Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Sony PlayStation (Games)

$499 PlayStation 3 Confirmed 555

Posted by Zonk
from the finally-come-down-a-bit dept.
Gamespot is reporting that the rumoured price drop from earlier this week is a reality. Starting on July 10th, the current 60GB model will sell for $499. Coming to US shores in August is the 80GB version only available in South Korea at the moment, which will retail for $599. They're bundling that unit with Motorstorm, so it's not just another 20 gigs for $100. "The price drop further indicates that, after a slow start, Sony is now aggressively trying to expand its customer base in the US. The move comes none too soon. According to the latest figures from industry-research firm the NPD Group, the PS3 only sold 82,000 units in the US in May, compared to the Xbox 360's 155,000 units and the Wii's 338,000 units." So, is this it? Will this price drop make you buy a PS3, or are you still holding off for the big games this fall?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

$499 PlayStation 3 Confirmed

Comments Filter:
  • Blu-Ray (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Brad1138 (590148) * <brad1138@yahoo.com> on Sunday July 08, 2007 @11:26PM (#19795369)
    I want one for the Blu-Ray player. I have a 61" DLP set that is just screaming for Blu-Ray or HD DVD, Personally I like Blu-Ray. Currently stand alone Blu-Ray players are $650+ (from a quick Google search). From the reviews I have read [pcworld.com] it holds up fairly well against them. Plus an awesome gaming machine.
    • Re:Blu-Ray (Score:5, Insightful)

      by wawannem (591061) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @11:34PM (#19795445) Homepage
      As a parent of a child that *really* wants a PS3, I can say that the price has been the biggest barrier. It's hard to justify this sort of expenditure for a twelve-year-old... I sort of feel like he'll grow up like his gaming-geek old man if I give in and buy one. I'm glad to see that they are coming down in price. -W
      • Re:Blu-Ray (Score:5, Insightful)

        by poot_rootbeer (188613) on Monday July 09, 2007 @10:37AM (#19800305)
        It's hard to justify this sort of expenditure for a twelve-year-old...

        A twelve-year-old boy is probably old enough to mow lawns, run errands, etc. to earn his own income.

        It shouldn't take him much of that to understand how much money $500 actually is.
    • by GizmoToy (450886)
      I was set on buying a PS3 and a Wii for the longest time. The BluRay player is a nice addition. The only real barrier was price, but Sony's arrogance on the whole matter has made me reconsider the XBox 360 as my second machine. Sony really botched their launch, and I think it'll probably take a bigger price break than what they're offering to recover from their current slide.

      It's too bad, too, because technologically it looks like a great machine.
      • Yeah, but as much as I love my 360(and the fact it hasn't broken on me since i got it at launch), and despite the fact I will not purchase sony products.

        The xbox360 has to many issues to justify its purchase, MS is already looking for ways to avoid the warranty, and frankly sony now has a chance to rub this in their faces...

        The 360 could be in deep shit right now.
      • Sony's arrogance on the whole matter has made me reconsider the XBox 360 as my second machine.

        No offense intended, but I don't follow this line of reasoning. It's not like microsoft has ever been a paragon of virtue or humility. They are both self-interested corporations that look out for their own interests at all times, regardless of consequence. In the past, Nintendo has demonstrated similar behaviour. None of them are angels, they are all the basically the same.

        I don't have a Wii, PS3 or 360 and I'm

    • Re:Blu-Ray (Score:4, Interesting)

      by White Flame (1074973) on Monday July 09, 2007 @05:01AM (#19797639)
      I've seen a few places like the Fry's Electronics store near me that had 2 identical Sony 1080p displays next to each other, playing the same HD movie, one in HD-DVD and the other in Blu-Ray, both stand-alone players. The HD-DVD version always had MUCH less compression noise and blockiness than the BR one. Then again I'm a real pixelophile and am far more offended about such things than the average person (I think that the visual quality of both suck dung and aren't worth the money; don't get me started on digital cable vs analog ;) ). I haven't seen BR movies on the PS3, but I suspect it'll have the same or worse quality than a standalone player.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Wdomburg (141264)
        Thing is ... both formats support the same codecs and have ample transfer rate for 1080p in both MPEG-4 or VC-1. Side by side comparisons tell you about the quality of the encoding and of the player, not of the capability of the format.

        If I were in the market, I would personally go HD-DVD on price alone (about $250 last I looked). The theoretically superiority of Blu-ray (in capacity and transfer) means fuck all in the common case. To exceed the practical limit of HD-DVD you've to do something like encod
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by donaldm (919619)
      The PS3 can do so much more then play Blu-ray movies although I do have to admit a Blu-ray movie played to a HDTV looks great. Even DVD movies are upscaled via the PS3 to a HDTV via HDMI and the result is impressive. My son has a PSP and he can put MP4 movies onto his 2GB Memory Stick, ripped from his DVD's and play them back via his PSP though the PS3 and the output is also upscaled with impressive results. We have not played with this much so although I think it is possible to put the MP4 directly to the
  • by rolfwind (528248) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @11:28PM (#19795387)
    It's the only game I need that's only for PS3. I might even wait until they port it though. $500 for one game is too expensive.

    Also going to wait to see what Wii games are out this Christmas. With the immense popularity, I expect Wii will get a surge of games - but knowing that games take time to make, I wonder when it will happen. Perhaps Fall of '08.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Fallen Kell (165468)
      I was going to wait as well for Metal Gear. However, I might pick one up. I have a 46" 1080p Sharp that would love to have BluRay to watch on.

      As for the Wii and new games, I would love to see more games on the Wii, being that I have had one since release day (was up in line at 5:45am). My only concern is that the games will be horrible ports from other systems. The uniqueness of the Wii controllers is not something that makes it easy to slap on any old game that was designed for something else. You need to
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by TheSciBoy (1050166)

        Hear, hear. But even Nintendo fell into this trap with Twilight Princess. They used shaking as another button which triggers attacks, since the Wii game is more or less a direct port from the Game Cube.

        To date, only a few game actually use the controller in a proper game (I'm not counting Wario Wares and Mario Party 8 type games): Wii Sports, Tiger Woods golf and maybe one or two more that I've forgotten.

        Also disappointing to me is the fact that there aren't any RPG's for it yet. No, I'm not talking about

  • "aggressively"? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheSHAD0W (258774) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @11:31PM (#19795423) Homepage
    Calling a $500 price "aggressive" may not be appropriate, really. Realistic, perhaps; it's still $200 pricier than an HD-DVD player or a basic XBox 360. I'd call it barely reasonable, but not aggressive.
    • Re:"aggressively"? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by _KiTA_ (241027) on Monday July 09, 2007 @02:41AM (#19796765) Homepage
      Calling a $500 price "aggressive" may not be appropriate, really. Realistic, perhaps; it's still $200 pricier than an HD-DVD player or a basic XBox 360. I'd call it barely reasonable, but not aggressive.

      Personally, I'd use the word "desperate" not "aggressive."

      It's not really aggression when the entire game retail industry comes to you and says "either you drop the price on these pieces of crap or we will do it for you / or we're taking them off the shelves."
  • Why should it? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by falcon5768 (629591) <Falcon5768 AT comcast DOT net> on Sunday July 08, 2007 @11:32PM (#19795431) Journal
    It wouldnt make me bite when it was this much for the 20 gig... why should the 60 dropping 100 buck matter, its till more costly than a 360 which atm has more games.

    And honestly looking at FFXIII despite being a huge FF fanboy doesnt make me bite at all, not for 500 dollars. As for the other PS3 killer apps right now, more than a few are actually out or coming out on the 360, which I already own.

    Im sure a bunch of people are going to jump on me with bluray this, and HDMI that, but quite frankly Sony really think about what made their PS2 a huge seller. They though it was the diehards, and built a system perfect for them. What they forgot was the casuals, of which the 100 dollar PS2 became a big seller not the 300 dollar original pricetag version.

    • by ect5150 (700619)

      And honestly looking at FFXIII despite being a huge FF fanboy doesnt make me bite at all, not for 500 dollars.
      Same here. I think when FF 13, 14 & 15 are out and the price is $300, I'll bite.
      • by Andy Dodd (701)
        Oh my, you're an early adopter.

        For me, it was PS2 at $120, FFXII at $50, and all of the other PS2 FF releeases for $10 each used.

        Likewise, I definately will not be buying the PS3 until the PS4 comes out. As opposed to the Wii, which had an opportunity limited only by lack of availability for 6 months before losing the competition to a new DSLR camera and some glass for aforementioned camera. No more room left in the budget for gaming systems anymore...
    • Re:Why should it? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by WasterDave (20047) <davep AT zedkep DOT com> on Monday July 09, 2007 @01:43AM (#19796377)

      Sony really think about what made their PS2 a huge seller.

      They did, it had a DVD player in it. Critically the PS2 came out and was cheaper than a DVD player, meaning that guys like me could get approval from the domestic commandant with the words "but you wanted a DVD player, right". So they thought they'd pull the same trick again - make the PS3 cheaper than a standalone BluRay player and you either get a free games console with your BR player, or a free BR player with your games console ... depending on how you look at it.

      As far as I can see it, Sony have made two big mistakes with the PS3:

      * Nobody wants a BluRay player.
      * Nobody wants a PS3 either.

      Because both value propositions only make sense if you drop $2k on a new telly at the same time. Furthermore, where the PS2 was a giant leap from the PS1 and where DVD was a giant leap from VHS, the same cannot be said of this new generation. Consequently they're stuffed.

      FWIW after the dead 360 debacle it's becoming clear that the only winner from this round is Nintendo. Who'dve thunk it?

      Dave
    • It wouldnt make me bite when it was this much for the 20 gig

      I thought the exact same thing. PS3's didn't sell at $499... sure now you can get more bang for your buck, so to speak, but why not try to sell the 20GB models at $399? It's still out of my range but that "3" at the front is getting a lot closer.

      It seems to me that the important thing for Sony is to have the announcement of a price drop. The mainstream media has really picked up on this "PS3 is just too darn expensive" line. Sony is already

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Eivind (15695)
        I wondered about that. "announcing" a price-drop tend to make no sense whatsoever. It'll only ensure that sales (at current price) drop to near-zero since everyone who wants one, but are *not* desperate for one (if they where desperate for one, they'd have it already) will hold off buying atleast until the price actually does drop. I guess when the price-drop is only a short time off this effect doesn't much matter.
  • by rhendershot (46429) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @11:39PM (#19795477) Journal

    So, is this it? Will this price drop make you buy a PS3



    no.

    or are you still holding off for the big games this fall?



    no.

  • ...is that now it only needs to be $100 cheaper before I'll buy one.
  • The PS3 is a relatively cheap Cell platform. It might work well as a test bed for some Cell stuff I would like to work on, and I could afford one even without the grant I would need to afford more serious Cell hardware. I have a Wii for games, so I probably wouldn't want it for that purpose. Though I suppose if there was a PS3-only game I just had to play (or was lent and forced to play by gamer friends), I might drag the thing home and play with it, but it's not likely in the near future. Someone forced a
    • That's where I'm at. I could care less whether the PS3 has any games whatsoever available for it so long as there is a robust and *useful* linux system which can be installed on the platform. The Cell architecture would seem to imply that a PS3 might be useful for some sort of network based parallel processing engine. I would love to be able to somehow figure out how to compile something like Code Aster [code-aster.org] for the Cell on PS3, then send meshing jobs to it, or run such as CAE Linux [caelinux.com].

      However, it is really light

  • Panic Time (Score:5, Informative)

    by MeanMF (631837) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @11:43PM (#19795523) Homepage
    This just confirms that Sony is in full-blown panic mode... They keep talking about the long-term viability of the PS3, and I can see why since it is a pretty nice piece of hardware. But they're obviously very worried about their near-term prospects so I could easily see how they'd cut another $100 before the end of the year if things don't turn around quickly.
    • by timeOday (582209)

      They keep talking about the long-term viability of the PS3, and I can see why since it is a pretty nice piece of hardware.
      I'm not sure it's a great piece of gaming hardware. The blu-ray and Cell are indeed good, but the GPU is apparently not. And for a game box, that's pretty darn important.
      • by blackicye (760472)
        The original xbox had a better GPU than the PS2, look where that got them.

        Regardless of the hardware, I'd say developer support is the most important. Well that and bribing developers for exclusives doesn't hurt either.
        • The original xbox had a better GPU than the PS2, look where that got them.

          From what I see, the PS3 GPU looks fine for most purposes. Check out yonder Inquirer article: Playstation 3 GPU "slightly less powerful than GeForce 7800" [theinquirer.net]. As far as running Linux is concerned, that should be plenty sufficient, with a little backup from the Mesa lib, to run almost any OpenGL or GLX app with great performance.

          My 64-bit dual core AMD Athlon-X2 3800+ system only has a GeForce 7600GT, and it is extremely fast at 3D rend

          • by blackicye (760472)

            As far as running Linux is concerned, that should be plenty sufficient, with a little backup from the Mesa lib, to run almost any OpenGL or GLX app with great performance.

            Therein lies another problem, I've bought a PS3 already, and am having a really good time with Motorstorm, Resistance and Ninja Gaiden Sigma..but they have not provided the support for GPU acceleration in linux, and do not seem poised to do so in the near future.

            If they did decide to finally release the source for the GPU, I think we would

      • The GPU is roughly mid-range PC hardware now: It's basically a GeForce 7900GT with 256MB VRAM. Quite respectable, and it doesn't seem to get nearly as hot as the 7600GS I have in my PC. On a purely technical level, it's superior to the GPU in the XBox 360.

        Programming for it is no different than using OpenGL 2.1 on a PC - the SDK uses an implementation of OpenGL ES with extensions. And, any game can take decent advantage of the SPUs when it uses kits like Havok or an existing 3D engine. As with the PS2

    • I really don't think they're worried. There was bad press for the 360, so they figured a price cut now would take advantage of people that were skeptical of 360. Plus Sony isn't totally worried about being 3rd in the gaming market because the PS3 is helping push Blu-Ray. I think Sony is more worried about HD-DVD than the 360.
  • are doomed to repeat it.

    Anyone remember the NeoGeo [neo-geo.com]?

    Well anyway it was set to debut at $599 [wikipedia.org] want to know why it didn't do so well? Due to the price. $500 and up game consoles don't sell that well. Sony needs to find a way to lower the price to $299 on the base model and $399 on the advanced model or else the Wii and XBox 360 will eat their lunch.
    • by Pap22 (1054324) on Monday July 09, 2007 @12:07AM (#19795715)
      Get your facts straight, according to your own wiki link:

      However, this plan was quickly scrapped and when the system had its national launch it debuted at $649.99
      $650 in 1990 dollars is $1120 in 2006 dollars. Not to mention the fact EACH neo geo game cost $200 in 1990 dollars ($313 in 2006 dollars).

      http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi [westegg.com]

      Compared to the neo geo, the PS3 is a flippin bargain.

      • by freeweed (309734) on Monday July 09, 2007 @01:22AM (#19796253)
        And $3000 in 1990 dollars, what a half-decent desktop PC cost back then, is $5169 in 2006 dollars. Except a half-decent PC is 1/10th that price. Could you imagine spending $5000+ on a PC these days? Yet they're faster, have more storage, massive improvements in graphics hardware...

        Technology gets CHEAPER. Far out-pacing inflation. The PS3 pricing is a joke when compared to any other modern consumer electronics - then again, game consoles pretty much have been for a while now.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      "Well anyway it was set to debut at $599 want to know why it didn't do so well? Due to the price. $500 and up game consoles don't sell that well."

      a.) $600 then is a LOT more than $500 now, and I don't just mean the $100 difference. The PS3 has already way out-sold the Neo Geo.

      b.) The Neo Geo was NOT a mass market device. It wasn't built to be one, it wasn't marketed as one, and the games weren't designed that way. It was a niche device built for a small number of people that wanted to play arcade games at
  • It won't help (Score:4, Insightful)

    by realmolo (574068) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @11:47PM (#19795543)
    The PS3 is still too expensive. But the bigger problem is, there just aren't any "must have" games. I was at Wal-Mart the other day, and just for kicks I was looking at the PS3 game selection. There were about, oh, 25 titles or so, and fully HALF of them were crappy movie tie-in games. That's nuts.

    The Wii is slightly better off, in that there are at least 3 or 4 really fun games. But in my opinion, it's not worth buying yet either. But the good Wii games are fun, and they are nice and "console-y". Which brings me to the 360-

    Well, it has the most games, of course. But am I the only one that finds the 360s selection of games really dull? It seems like there are a lot of FPS and sports games, and not a heck of a lot else. I expect this will be the case with the PS3, also. It's almost like they are trying too hard to cater to the "hardcore" crowd. Lots of "heavy" games, not too much stuff that's simple to pick-up-and-play. Well, I guess the Live! Arcade games are. But all of those games could be done on the Wii, easily. Never mind the emulated games, which I refuse to pay for because I've been playing them for free for almost a decade now via PC emulators.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Osty (16825)

      But am I the only one that finds the 360s selection of games really dull? It seems like there are a lot of FPS and sports games, and not a heck of a lot else.

      When someone says this, I can't help but ask, "What are you looking for?" Sure, there are a fair number of FPS and sports games on the 360, just like on nearly every platform (even the Wii). There are plenty of other games as well. A sibling poster mentioned Oblivion, which was excellent (while many people prefer it on the PC due to modability, it

  • by CrazyJim1 (809850) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @11:56PM (#19795603) Journal
    My opinion isn't indicative of your average gamer. I bought an Xbox just to see the Halo 2 phenomena. I learned that voice chat lets you know you're playing with 12 year olds who get mad whether they win or lose. I learned that Halo 2 had no depth besides a couple insta-kill moves. I had my fun with it though. I won't buy a next gen system until I find a game that breaks ground with online play because that's all I like.
  • Great News (Score:2, Informative)

    by Dr Kool, PhD (173800)
    I already have a PS3 but I'll be picking one up for my brother for his birthday because of the price cut. You really can't argue with the value the PS3 provides. You get an awesome game machine, free online gaming forever, a fully capable Blu-Ray player, an upscaling DVD player, HDMI output, user-upgradable 60GB hard drive, and a Cell processor computer capable of running Linux all for just $500. Motorstorm, Resistance and Ninja Gaiden Sigma are three great exclusives already out. More awesome exclusives li
    • You really can't argue with the value the PS3 provides.

      Except for the fact that the 360 has most of that for a little more than half the price, and the Wii has all of the fun parts (and a whole lot more) for quite a bit less than half the price. I was a huge PS2 fan and swore I'd never buy a Microsoft console, but I'm a lot more likely to break down and get a 360 than a PS3.

    • You're right (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Fross (83754)
      You're right on many counts. The PS3 is certainly:

      Blu-ray player
      Upscaling DVD player
      HDMI out

      I'm pretty sure when I want a Blu-ray player, I'll buy a PS3. Right now, I don't, so to me the PS3 is an exceptionally expensive game console, that plays about the same as the Xbox 360, but has fewer decent games. And it looks like the vast majority of people feel this way about it as well - there just isn't the demand for Blu-ray / HDDVD, which is crippling the PS3 sales.

      I mean look at this: http://www.vgchartz. [vgchartz.com]
  • This may be it! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JoeCommodore (567479) <larry@portcommodore.com> on Monday July 09, 2007 @12:12AM (#19795759) Homepage
    I've been debating getting a Game Cube or PlayStation 2, now maybe I'll seriously look at the PS2. :-) Prices are soo much better at the trailing edge.
  • by suv4x4 (956391) on Monday July 09, 2007 @12:14AM (#19795769)
    "$499 PS3 rumored"

    "$499 PS3 denied by Sony CEO"

    "Sony rejects $499 PS3"

    "Sony Spokesman says $499 a hoax"

    "$499 PS3 confirmed"
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by PoderOmega (677170)
      What's the 21st century have to do with it? There is a very simple answer that is always pointed out with price drop rumors. PEOPLE WILL NOT BUY THE GAME SYSTEM TODAY IF THEY THINK/KNOW IT WILL BE CHEAPER TOMORROW. Stores want you to buy things now -- they don't want you think about your purchase. Even if you can do a price adjustment at Target (or wherever), stores would always to prefer the money NOW and not later (see gift cards).
  • AU prices (Score:5, Informative)

    by Nazlfrag (1035012) on Monday July 09, 2007 @12:18AM (#19795813) Journal
    I doubt we'll see anything like this. A typical price, ie. on 'sale' at Big W here w/free game is $987. That's around $847 USD. This is also the European model where they ripped out the hardware backwards compatibility.

    Or I could get this one imported for $582 AUD but have no warranty. Both options are bad, but the fact I could almost get TWO from America at the same price makes the warranty issue not look so bad after all.

    Sony doesn't stand a chance against the Xbox or Wii(which is still regularly sold out) in Australia any time soon. Even with the best damn games on the planet $1000 is a ludicrous price, next to $350ish Wii or $500ish 360. I could in fact get both consoles and some games for the same price... Bluray doesn't even enter into consideration.

  • by Bushido Hacks (788211) on Monday July 09, 2007 @12:19AM (#19795817) Homepage Journal
    Yes, I know, Kaz quit. Still, this YTMND [ytmnd.com] is still good. I still won't by it for that amount.
  • Wii sold more then all of them combined? note is said america, it'd be interesting to see how sony vs wii goes in japan where both companys have a huge brand following. the japs are insane for brand names.
  • Crappy poll (Score:5, Interesting)

    by suv4x4 (956391) on Monday July 09, 2007 @12:25AM (#19795869)
    "So, is this it? Will this price drop make you buy a PS3, or are you still holding off for the big games this fall?"

    That's it? Where's the third option, "neither of the above". I want my third option, god damn it!!

    Let's see, what does $499 PS3 change. XBOX360 is $399, Wii is $250.
    For your extra money, you get poor list of games, $65 a pop, and Blu-Pending-Disaster support, at around $45 a pop.

    I'm about as excited about all of this, as I would be if Epson released $50 cheaper printers. It's about the ink, people!
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by bigstrat2003 (1058574)

      For your extra money, you get poor list of games, $65 a pop, and Blu-Pending-Disaster support, at around $45 a pop.

      Whoa, dude. Slow down there. Blu-Ray movies are not $45 each, they're more like $25 each. That's not even close to what you said.

      Anyways, depending on what games are out (or you anticipate coming out) for a console, that can be more important than the price. There's nothing out for the 360 that could inspire me to buy one. Not for $50. The only game coming out that I want to play is Halo 3... well, that's not enough to inspire me to spend $400, either. I'll just go out and rent a 360 this fall, or borrow

  • Incredible (Score:5, Funny)

    by corby (56462) on Monday July 09, 2007 @12:41AM (#19795971)
    This is absolutely fantastic news.

    It will now cost me $100 less to not buy one.
  • :(

    Now I wish I'd waited a while.

    On the bright side, Super Stardust HD is pretty fun. :P

  • Buy 1 PS3 and no games, or a Wii and 5 games (6 if you count sports, and I do).

    I just don't know, why does Sony have to make these decisions so hard for us consumers.

    I guess since I already have a fairly large GC library (Adding all the time at very inexpensive price) I can easily say FU PS3.

    Resident Evil 4 (WiiEdit) is a Terriffic Game on the Wii and $29.99 retail makes it a no brainer, with enough left over for a few VC games.

  • by merc (115854) <slashdot@upt.org> on Monday July 09, 2007 @02:20AM (#19796621) Homepage
    Sigh. I know I'm going to probably get modded "Flaimbait" for this, but here goes anyway...

    It's only been two years since the CD rootkit scandal and already it seems the consumers have either forgotten or forgiven Sony. So please bear with me while I just take a moment to point out that there are probably still holdouts like me out there who *really* meant it when we said we would never buy from Sony ever again.

    We now continue with your regularly commercial sheep-like programming existance where electronics are mass-marketed to you as shiny new objects.
  • by DrXym (126579) on Monday July 09, 2007 @05:00AM (#19797631)
    As posted on the PS3 blog [playstation.com] - "In short, we're introducing a new PS3 model with a 80GB hard drive which will include a free copy of MotorStorm, all for the retail price of $599. This 80GB package will be available starting in August, just a few short weeks from today. The larger hard drive will give players more of an opportunity to take advantage of all the downloadable games and trailers on the PLAYSTATION Network, including the content from our forthcoming download service which will include videos, movies and other entertainment content."

    In other words expect a full video / music download service and possibly IPTV to be announced at E3. It's been a long time coming seeing as it was such an obvious and natural feature for the PS3 to have.

  • by realinvalidname (529939) on Monday July 09, 2007 @05:20AM (#19797727) Homepage

    "Stuff is worth what people will pay for it."

    Clearly, the PS3 isn't worth $600 to very many people. I'll be surprised if it's worth $500 either. Despite all the technology they've crammed in there, the games library has almost zero appeal. Boring, joyless games plus Blu-Ray does not equal $500.

    With the Wii outselling PS3 6-to-1 [engadget.com] in Japan, there's little reason to think third-party software makers will turn this around.

  • by Churla (936633) on Monday July 09, 2007 @08:37AM (#19798857)
    I'm not waiting for a specific price point, I'm just not enamoured with the product. They have generated no "need to own that" within me for it. And therein lies the failure.

    If there was just one really revolutionary , fun game for it then I might be swayed. The problem is for me to believe that I would want to play said game somewhere, maybe at a friends house, in order to seal the deal and get me to buy one. And to this point besides one gadget and gaming accumulator where I work I don't know a single person I socialize with who owns one of these things.

    Where is this generations Katamari?

HELP!!!! I'm being held prisoner in /usr/games/lib!

Working...