. [1up.com]

For me it's all about the price

Re:The Other side of the coin

$600 doesn't leave much room for any games

Of course, Sony not having many launch titles (Oblivion, I'm looking at you) means you don't need any games for your $600 videogame system!

Re:The Other side of the coin

Only two of the launch titles are unique to the PS3 as well, the rest are already available on the 360

Re:The Other side of the coin

You have a valid point, but in this case, both the Wii and the PS3 look like gourmet products. I think kids would appreciate any 3 of the systems, as long as they get a few games too. $600 doesn't leave much room for any games, but $250 certainly does.

You'd think that, but the other way of thinking would be, if you're going to spend $600 you'll damned sure buy some games for it! It's also effective market segmentation - restricted supply at the beginning with a high price tag, followed by increased supply and lower prices later.

I think what happened is they saw what went down with the Xbox 360. They see every unit being scraped up and sold on Ebay for between $600 and $1000. Sony probably figures if anyone is going to profit from the craze, it's going to be them. And if they have the sorts of supply problems that has plagued nearly every console launch in the history of mankind, demand WILL drive the price there anyway. No sense in watching someone else make the money instead.

Re:The Other side of the coin

That's funny. I'm reading "Just for Fun: The Story of an Accidental Revolutionary" by Linus Torvalds that was published in 2001. Linus predicted that Sony would be the next big thing after Microsoft -- if Sony got its act together. A few million laptop batteries and an overpriced game console later, I don't think Sony has a clue. Nintendo might if they get their act together.

Re:The Other side of the coin

I was reading the USA Today this morning, and they had an interesting outlook on the PS3 vs. the Wii vs. the XBox 360. It basically came down to:

PS3: You're not getting one. Ha!
Wii: Risky, but inexpensive.
XBox: Just fork over the cash for instant gratification.

I think that says a lot about the mainstream views on this generation of console.

The article can be read online here:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/gaming/2006-11-09-con sole-cover_x.htm [usatoday.com]

That's not the real reason

The real reason why the PS2 was such a success, is that it was a very cheap DVD player, and DVDs had just become established technology.

The PS3 is a cheap Blu-Ray player, but Blu-Ray is by no means established. Instead of using the DVD to launch the PS2, they're trying to do the reverse: using the PS3 to launch Blu-Ray. I don't think that will work nearly as well. In fact, I expect it to fail miserably.

Playing DVDs on the PS2 is very nice!

I agree! It's very convenient to be able to use my PS2 to play my DVDs, I don't need to have another machine hooked up or worry about video swit-

DISC READ ERROR

Re:That's not the real reason

i did know some people that justified the price of the PS2 because it had a DVD player. at the time a DVD player was what, $200+? whatever the price was, people (i knew) thought of it like: (PS2 cost) - (DVD player cost) = acceptable increase if they were going to buy a standalone DVD player anyway. i suppose a test of this is knowing how many of those DVD remotes they sold.

i agree that the PS3 does not have the same bonus appeal. DVDs were so much better than VHS, the jump to the new formats does not seem to have the same upgrade feel. if you dropped the money on a HD flat panel TV etc etc and care that much to upgrade all your movies.... the cost issue is probably insignificant.

i agree that this is going to be the opposite effect..... people will now just happen to have a Blu-Ray compatible player so they may start buying some movies on that format (if there is some special edition or something). i have a feeling the quality issues won't be enough at this point, for this audience at least.

$300 a "very cheap" DVD player in 2000?!

You could get good DVD players (Panasonic brand) in $150 in late 2000. That's half the price of the PS2 when it came out. I didn't have a DVD player and I thought it was a good selling point when I got my PS2 in 2001, but I did not think it was a "very cheap" DVD player.

The DVD player contributed it, but it is by far the "real" reason it was so successful.

summary:

same games, better graphics, pay us again

Simple Answers to Slashdot Questions

History To Repeat Itself With PS3?

No.

This has been another episode of Simple Answers to Slashdot Questions.

Re:summary:

have you used the 360? MS is doing a whole lot of innovative things with the 360, some of it had rudimentary versions implemented on the Xbox 1 that have evolved into more refined features on the 360. The Dreamcast and the Saturn had a few minor innovative features, but there is more to innovation then hardware changes. Would you consider innovation in the PC space dead because we're all still using a keyboard and mouse? MS is innovating in the software arena and with their online service. Some of the things they've done that I consider to be innovative and Nintendo and Sony seem to be copycatting with their latest offerings:

• A unified online profile that contains all of your stats and setting across all of your games
• The ability to access and modify that profile online bringing your console presence to the PC
• An online feedback system that links to your unified profile that allows you to avoid or prefer players allowing you to keep playing others you enjoy playing with and avoid others you don't enjoy playing with
• The ability to access a set of controls with the touch of a button at any time allowing you to adjust various console and profile settings, adjust custom soundtracks, send and receive messages, view information about your profile and the profiles of the gamers you're playing against, etc.
• The ability to set your preferred controls... axis inversion etc. and have it be used for every game
• The "TrueSkill [microsoft.com]" skill raking algorithm for match making online with people at your skill level
• "Custom Soundtracks" that allow you to easily replace the in-game music with music from from a storage device, an iPod, or a networked computer
• Achievements which add replay value to games by suggesting goals and setting challenges that a gamer might not otherwise attempt
• Gamerscore derived from achievement that creates a sort of Meta-game that encompasses all games on their console
• The Xbox Live Arcade (which was started with the Xbox 1) for downloadable games and content delivery directly to the console

Some of these ideas start on the Xbox 1, and PC but have been really fleshed out and turned into really solid, beneficial and most importanly universal features. None of these have been done on other consoles to my knowledge.

Online support?

Maybe I just wasn't as well-informed back in '99-'00, but I don't recall much talk about online plans during the launches. I mean, ChuChu Rocket and PSO were big deals for the DC, but I don't recall the PS2 boasting superior online play right out of the gate...

History doesn't repeat itself...

... because today is not like yesterday. For example, online game play wasn't as important when the Dreamcast was released. Also, sales were sluggish from the beginning as people held their money for the PS2 launch which was not the case with the 360.

The PS3 might still dominate, but it's not likely to be for the exact same reasons as in the past.

TW

Repeating history? I hope not..

... otherwise we can look forward to the PS3's lens giving out shortly after the warranty period and refusing to read half of the discs. The PS2 lens problems made the 360's failure rate look like a drop in the ocean? Nope, this isn't intended as flamebait - it happened to me, and I was only able to get it working, sort of, by cracking the PS2 open and changing the lens angle. What Joe Public who's never even opened a PC was supposed to do, other than buy a new one, I don't know.

Ease of what?

PS3 has ease of development going for it?

The article also compares "the average price for PS2 on ebay [sic] in November 2000" with "the price for the higher end PS3 when it releases in November 2006." Stock eBay vs. high-end retail price? And this is supposed to be a formula?

Wrong?

"PS3: Releasing one year after the lower priced Xbox 360, lauded for its great games, ease of development, and superior online service."

Really? Great games? Not at launch.
ease of development? One reason why it has barely any launch titles is because it's so hard to develop for the console. Superior online service? Does it even have an online service?
No, I'm not anyone's fanboy. I still want to play MGS4.

Re:Wrong?

I think you're parsing that sentence wrong. Read it as :

"PS3: Releasing one year after the lower priced Xbox 360, [with the Xbox360 being] lauded for its great games, ease of development, and superior online service."

Re:Online service? Don't forget to get the update!

Now that's what I call bootstrapping: you'll be able to get online only after you get online to download the patch.

Reputation

Sony had a better reputation at the time of the PS2, so I think that this time, the sales figures will be a little different at least.

Sony doesn't much care how they compare to Xbox...

i think people are a little confused about what Sony are trying to achieve with the PS3. Sure, it's going to be up against the Wii and XB360, but I'm guessing that's a secondary concern to Mr Stringer.

The PS2 sold 105million units. Let's say the PS3 is a disaster - how bad could it be? 50million? 25million?

Those are all Blu-ray devices. At least an installed base of 25million Blu-ray players sold in a few years time. Versus how many HD-DVD players? How can HD-DVD compete with that kind of a headstart?

Owning the next-gen DVD format is the prize here. HD-DVD is only 33% ahead of Blu-ray today, before the PS3 even hits the market. I think that's more precious to Sony than losing a bit of ground to Microsoft. Maybe they calculated on losing gaming market share this time round.

Re:Sony doesn't much care how they compare to Xbox

How can HD-DVD compete with that kind of a headstart?

Easily. HD-DVD has the letters "DVD" in it. That has an immediate meaning in the average consumer's head: It's like DVD, but now it's in HD! Just like how a HD-TV is like a TV but in HD!

HD-DVD, regardless of how well it actually performs, has an immediate name recognition. The name "Blu-ray" really doesn't convey any meaning to the average Joe Blow -- unless s/he already did the homework. It doesn't exactly scream, "This is better than DVD!"

History To Repeat Itself?

So basically it'll boil down to:

1. The naysayers will say that it'll suck
2. It'll sell beyond expectations
3. The naysayers deny the first statement and claim they knew all along

Ease of development... really?

The PS2 is not known as a easy system for development and most developer's interview about PS3 projects has some lines about them telling PS3 is a very difficult system to develop for (mainly because you can't get very strong performance from the CELL CPU without extensive experience of multicore architecture, which is not very common in IT nowadays and even less in the game development world imho).

Also about the competition from Nintendo line, smaller, cheaper 'family friendly' console with a 'focus on gameplay was not much more than a marketing argument, with Wii I guess they pretty much achieved to meet the marketing promise.

The 2nd page tells the real story

I think the second page of the article is definitely the more interesting of the two: http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=1&cId=3 155102 [1up.com]. Here they give the reasons why this launch's similarities aren't all positives. The PS2 may have been on ebay for $600, but the PS3 is coming from retail stores at MSRP of $600. That's a big difference.

History's not repeating

PS2: Competition from Nintendo: A smaller, cheaper 'family friendly' console with a 'focus on gameplay.' released one year after the PS2

PS3: Competition from Nintendo: A smaller, cheaper 'family friendly' console with a 'focus on gameplay.' released concurrently with the PS3."

Fixed your article. Where's my co-author credit?

Re:History's not repeating

PS3: Competition from Nintendo: A smaller, cheaper 'family friendly' console with a 'focus on gameplay.' released concurrently with the PS3."

In Europe, Wii is getting released Before Christmas, PS3 is getting released After Christmas, which I'd guess will be hugely important. That said, from what I hear from my contacts in the school playground (which is to say my little sister) the DS Lite is the must-have Christmas gift this year...

No great games, difficult development, unproven OL

1up gets it wrong. Again. Look at the PS3 launch titles; there isn't a "great game" among them. According to nearly every developer interview and blog, the PS3's cell processor and development environment is quite difficult to program for. The online service is far from "superior"; it lacks critical features that have been part of Microsoft's offering since the last generation and what it does offer is still nebulous and unproven. The information is this article is garbage; it's either been written to generate traffic from fanboys or generate money from Sony's PR budget.

Last line in the article

When a major third party tells us "We want to see Sony fail," there's a problem.

Who said this?

seriously, I don't remember anyone saying they WANT Sony to fail, most comments I have seen have been a desire to see all 3 systems do well, for a more open and competative game market....

any one?
link highly apreciated.

It's the price, stupid.

If we're going to look at the past to predict the future, let's look at these facts:

No console with a launch price higher than $300 (at the time of launch) has ever been a success.

No console with a launch price higher than $400 (adjusted for inflation to 2006 dollars) has been a success since prior to The Crash of 1982.

Sony took a huge risk in pricing their new console so far outside of the historical comfort zone for price, and I don't think the outlook for them is good at all. I only wonder what derisive name will ultimately be attached to their failure:
P$3?
PS3DO?
PS3O-GEO?

Sega Issues

One important item to make note of here is that while the Sega Dreamcast was itself a decent system, Sega had already burned a lot of its customers with their numerous "1.5 systems." What I mean by that is, all of the many systems they created as extensions of current systems (Sega CD, 32X, etc..) that they sold as the next big thing, but completely failed on when it came to supporting them. I myself bought the 32X for $130 when it came out, and how many games were made for it? Less than 60. Same with the Saturn, the ultimate 2D system, suddenly found itself floundering when the Playstation focused solely on 3D games and Sega dropped it, and went on with the Dreamcast. After all of those, you could be sure I wasn't about to spend another dime on a Sega system, because how do I know its not another "1.5" system than will have its support cut out from under it in only a few months time.

Who writes these, 12 year olds?

" This one costed $300."

The past tense of cost is cost. You sound like a retard or an elementary school child when you write it in a "real" article. This is the first line, too! Do they not hire editors at 1up?

Its not the same

What killed the dreamcast wasn't the PS2 directly. What killed it was Segas poor reputation with its past systems. The Sega Saturns 3d support was very poor compared to PS1 and N64,and died off rather quickly. Segas Add-ons for the Genesis, Sega CD, 32X, 32x-CD, Sold moderitly well, but had poor games, and killed of right away when Saturn came out.

So when Sega rushed the dreamcast out to be the first of the new generation systems, people were hesitant about buying another sega product. Some people only used the Saturn as a stop-gap till the PS2 came out. The hype of the PS2 helped kill the dreamcast but it wasn't the only factor.

This time around PS3 is competing with Xbox360. Unlike Saturn the Xbox has proven itself as a strong system, and in many ways better then PS2.

Except it's a horrid thing to see.

The PS3 sounds exactly like the Ps2. And everyone knows it. If you had problems with the PS2, expect more from the ps3.

Even worse people jumped on board the ps2 for two reasons. A. It was the only system worth buying, (Sorry dream cast) the only system with a great legacy. B. It had GTA. C. It played your PS2 games and only costed 300 dollars.

Sony can pretend this is all good because it's the same, but Ps2's early launch saved them. PSX not really having competition for CD based systems saved them. However the 360 has an HD-DVD player now. Gamers won't care about blu-ray games unless they can see a real difference (they can't) Blu-ray might win, but the Ps3 is in a bad place.

Most of the points they made are scary because they are so bad for the system even while 1up is making it sound good. No one wants to buy a PS2... at least not for 600 bucks. People want to buy a PS3, they want a new system, and as much as tilt control sounds interesting, Nintendo has that for 250 and games completely built around it. And as much as better graphics sounds good, Microsoft has that for 300 or 400 (400 if you're smart). What exactly am I getting for 600 bucks? A cell processor that won't even reach full potential for 4 generations? A hyped machine? A paper weight with out an online network?

The 360 has the best position currently, and even in japan people are looking forward to blue dragon (more than zelda? How did Microsoft do that one?)

Dupe

This is a dupe of the other million PS3 articles I've seen on slashdot. I find it unlikely that there will be any real new information before the PS3 launch in a week (actually I bet there is no new info there either); however, I'm sure there will be more than one PS3 article on slashdot before it is released. I'm not sure whether I should blame the editors or all of us readers for reading the same information again and again.

fake mastercard add

Game Console $350. Games $100. Having the time of you life: Priceless!

I say, who cares what the price is! its going to be the best Game Console to hit the market for a long time. so you might as well get one, or else go over to a friends house and play it! :P

What is this hokey non-sense

I'm all for objective comparisons we can all argue over but this one killed it for me.

$600 - The average price for PS2 on ebay in November 2000.

vs.

$600 - The price for the higher end PS3 when it releases in November 2006.

How is that a valid comparison? I wonder if the author is aware that the PS3's are going for up to $5000 on ebay right now. And there's also that gem about PS2's having DVD functionality:

Offered DVD playback at a price cheaper than most existing DVD players. "[PS2] put DVD on the map, pushing hardware prices down and forcing the viability of the format. (Gear Live)

From what I recall, DVD's were already kicking ass when PS2 came out. In fact, many people bought a PS2 because they liked the DVD functionality.

One Major Comparison Left Out

PS2: Released in the middle of a booming economy when a large number of twentysomethings had either more money than god, or at least enough to warrant spending hundreds of dollars on a video game console.

PS3: Released in the middle of a shitty economy when a large number of twentysomethings have less money, more bills, and enough to worry about that a $700 game console isn't in the cards.

Consoles

I'm not a hard core gamer by any stretch of the imagination, but I do own both a PS2 and a Game Cube. Here's my take, in the order of expected market dominance, of the three consoles:

1) The Wii. The controller sells the console. It is the ONLY difference worth mentioning in this crop of game consoles. I think this will sweep the market.

2) The X-Box 360. Not because it's any better than the PS3. The PS3 and X-Box may as well come off the same assembly line, but the X-Box 360 is cheaper than the PS3.

3) This will be almost entirely limited to hard core gamers who have more money than sense. I expect Sony to bleed heavily on this until the PS3 is discontinued. The BluRay player will help this anchor sink fast.

Ease of Development on PS2/3???

Was that a serious assertion? At any rate, the XBox beats the PS3 hands down in that category, methinks...

European law?

Surrounding PS3's Japanese launch, importing PS3 deemed illegal by European law.

It was a British judge that made this ruling. Can a British judge make this ruling on behalf of the whole European Union?

Why are people here rooting for Microsoft?

Aren't they as "evil" as Sony, if not more?

Microsoft is an even bigger threat because they are a hell of a lot smarter than Sony. Sony may be evil, but they're incompetent enough to make mistakes which allows competition to come back in. Microsoft, on the other hand, is very good at closing the door shut.

If you're going to buy a console based on the good of the industry and ethical reasons, choose the Wii first, then PS3, then the XBox 360.

In terms of value, yes $600 is expensive for a console, but the base is $500, which is only $100 more than the Xbox 360's premium version. For the $100, you get greater storage capacity in the games (bigger games), a next-generation media player, free online play, no power brick, less noise, more potential, linux capability, motion sensing, among other things. The only thing you lose is rumble, an unproven online system, and few games (currently).

Linux capability proved to be the clincher for me, but the other features may be enough to convince people to shell an additional $100 to buy a PS3. And when you think about it, $100 is less than the price of a couple games...people who can't afford the PS3 are more likely to get a Wii than an Xbox 360. It's people who want great graphics, and can't wait for the PS3 to be in stock that are the ones that will buy an Xbox 360, which I assume will include a fair number of people this holiday season.

They're not quite right

There's another reason why things are different than last time:

Microsoft

Simply put, the PS2 trounced the Dreamcast and the PS3 will probably trounce the Wii. Unfortunately, however, for both contenders, Microsoft got there first. And not by just 10 minutes. No, they've been in the market for a year. They've had a year to gather / buy as many devs as they can to get their title portfolio up (hint #1: Fancy graphics don't sell consoles - games sell consoles. Good games) and they have done pretty well.

Yes, the PS3 will be good, but so is the Xbox 360. And its live service has had a year to get lots of lovely customer tied into it. (hint #2: people are lazy and will stick to what they have) And it's had a year of tweaking, fettling and patching to make it robust. Sony have still got to go through that pain.

In short, the PS3 will not flop (too many people will want the latest thing no matter what and the home market loves Sony) but it will slide into a solid second place and, to be honest, may never leave there. And if they do fail to knock Microsoft back off the top slot, I doubt we'll see a PS4...

OUCH! "Xbox 360 update killed my system"

Sony has got to think THIS is good timing. ;-) Can't hurt but then again, the press seems to be missing this.

http://forums.xbox.com/7765866/ShowPost.aspx [xbox.com]

And if this REALLY is only less than 1% of users, man alot of those "less than 1%" got online to report this. Notice how many pages/posts in such a short time. Maybe all of the "less than 1%" are active members of this particular forum. Right, "less than 1%".

LoB

wrong comparison

Rather than comparing PS3/XBox360 launches to the PS2/Dreamcast launches, they should have compared them to the Xbox/PS2 launches.

Microsoft released the more advanced (and substantially more expensive to manufacture) Xbox a year after the PS2. By that time the PS2 had already sold millions of units and was a well established platform with dozens of top selling games. In comparison, the majority of the initial XBox titles were unimpressive. Most people who bought an Xbox early on bought it for one or two games and spent most of their time and money on the PS2 they had already bought, or on their PC. Microsoft had to practically give the things away to stay competitive with the PS2, and they were bleeding money the whole time. It wasn't until almost two years after launch that the game lineup for the Xbox was on par with the PS2, which by the way, is about how long it was before Microsoft had a single profitable quarter selling the Xbox.

Sounds a little more familiar, doesn't it? Sure, the Xbox was (eventually) a wild success in terms of units sold, but can Sony really afford that kind of success?

um, what?

I'm sorry, but the PS3 does NOT have "ease of development"

Price predictions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox [wikipedia.org]

The Xbox was released on November 15, 2001 at a price of $299 and it was reduced in price to $199 on May 15, 2002.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_2 [wikipedia.org]

The PS2 was released on October 26, 2000 at a price of $299 and it was reduced in price to $199 on May 14, 2002.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamecube [wikipedia.org]

The Gamecube was released on November 18, 2001 at a price of $199 and it was reduced in price to $149 on May 13, 2002.

My guess is that in May, the Xbox 360 Core version will be dropped and the premium version will be reduced to $299. The PS3 will be reduced to $399/$499 and the Wii will be reduced to $199. It may come down to one company cutting their price and the others following.

Microsoft earns over $10 billion a year in profit, while Sony and Nintendo make about $1 billion each every year. Microsoft has been making the Xbox 360 for over a year, significantly cutting manufacturing costs.

The one game that has been reviewed on both the PS3 and the Xbox 360 is Tony Hawk Project 8. There are two major problems with the PS3 version: lack of online support and frame rate issues. The frame rate issues are a huge problem for Sony. If someone is paying a premium price, they expect a premium product. If the PS3 version of games is inferior to the Xbox 360 version, I don't see why anyone would want to purchase a PS3. Luckily for Sony, it probably just means that people are having a difficult time developing for the platform.

Japan Launch

Apparently the PS3 launch in Japan was pretty wildly successful. Complete sellthrough in less than an hour. This is not particularly surprising really, but 80,000 units sold is a good start. It's up to you to decide if launch unit shortages is history repeating itself here.

Females Overlooked?

I have ready many articles surrounding the gaming competition. PS3 vs. 360 vs. wii and none of them seem to take into account the female component (or I am reading the wrong articles). The wii has strong potential in this market where as the PS3 and 360 remain the same and this could help drive sales of the wii up.

I think a couple things play into this:

1. PS3 and 360 hype FPS, War and violent games... the wii focuses on gameplay and characters
2. Price... most females are not going to spend the extra money for a PS3 or 360.

Lastly and most important:

Gameplay interface. Females traditionally do not want to sit and learn a controller and all its buttons to play some FPS game. Changing the input or gameplay interface is attracting more females. This has been shown to be true for the Nintendo DS.

Thoughts? /knows females (rare on slashdot) //Females I know hate technology but love the wii!! //Does that mean since I like the wii... I'm less of a man.... 360 here I come!!

Another historical metaphor

PS3: The Neo Geo for a new generation.

The nintendo thingy...

Back at 2000 there wasn't Wii around. Wii is highly designed gaming platform with some spesial features like totally new approach to controller.

There is small things like these that will twist the market. Although Nintendo didn't make up in last round as a winner there is extremely good chance that it will do so now. Xbox360 is last console here to represent us more traditional alike gaming console. Wii and PS3 are more advanced boxes with exactly opposite approaches on gaming at home. While XBox seems to be something in between, I think it is going to be loser in end game.

Ease of development?

I have not elsewhere seen the PS3 described as "easy" to develop for. More like "very very hard".

I am a big fan of the Cell (I've done some writing about it and played a bit with the sim), but I can't imagine calling it "easy".

All I'm saying...

All I'm saying is that it better not be a $600 bomb with the recent overheating problems Sony has had. If it does well, the great. If it sucks, I can't say I would be surprised either. Like so many people have commented on, the Sony fanboys will buy one regardless and deny anything wrong with it, the Sony haters will no doubt buy one later when the price comes down to a reasonable level, and then there will be people like me who won't care either way. I bought a 10 generation ps2 because after 10 generations, one would hope the bugs would be gone. I expect to do the same with the PS3.

Sorry, Sony

I'm pretty sold on my Xbox 360. It's impressed the heck out of me. That being said, the PS3 looks nice too, but it is just waaay too expensive for my blood. If I remember correctly I paid $300 for the PS2 soon after its launch. A basic PS3 is going to cost $500, and premium will cost $600. Meanwhile, a core Xbox 360 system costs $300, and the full package system costs $400. Yah... I can deal with a $100 price jump (the difference between what I paid for the PS2 and what I paid for the Xbox 360)... but $200 - $300 (PS3)??!! As for the whole Blu-ray thing, I could really care less about it. I have no reason to be playing Blu-ray discs. Maybe in a few years after the price has dropped I'll get a PS3. Until then though it looks like it will be left for those that are willing to shell out the cash for it. Sorry, Sony.

I bought a PS2 because it played DVDs too

And it was somewhat affordable at the time.

That said, I won't buy another. I've had way too many disc read errors watching movies, especially discs rented from Blockbuster.

$600 for a PS3? See, this is what kills me about the "hardcore" gamers. These guys will drop insane amounts of cash just so game that's not really fun has more shading textures and slighty more blingy 3d effects than you had $1000 before.

I'll be getting a Wii for cheap and having more fun than you, with enough cash left over to buy a 30 pack of Natty Light all for myself.

Re:They forgot:

Consumers mostly dont know, or even give a flying shit about those things. The issues are cost and availability, clearly this xmas is about early adopters - next xmas will be telling. Me i'm buying a wii, but my record isn't great have a dreamcast and a saturn.

Re:They forgot:

So you're suggesting that consumers shouldnt have had their exploding batteries replaced for free? Who the fuck do you work for FIRESTONE and JEEP?

Crash and burn motherfucker.

Re:7th gen? 7th yawn. My grumpy old perspective

I actually wanted to buy a 2600 in 1979, but when I went to look at one it was side-by-side with the spanking-new Atari 400 computer for about 200 bucks more. That was the end of consoles for me.

With every single console since, the computer on my desk had more raw power, better graphics, and better gameplay (via the keyboard) than any console of each era.

Years from now, none of these things will be anything but doorstops.

Compared to your Atari 400, which was useful technology for decades.</sarcasm>

How many players per PC?

With every single console since, the computer on my desk had more raw power, better graphics, and better gameplay (via the keyboard) than any console of each era.

But how many players per machine? Consoles tend to have four-player party games such as Bomberman, Gauntlet, Smash Bros., and the like, which put four characters, each controlled by one player, into one arena displayed on one sufficiently large TV. Can you put four keyboards and four mice on a PC, or do you have to buy four PCs and four monitors if the four people in a single house or at a family reunion want to play with one another?