Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
PlayStation (Games) The Almighty Buck

CNN On The $500 PS3 142

Posted by Zonk from the whizbangs-and-fobbles dept.
Chris Morris reports in CNN's Game Over column that analysts have pegged the price point for the PS3 at $500. Despite the high price, you're getting a lot of tech for your buck. From the article: "The strongest argument behind the $499 price point is the PS3's inclusion of a Blu-Ray drive. This bleeding edge technology will give Sony significant bragging rights, but it comes at a cost. Pioneer last week at the Consumer Electronics Show unveiled a standalone Blu-Ray player for $1,800. Obviously, Pioneer's earning some profit there - and Sony will almost certainly subsidize the cost of the drives, but you're still looking at an expensive bit of hardware. The PS3 will also feature other pricey items, such as a hard drive, the Cell processor and a new graphics chip from nVidia."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CNN On The $500 PS3 More

CNN On The $500 PS3

Comments Filter:
  • This probably means that the games will be ridiculously expensive to make up for the console profit loss.

    • Re:Ouch. (Score:2, Interesting)

      by amrust ( 686727 )
      They'll make it up easy in game sales, even at standard pricing (around $50). All companies take a huge loss on consoles, and make the loss up on game revenues.

      And with all the bad hardware news on the early Xbox 360 consoles, Sony will reap the rewards of coming in later, with a "more stable product". Not that the PS3 actually WILL be more or less stable... but since it comes out later, it will be likely be perceived by many to be "more heavily tested" before release.

      I also don't think it will be end up pr
      • Am I alone in the belief that my Playstation 2 is still awesome? I just bought a large HDTV, and got the component cables for the PS2, and games like Gran Turismo 4 or God of War look absolutely STUNNING? Why do I need to spend another 300, 400, 500 bucks when there are still dozens of great games for the PS2 that I haven't even played yet?
      • All companies take a huge loss on consoles, and make the loss up on game revenues.

        Last I heard, Nintendo doesn't, or at least has not the majority of the time.
  • $500!! What a bargain!! For a console that can not only play games on twin 1080p displays at 200fps, but can also be used to grill tasty steaks!

  • doesn't matter (Score:4, Interesting)

    by muel ( 132794 ) on Wednesday January 11, 2006 @05:35PM (#14449113)
    Bang for the buck, blah blah, but the mainstream target audience will never flock to this price point. What's worse is that the technology inside the PS3 ensures that the common competitive strategy of frequent price drops will be that much harder for Sony to stomach--are those Blu-Ray drives REALLY going to drop significantly enough to make MS's likely price cuts easy enough to match? Certainly, gaming hardware drops in price over time. That's a given. But this generation, Sony might not get to wait long enough before having its financial hand forced.
    • The dirty little secret of Blu-Ray and HD-DVD is that the difference in manufactuing cost between them and DVD is less than the manufacturing cost difference between CD and DVD when DVD came out. In other words, not nearly as much as they want you to think. At $1500 for a standalone player, I'll bet that $1470 is profit.
      • What about the difference in manufacturing cost between DVD and VHS? DVDs are still making the transition to replace CDs, though they have largely replaced VHS.
        • That wouldn't be a fair comparison. From DVD availability day one it was cheaper to build a DVD player than the equivalent VHS player.
          • Oh, now I think I understand what you're saying... They're making a big deal about this thing so that people will be willing to shell out way more than this new technology is actually costing them?

            • Re:doesn't matter (Score:5, Informative)

              by ivan256 ( 17499 ) * on Wednesday January 11, 2006 @06:03PM (#14449371)
              Exactly.

              A huge deal was made about how much less the PS2 cost than a standalone DVD player, since at the time the pricing was announced DVD players cost $1000+, but before release day came, DVD player prices were down in the $100-$120 price range (I paid $120 for a Toshiba DVD player 2 months before the PS2 release) because the PS2 anouncement took the premium value away from the standalone players. Those player manufacturers certainly weren't taking a loss on the players at the lower price point, and they didn't get 90% more efficient at building them in a matter of weeks either...

              The biggest expense in producing BluRay players is all the electronics to generate an HD signal, and all that stuff is in next-gen consoles anyway. There will be a moderate increase in the cost of the optics and the price of the patent licenses (which sony doesn't have to pay to itself), but other than that it costs essentially the same amount to build a BluRay reader as DVD reader. The manufacturers just want everybody to think it costs so much so they can make a ton of profit selling to early adopters. Sony has played the PR game so well that ever these stupid analysts believe the cost is high, and the analysts that are smart enough to see through it don't get publicity because they aren't saying anything controversial. Publishing a story like that wouldn't generate any ad revenue.

            • Re:doesn't matter (Score:2, Insightful)

              by N3Roaster ( 888781 )

              They're making a big deal about this thing so that people will be willing to shell out way more than this new technology is actually costing them?

              The current high pricing on next-gen disc media players is impacted hardly at all by manufacturing costs. There's a need to recoup development costs and the manufacturers probably also have to pay some technology licensing fees. The cost of parts, assembly, and packing are probably the least expensive per unit cost in delivering one right now. The more they charge

              • The current high pricing on next-gen disc media players is impacted hardly at all by manufacturing costs. There's a need to recoup development costs and the manufacturers probably also have to pay some technology licensing fees.

                You can't count those costs for a few reasons. The easy one is the licensing... Sony owns the technology. As for recouping the development costs, well, that can happen over decades, there's no reason to assess the costs to some arbitrary number of early units. For that reason the ana

    • You got it. It's not even so much the INITIAL cost - it's long term pricing that will kill them, especially when Microsoft has a great deal of flexibility to compete with.

      The fact is that Sony could release these at $750 and it would probably sell relatively well at launch given the brand, but only to the early adopting ubergaminggeeks. That isn't where the long term money is.

      Even if they launch it at $400....it will be pulling teeth to subsidize it down to $300 anytime soon. To hit that sweet spot

    • Adjusting for inflation, the mainstream target audience flocked to it before...why not now?

  • Back to the past (Score:3, Funny)

    by voice_of_all_reason ( 926702 ) on Wednesday January 11, 2006 @05:36PM (#14449129)
    Aw, hell, pretty soon all I'll be able to afford for fun will be a stick and a metal hoop
    • Announcer: "Hey kids of america, its hand painted wooden ball-in-a-cup, Mexico's favorite toy for over 340 years. Who needs constant video game stimulation when theres ball-in-a-cup? You just toss the ball, catch it in the cup, dump it out of the cup, toss it, and catch it in the cup again. The ball is on a string and attached to the cup, so theres no worry if you dont catch the ball in the cup. And clean up is as easy as catching a ball, in a cup. So why spend another day not catching a ball in a cup when

  • Speculation is now headline news? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Androclese ( 627848 ) on Wednesday January 11, 2006 @05:36PM (#14449130)
    The entire article is nothing but speculations about the price. The article even says they have no idea what the price will be and that it is all just guesswork; especially since Sony made no other comment than "...it's all just speculation".

    Why is this considered front page news for Slashdot?
    • Come on - in the next 300 days or so, or whenever it is until PS3 launches, we'll have daily updates on fresh rumors concering PS3. Brace yourself.
    • And what, exactly, is wrong with discussion and speculation? The article gives some information, anyways, so its not a total crapshot. It's a slow news day, anyways.
    • Pioneer last week at the Consumer Electronics Show unveiled a standalone Blu-Ray player for $1,800. Obviously, Pioneer's earning some profit there - and Sony will almost certainly subsidize the cost of the drives, but you're still looking at an expensive bit of hardware.

      This little bit here is what makes the whole article newsworthy. Assuming Pioneer (or whoever manufactures it is) manages to cut production costs in half, you're still looking at a whopping $900 machine. Cut that in half again (assume the

    • And if you look at history, pretty much all systems launch at about 400 dollars, [ign.com] adjusted for inflation.

      This may sound odd, but Blu-Ray isn't that expensive once manufacturing is set up. Basically if Sony is willing to take a one-time hit to setup the manufacturing lines, and ignore sunk development costs, Blu-Ray shouldn't cost them much more than a standard DVD drive. However, those were costs Sony was planning on eating anyway to get Blu-Ray to be a popular standard, so it is really costing them nothin

  • Worth it (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mnmn ( 145599 ) on Wednesday January 11, 2006 @05:41PM (#14449186) Homepage
    $500 is the price of a basic deskop system. Its your average Dell machine, or the cheapest Lenovo machine.

    For this money youre getting a CPU way better than most chips put into the Dells and Lenovos out there, and a graphics card to envy. Consoles have become more and more desktop-like, and the PS3 should be compared to high-end desktops. Give me a decent keyboard, mouse, possibly a PCI slot or ability to connect to most common networks, and an OS to work with and I'll call it a desktop.

    The CPU however in itself is worth the pricetag. I'm considering getting the PS3, not for gaming at all, but to use as a linux desktop system running on 8 64-bit PPC cores, each of which runs at more than 2GHz. Go find that at $500.

    • Re:Worth it (Score:2, Informative)

      by fujiman ( 912957 )
      to use as a linux desktop system running on 8 64-bit PPC cores, each of which runs at more than 2GHz

      Yes, that sounds like a bargain, but the Cell processor is *not* configured that way.

      Cell = 1 PPE (power processor element) + 7 x SPE (synergistic processor element)

      This is far from a 8 x PPC CPU, which would certainly be worth $500.

      If you want symmetric processing, go ahead and get the XBox 360 (3xPPC), and wait for the mod chip.

      • If you want symmetric processing, go ahead and get the XBox 360 (3xPPC), and wait for the mod chip.

        Or you could buy the Official Sony Linux kit. At least, I hope they make one again. The Cell has interesting properties for some things I am interested in, and such a kit would quite possibly be a good enough reason for me to shell out (I'm hardly a hardcore gamer).

        Then again, in the much less probable, I keep hoping that IBM will release Linux Cell workstations and laptops.

        • I don't think it's too improbable, but you're never going to see Cell workstations or laptops sold at x86 prices. IBM has invested a lot of money in Cell development, I wouldn't be surprised to see it put in workstations if IBM think they can make a few dollars off of it. Just don't expect them in the price range of the average Dell.

          • IBM has invested a lot of money in Cell development, I wouldn't be surprised to see it put in workstations if IBM think they can make a few dollars off of it. Just don't expect them in the price range of the average Dell.

            O rly? Once the PS3 becomes mature, and most of the R&D is paid off, "Dude you're getting a Cell."

      • Re:Worth it (Score:3, Informative)

        by hobbesx ( 259250 )
        On top of that, the processors are highly specialized. Long pipelines, no cache, without out-of-order execution IIRC. The important part being that these are not good generic processors. Remember: (G|M)hz != processing power. If you really want the power of eight high-end processors, there's no shortcuts.
    • First off, I'd pay $500 or even $600 if it had at least one or two really good games, but I'm a hardcore gamer (or an idiot..not sure if there is a difference sometimes ;)).

      But I've learned long ago that I'm not the "general public" and neither are a lot of the people who post here on Slashdot. And while having all that hardware at your fingertips is totally worth it to somebody with dreams of modding it to run Linux, I'm guessing the price will turn off a lot of their target market who just want to play

    • I'm considering getting the PS3, not for gaming at all, but to use as a linux desktop system running on 8 64-bit PPC cores, each of which runs at more than 2GHz. Go find that at $500.
      I guess that may answer my question about where to look for hardware after the Mac Mini goes over to (W)Intel...
    • Lay off the kool-aid dude. Just because Sony says it's so fast it tears the space-time continuum and sends pixels back in time, don't make it so.

    • Re:Worth it (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I hate to rain on anyone's parade BUT ...

      For this money youre getting a CPU way better than most chips put into the Dells and Lenovos out there, and a graphics card to envy.

      No you're not. You're getting a main CPU that's significantly worse than anything that's been put into a desktop machine for 5 years, plus six coprocessors which are impossible to program and have inadequate RAM bandwidth anyway.

      Consoles have become more and more desktop-like, and the PS3 should be compared to high-end desktops.

      No it sh

  • 1,800 dollar drive? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by steveo777 ( 183629 ) on Wednesday January 11, 2006 @05:43PM (#14449193) Homepage Journal
    Okay, normaly I wouldn't be worried about the prices of new tech dropping. But even if we've got six months for this thing to hit market, this could be kinda scary.

    Think about it. Even if Pioneer is just price gouging for the fun of it, 1800 is one hell of a gouge. I imagine that the controllers and most of the hardware is the same as a standard DVD player (well, more precise, perhaps). But a new kind of lens and obviously a way to produce a "blu-ray" to read with could be pretty pricey right now.

    On the other hand, if Pioneer is making oh, $300 bucks on each, that's still a 1500 buck drive. Prices are not likely to drop much more than 30-40%, and Sony isn't likely to lose 500 bucks on the drive alone. Let's face it. Sony may have deep pockets, but even MS isn't stupid enough to gamble like that.

    The way I see it, Pioneer better be super-gouging that price. (maybe it writes, I didn't catch anything about that). Sony and MS have both had major drive problems with exhisting tech, so this looks bad for the consumer. Real bad. And I've been drooling over the idea of a PS3 for a long time now.

    • No way in hell is the drive $1800.

      I've heard $300 which I could believe.

      I think that the article is trying to (and failing to) say is that Blu-Ray players are expected to launch at up to and including $1800 (although I heard someone would release one early for about $600 that would only do up to 1080i). I think that is where the figure comes from.

      And even then, it is insane. We all know they charge a ton for the early adopters, and while a stand-alone player needs decoder chips and everything, the PS3 ha

    • $1,800 sounds more like the price of a blu-ray recorder, and perhaps that's a little cheap for an introductory price for a BD recorder (I would expect $5,000 to $3,000). $1,800 for a high-end DVD player with a different laser is a bit high. $1,800 for a DVD-recorder with a different laser isn't.
    • A few points:

      1) You can buy a $13,000 DVD player. Projector Central [projectorcentral.com] has a review of a cheaper, $200 DVD player that's almost as good. Perhaps this is a medium-high-end drive.

      2) That $1800 is worst case, retail. They are probably shipping it out for $500, and the rest is added by middlemen along the way. It will show up at your local Costco for $700.
    • BluRay uses a different kind of demodulation compared to DVDs and HD-DVDs and is the reason they can fit 50GB as opposed to 30 GB. IIRC the demodulation it uses is more sensitive to jitter and therefor will require higher quality everything compared to HD-DVD and backwards compatibility with DVDs is more expensive. The focal point of the discs also are different from DVDs so the optics are more complex.
  • This new technology is 1) Extremely expensive to manufacture and 2) Very primitive in its current state.

    I expect the PS3 to hit at 500-600, and cost nearly double to manufacture. PS3 will sell more units than the 360 (due to Japan) so they can take a larger loss-per-console. In the end the Blu-Ray will not be worth the extra price, and I guarantee the quality (and image quality in movies) of the first generation Blu-Ray drive will suck.
    • I would not bet on PS3 sales being all that high in Japan. It depends on how reactions go. If Microsoft were to be smart, they'd start pushing out RPGs and other market appropriate games ASAP.

      The PS3 is set for market in May if everything goes well, which I doubt. I would say more likely August, which starts to push it into Nintendo's timeline.
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • Yeah but FFXII stands to be enough of a shift to really tick people off from what's been said in various places in the 'net.

          If plans on marketing the PS3 like the PSP is being currently marketed, playing the FF card may not be enough.

          Also, I'm pretty sure FFVII wasn't a launch-title, and a strong launch will be necessary if they expect to take some wind out MS and their expected Halo 3 blitz on the launch date.
    • Remember, increased disc capacity can translate into more than just increased resolution...The goal of HD OR BR is to increase the amount of data on the disc itself. This will likely prove useful for games, with the resolution increase an added bonus when watching DVDs.

  • Will this really pay off? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by l3prador ( 700532 ) <wkankla@gmaTOKYOil.com minus city> on Wednesday January 11, 2006 @05:51PM (#14449272) Homepage
    Suppose they're right about Blu-ray. It takes off, even though Blu-Ray players drop say, half the price from $1800 to $900. Now the PS3 looks like a steal, right? What happens when people start buying PS3s just for Blu-ray players? Sure Sony can say we have over X million consoles in homes... but if only half of those owners actually end up buying more than one or two games a year, I think game manufacturers will catch on pretty quick. Installation of PS3s isn't the only thing Sony and its developers want... the people have to want to buy games too...
    • When PS2 was launched Sony sold a fuck ton of them in Japan to people looking for a cheap DVD player. At the time stand-alone DVD players in Japan were very expensive for whatever reason, and the PS2 was actually a cheaper alternative, particularly for those who just wanted basic DVD playback capabilites and not a whole lot of bells and whistles.

      This is exactly the strategy Sony is going for here. That $1800 number is ridiculous of course, but if it's even $800-900 people are going to be picking up PS3's
    • Sony has got one more thing than games to sell - HD movies. Sony Picture Studios stands to benefit greatly from millions of people having Blu-Ray players with nothing to play. Sony is betting that folks will start buying HD movies like they've bought DVDs. They might be right - people are actually buying UMDs in some quantities.
    • Installation of PS3s isn't the only thing Sony and its developers want... the people have to want to buy games too...

      Developers want people to buy games yes, but Sony will not mind if a ton of people just use it as a Blu Ray movie player. And the reason Sony will not mind is they are also a huge movie studio.

  • This sucks (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Gogo0 ( 877020 ) on Wednesday January 11, 2006 @05:54PM (#14449298)
    Despite the high price, you're getting a lot of tech for your buck.

    I dont want a lot of tech for $500, I just want something that plays games that is affordable. Of course I am getting a Revolution, but I also want something that will play Metal Gear Solid 4 and some other sony-exclusive titles -and that will have to be a PS3. Make a machine that plays games and leave all the media extender dual 1080p output bullshit to the people who want it.

    • Re:This sucks (Score:2, Funny)

      by ClamIAm ( 926466 )
      I dont want a lot of tech for $500, I just want something that plays games that is affordable.

      Exactly. Like, when people go to buy a car, they aren't like "does it have the capabilities of a tractor, emu farm and drum set too? Because it's dumb otherwise." But people love to talk about how they can download movie trailers on their 360s. WTF.

    • Fine, buy a Game Cube, or a current generation PS2 or X-Box. Obviously the next-generation systems aren't for you at this time.

      • Fine, buy a Game Cube, or a current generation PS2 or X-Box.

        What happens when developers no longer make new games for the video game console I have? What happens when the console maker turns off the multiplayer server, as has already happened even for numerous PS2 games?

  • I dunno about the rest of the world, but when the PS2 was release, HORDES OF MORONS that weren't even hardcore gamers (even saw parents when this was on the news - yes, on the evening news!) lined up to buy the 3,000 francs console. Let's divide by 6, bingo, about 500 bucks or euros, give or take a few.

    You guys are either naïve or forgetful. I predict the PS3 will come out at whatever price Sony wants it to be, and it will sell like hotcakes because it appeals to the lowest common denomiator. Why would
  • The PS3 will also feature other pricey items, such as a hard drive

    That's news to Sony, AFAIK...See here [i4u.com] and here [ps3portal.com], although I admit that they haven't come out and said that "it won't have a hard drive built in" they certainly haven't said that it will either.

    I always assumed that was the whole reason behind the Xbox 360 Core, so that people would go to the store and see a 360 Core for $299 and a PS3 for $499(good luck even getting that low!) with identical hardware(minus blu-ray*) and make the simple
    • When the PS2 came out DVD had been on the market for years and people already had DVD collections and the ability to rent them at the local video store,

      Whoa whoa whoa, hold up there, slick. The PS2 did very well in Japan because it was one of the cheapest DVD players available there. And while DVD had been on the market for a few years, it still hadn't really reached "critical mass" in the US. In 2001, video stores still had "token" DVD sections and VHS was still very much a presence at retail stores.

    • I admit that they haven't come out and said that "it won't have a hard drive built in" they certainly haven't said that it will either.

      Isn't the common opinion that they'll have a small, removable hard drive as an ( undoubtably expensive ) option, i.e. not included in the base price?

      I always assumed that was the whole reason behind the Xbox 360 Core, so that people would go to the store and see a 360 Core for $299 and a PS3 for $499(good luck even getting that low!) with identical hardware(minus blu-ray*

      • Isn't the common opinion that they'll have a small, removable hard drive as an ( undoubtably expensive ) option, i.e. not included in the base price?

        Yes, that was my point, the article was trying to say that the PS3 would include a hard drive, which is not the case as I understand it.

        I always assumed that was the whole reason behind the Xbox 360 Core, so that people would go to the store and see a 360 Core for $299 and a PS3 for $499(good luck even getting that low!) with identical hardware(minus blu-

        • If, like you said, you have an HDTV then you're probably not going to want to play PS2 games anymore

          I don't know about that. Even if I had any number of newer games, I'm *definitely* going to go back and play San Andreas... I still haven't had time to finish the damn thing!

          But maybe that's just a matter of personal taste. I still occasionally fire up my Sega Genesis. No lie. Earthworm Jim is just that fun... there is no way I'm going to stop playing PS2 games just because I get a nice display.

      • I'm not really sure where people will go either way, but this is far from being an 'easy' choice, and you have to remember these are adults buying these things, for the most part, not kids. "It only plays games" is not a feature. Sony is going to try to position this so that anyone looking at XBox360 Premium+HD-DVD is going to see a price much higher than a PS3 bundle. Sony will also be able to point at ( probably pretty expensive ) high-end first-generation Blu-ray players which make the PS3 look like a *s

  • I smell a 3DO or CD-i disaster brewing.

  • Blu Ray & HD-DVD, two solutions to a non probl (Score:5, Insightful)

    by aliens ( 90441 ) on Wednesday January 11, 2006 @06:22PM (#14449491) Homepage Journal
    As far as video clarity goes Blu Ray & HD-DVD are going to fail unless they force studios to stop making DVD's. Read any of the CES coverage and you'll find 1080p plasmas running a Blu Ray/HD movie and the same set running a regular DVD on an upconverting dvd player.

    Every one of them says the difference is hardly noticeable, slight bit of extra sharpness to the picture for the HD one. This is NOT the jump from VHS to DVD.

    Other than for data storage these two formats are about 7-10 years ahead of when they'd really be needed.

    Why they felt the need to try and push another new format on top of DVD is beyond me. Sounds like a pissing match that got out of hand. Where was the guy standing up in the meeting asking "Wait why are we spending time and tons of money on this right at this moment?"

    • The real difference in resolution is noticeable when you have a really large screen area. Forget plasma, because if your image is projected to 100"+ then the difference in resolution will be pretty clear (no pun intended).

    • And 640K ought to be enough for anyone, right? (Don't care who said it, same concept.)

      This is a game console - games are alreadying running up towards the 8.4GB limit that dual-layer DVDs have. The PS3 is supposed to run for about four years at least before being replaced by the PS4. The space will be needed before the PS4 comes out. Consoles always use bleeding edge technology on release, because in two years, it'll be standard, and in four, it'll be obsolete.

      Bet you would have laughed at the CD dr

      • Good call. A great example of this would be the Neo Geo vs. Neo Geo CD. Same EXACT system except for media. The original Neo Geo carts are about as large as your average chemestry textbook. And not much lighter. They were also expensive as hell when they came out. Some games would cost 200 bucks or more. So Neo Geo produced a CD version. Great idea because everything is much much cheaper. The problem is that it only had a 1-2x drive. Sure, the games were never over 80MB, but that's still a slow re
      • I got off-topic a bit and was focused more on the formats for video and movies than I was for a console. Of course for data that new games might take up you'll want those large discs.

    • My first reaction was to disagree with you, but after I thought about it, Gran Turismo looks about the same in 480p as it does in 1080i (my TV doesn't support 720p). I would imagine that all things being equal there wouldn't be much of an improvement over current HDTV owners.

      But, I don't think that most gamers are going to be looking at it that way (going from current-gen systems on an HDTV to next-gen systems on an HDTV). It's going to be more like going from current-gen systems on a normal TV to next-

    • As a person who was deeply disappointed by DVD format, here's why I think new standards are necessary.

      1. Capacity
      I'd like to suggest the following relationship:
      1. documents on 3.5
      2. music on CD
      3. TV series on X
      4. movies on Y

      I may be dreaming, but I wish this 100-files-per-media trend that's shown on 1 and 2 to continue on to 3 and 4.
      If you count a medium quality movie to be 5mb per 1 min(600mb for 2hr movie), that would require the media X to be 5mb*30min*100 = 15gig, and Y to be 5mb*120min*100
    • First, the tools for producing HD content are not all up to snuff yet. So the quality of BluRay and HD-DVD may be expected to increase over time, whereas DVD tech has had years to optimize and is probably as good as it will get.

      Second, DVD content has no security, which all of the major content producers want. BluRay and HD-DVD both offer DRM.

      People may not be aggressive about going out and buying a new system at first. But they will when they can no longer rent or buy their favority movies for their ex
    • Actually my friend, i'm not sure that there is ANY optical media that can handle the bandwidth of uncompressed HD and 5.1 surround (at 192kHz 24bits) together. Even most hard drive RAIDs will strain at that. The media isn't "beyond its time", it is just in time and perhaps behind.

      I haven't done the exact math, but wouldn't it probably take ~9 Tb of data to store these uncompressed for a movie that's about 2 hours long?

      Hell, just the audio is pretty hefty at that.

      (Roughly) 24 bits * 192khz/sec (192,
  • Nothing says "accuracy in reporting" quite like claiming the PS3 will have a hard drive.

  • In unrelated news... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Mursk ( 928595 ) on Wednesday January 11, 2006 @06:24PM (#14449521)
    Memory cards will cost $1200. ;)

  • Any point to being an early adopter? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Dr. Spork ( 142693 ) on Wednesday January 11, 2006 @07:12PM (#14449922)
    If the initial price is $500, it's clear that discounts are not far behind. I mean, if they really want to get this into living rooms, $500 is just too much.

    Compound this with the fact that the early games will be quick rewrites of last-gen titles... and remember: Netflix/Blockbuster will not be renting Blu-ray movies for a long while.

    I have no doubt that in 2008, a sub-$300 PS3 will be an attractive purchase. By then, game coders will figure out how to program the Cell, and a decent catalog of Blu-ray movies will be available. Before then, though, buying a PS3 gets you bragging rights and little else.

    As it happens, I'm planning a $500 investment in gaming hardware soon: a new mobo, CPU and graphics card. I'm confident that the results in 1600x1200 will look as nice as the PS3, and I won't be paying Sony to lock me out of using my hardware in the way that I see fit.

  • The PS3 will need to have an extremely strong launch lineup without any delays to ensure that people buy it for that kind of money, that or they could just take the easy way out and release it at christmas, when people will buy it anyway for the kids.

  • Article is front-page news, summary is not (Score:3, Interesting)

    by The-Bus ( 138060 ) on Wednesday January 11, 2006 @09:11PM (#14450621)
    From TFA:

    None of the developers, by the way, echoed my hypothetical theory that Sony might be pulling a head-fake on Microsoft with the high price warnings...

    Sony, while [PSP price speculation] went on, smiled enigmatically and did nothing to dissuade anyone that the device would be $300 or more. It launched at $249, still incredibly expensive by handheld standards, but lower than some consumers were expecting.

    We're seeing much the same thing with the PS3. After an onslaught of information last May, the company hasn't released any information of substance. Even at CES, the device was an essential no-show. (A hardware design was there to be gawked at and a video loop of potential gameplay footage, but no new information was announced.)

    There's one other possibility about the PS3 that few people have discussed: Dual-pricing strategies. It's frustrating from a consumer standpoint, but Microsoft proved it can work - at least in the U.S. Whether Sony's willing to risk fragmenting the market by offering both "bare bones" and "bells and whistles" versions of the PS3 is another matter.


    Pricing the PS3 below the price of the Xbox 360 (or at the same price as the $299 Core version) may very well sound the death knell for MS. As great as the Xbox 360 is in many things, it cannot in any way compete with a Blu-Ray player that is $100 less. Sony, not being smart, or perhaps not wanting to fight against cash-rich Microsoft or not wanting to lose out on automatic profit, won't go that route. They're also not giving pricing information out because they want to let the market figure out pricing. Obviously, people ARE willing to pay $700 for a console. (Check ebay the weeks after the 360). Sony could well sell the PS3 for $699 with a game and two controllers and wait 6 months for a price drop. I have no doubt that even at $999, it would sell like sugar-fried hotcakes. At least to the fanboys and/or early adopters. Is that a smart long-term strategy? No.

  • For all the Jawing (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SoulMaster ( 717007 ) * on Wednesday January 11, 2006 @10:01PM (#14450854)
    You know, as I sit here and realize that we are all yammering on about how a $500 price point is too high, it strikes me that hundreds, if not thousands of Xbox360's changed hands on Ebay for well over $500 not a month ago. The non-core version is still selling for more than $500 in a few auctions.

    We all know that the PS3 will blow the doors off the 360 (and some of us saw this @ CES), so where's the problem with the $500?

    The simple truth is that if it hits at $500, and you want it, you'll buy it. And if there is a shortage, and you still want it, you'll pay $1000 for it on Ebay.
    • Problem is that there are indeed hundreds if not thousands of people who will be perfectly comfortable with a $500 price tag.

      Sony of course would no doubt like to sell a few million of these, not a few thousand.

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday January 11, 2006 @10:11PM (#14450908)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Who remembers how bleeding edge DVD was when the PS2 came out. Seriously the PS2 was a lot of peoples FIRST DVD player, when most where 400-500 dollars at the time.

      I'm sick of hearing this argument from people who aparently have foggy memories.

      DVD was not bleeding edge. PS2 came out in the US in October 2000, the first DVD player from Sony came out in the US in January 1997. That's well over 3.5 years later. If the PS3 doesn't come out until 2009, then you'd have a parallel.

      When the PS2 came out, DVD pla

  • Don't Scare The Fish! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by blueZhift ( 652272 ) on Wednesday January 11, 2006 @11:11PM (#14451210) Homepage Journal
    I agree with previous posters that Sony could come out with the PS3 $999 and still sell out at launch, but they'd be crazy to do so. Even if they came out really high with the intention to drop the price significantly once sales to the hardcore fell off, the high initial price may have permanently scared off more casual buyers. Those casual buyers might even throw up their hands and spend their PS3 money on an Xbox 360. So if Sony launches at $499, they're taking a big risk on a console that will not have a lot of great games on launch (there simply isn't enough time) and for which there aren't going to be a lot of Blu-Ray movies either. To compete, I don't think they have any choice but to come out at no more than $399 in the U.S., likely more in Japan because they can get away with it there. Though, even in Japan, a high priced PS3 may not fly given that it will have to contend with a much cheaper Nintendo Revolution which is a bigger threat to them at home than Xbox 360.
  • I am reminded of a time when the Playstation 2 came out and the buzz around DVD players. I also recall my first two DVD players. The first was in a computer and was considerably cheaper then stand-alone players or the PS2. The one to follow was a Philips DVD player which cost around $100 and was also cheaper then the PS2. I already had a Dreamcast, so why did I need a PS2?

    Let us speed forward to the present day. I have an HDTV, 7 DVD players (2 in desktops, 2 in laptops, 1 in a media player, 1 PS2, a
  • "Pricing the PS3 below the price of the Xbox 360 (or at the same price as the $299 Core version) may very well sound the death knell for MS. As great as the Xbox 360 is in many things, it cannot in any way compete with a Blu-Ray player that is $100 less."

    The PS3 BR player will not fit *any* market.

    Any Home Theater enthusiast would definately NOT use a PS3 BR player for movie watching. The enthusiast market with 50" plasmas and custom audio systems ONLY buy the highest quality movie players (Denon fo

Slashdot Top Deals

Two can Live as Cheaply as One for Half as Long. -- Howard Kandel

Close