Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Sony Businesses PlayStation (Games) The Almighty Buck

Sony CEO Confirms Limited $499 PS3 Stock 167

Posted by Zonk
from the please-make-the-prices-stop-spinning dept.
If you were confused about yesterday's stock announcement, you wouldn't be the only one. Thankfully Kaz Harai, SCEI CEO, has clarified the situation: the $499 60GB PlayStation 3 is a limited offering. They'll only be selling it here in the states until their current stock of the system is cleared out, at which point the only SKU remaining in the states will be the $599 80GB + Motorstorm bundle. The catch is that there is probably enough stock in hand for several months of sales at this price; hence the confusion yesterday about a 'fire sale'. Hirai confirmed this to a Norwegian videogame news site, and the video of the interview is available online. For some perspective, Next Generation has a commentary piece on this strange matter. "Now Sony looks as though it's been spinning consumers. The smart thing to have done would have been to come out and say that the 60Gig version is being discounted and discontinued, and that the bells-n-whistles PS3 at $599 is better value than ever. That didn't happen, and what many have seen as a pretty successful E3 for Sony has been marred by confusion over the future of the platform's strategy. So in those meetings next week, Sony will have cause to look back and consider how things might have been done better."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sony CEO Confirms Limited $499 PS3 Stock

Comments Filter:
  • Does anyone know the status of the backwards compatibility on the new PS3 model they're coming out with? Because I heard they were thinking of ditching it at some point. Will that be happening in the 80 gig model?
    • by Alaren (682568) on Saturday July 14, 2007 @02:25PM (#19861055)

      Backwards compatibility remains, but it will be in the form of software emulation (a la Europe's PS3s) instead of an in-built Emotion Engine chip. In other words, Sony is doing their best to stop hemorrhaging money on these systems.

      Price cut, indeed. Talk about trying to have your cake and eat it, too... all I can figure is that Sony must be trying to push units faster by letting everyone know that the $499 PS3 is a limited-time offer. I guess their PR machine just has too many cooks to get the broth right.

    • by DrXym (126579)
      The status is that it's software assisted. Part of the PS2 is now emulated but the GS chip is still present.

      The software assisted BC is not as good as hardware (obviously) but support is still very good.

    • by WIAKywbfatw (307557) on Saturday July 14, 2007 @04:24PM (#19861943) Journal
      Here, as I understand it, is the situation. Hopefully, if I get anything wrong someone will correct me...

      Backwards compatibility goes down with the newer 80GB US models.

      As others have pointed out, the newer systems lack an in-built Emotion Engine chip, so they rely on software emulation rather than hardware emulation.

      The emulation is decent, but it's far from perfect. Sony themselves quote a figure of 88 percent compatibility with the software emulation rather than 100 percent with the hardware emulation.

      And, even amongst those 88 percent of titles that work there are some glitches: it's not the case that 88 percent of titles work perfectly while 12 percent have some problems or won't run, rather it's the case that 12 percent won't run at all and 88 percent will run to some degree.

      You can read that many ways, but to me it seems to suggest that 88 percent is a marketing person's figure more than anything else: if a game won't get past a fixed point, it has audio or visual glitches all over the place, or if it falls over all the time then you're stretching things if you consider that game in your 88 percent.

      Of course, Sony isn't exactly advertising the fact that the newer 80GB models aren't as backwardly compatible as their predecessors. Granted, it won't matter to everyone, but it will matter to some, and those people won't thank Sony for their penny-pinching and shortsightedness.

      I don't know what the hell is going on with Sony. When it came to the original PlayStation they ran a flawless campaign and sucked millions of new users into the console market. With the PS2 they didn't put a foot wrong and cleaned up again. But with the PS3 it seems like they've decided to see how much they can piss away the goodwill generated by their previous two generations and opted for one boneheaded move after another.

      If they're not careful they're going to end up as yet another sorry story on fuckedcompany.com.
      • More info... (Score:5, Informative)

        by WIAKywbfatw (307557) on Saturday July 14, 2007 @04:37PM (#19862059) Journal
        More info, from Wikipedia's PS3 page:

        On March 20, 2007 Sony released a compatibility list; 1,782 of the 2,451 PS2 games (72%) released in Europe had noticeable issues, minor issues or no known issues, with the remainder being incompatible with the console.

        As I understand it, the European PS3's only had software emulation. So, by Sony's own admission, backwards compatibility is at 72 percent, and may actually be even lower than that.

        If I had any Sony stock I would have sold it a long time ago. These guys are finding new lows of stupidity every other day.
        • by antek9 (305362)
          Wow, what are you smoking today? ;) If 72% is not enough for you (I won't go into details about how much it matters WHAT games are within that number, if the 28% of incompatible games is just horrendous crap, then I won't shed any tears about it. So far, my Metal Gear Solid games worked flawlessly, ALL PS1 games seem to work, FFXII is what I started playing on the PS3, which had minor glitches at first, which are gone after the recent updates), then how does that compare to BC on the 360? Like, 20% at best?
          • Re:More info... (Score:4, Insightful)

            by WIAKywbfatw (307557) on Sunday July 15, 2007 @01:03AM (#19864895) Journal
            Over a quarter of games aren't going to run. Many of the rest are going to have some problems. What are the odds that all your favourite games won't be among them.

            When a company sells a product as being backward compatible then it should be backward compatible. For all titles, not just some. I don't care if they acheive that through hardware emulation or software emulation (there's no reason why Sony shouldn't be able to make a 100 percent effective software emulator, they do have unlimited access to all the hardware, source code, etc) but if they make a promise to their end-users then they should stick to it.

            In Sony's case, that promise was broken from day one in Europe and South Korea. Units for those markets never had in-built Emotion Engine chips, so not even early adopters in those markets had the chance to buy a totally compatible unit.

            Notice how Sony didn't pull that stunt out of the gate in either Japan or the US? Why do you think that might have been? Perhaps because it felt that it couldn't pull that kind of shit in either of those markets? Or perhaps it thought that if European and Korean gamers were crazy enough to pay its inflated prices (£425 in the UK, which is $850!) then it could shaft them further by removing hardware to cut costs.

            Now it seems, by stealth (because they sure aren't trumpeting the fact), Sony have done the same in the US. And, somehow, me pointing it out is offensive to you?

            I've owned more consoles/gaming PCs than most in my time. I have (or have had) an Atari 2600, a Commodore 128, an Atari ST-FM, an Atari STE, two Sega Megadrives (Genesis to you), two Atari Lynx (one of each model), a PC Engine, a PlayStation, a Dreamcast, and a PlayStation 2. I've also lived with friends that owned other consoles. There are few major console titles that I haven't played.

            Yet so far, I've yet to buy either a PS3, an Xbox 360 or a Nintendo Wii. Why? Because, so far, none of them has really engaged me in any way. I'm trying so hard to want to buy another Sony console but Sony itself seems to be coming up with more and more reasons why I shouldn't ever do that.

            It's a shame. All Sony had to do to earn my money was to not try to rip me off with a less than compatible unit (why didn't a single European PS3 have hardware emulation) and a price tag that was, even after accounting for taxes, 45 percent more than US gamers were paying for the same system.

            Thanks for the fanboi Sony vs Microsoft rant though. The all-caps "SONY"s were a nice touch.
            • by ArtDent (83554)
              Notice how Sony didn't pull that stunt out of the gate in either Japan or the US? Why do you think that might have been?

              Honestly, I think they had not intended to do software emulation until they had figured out what their price point was, and learned the prices of the competition. At that point, they started trying to figure out what they could cut to bring down the cost of the console. Having made the decision to try software emulation late in the game, it wouldn't have been ready when they began producti
        • Re:More info... (Score:4, Informative)

          by RzUpAnmsCwrds (262647) on Sunday July 15, 2007 @02:20AM (#19865203)
          To be fair, the 360 doesn't have great compatibility either (Wikipedia puts it at 42% with the July update). However, there are some differences:

          • Despite the fact that the 360's compatiblity is only 42%, the vast majority of that list works more or less perfectly. That's not to say that there aren't exceptions, but Microsoft appears to have at least tested the titles that they support
          • Microsoft never represented backwards compatibility as a major feature. Sony has taken every opportunity to trash Microsoft's poor compatibility and play up their better support. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, Sony is a lot more humble


          Honestly, I think that the BC on the non-EE PS3s is perfectly acceptable. Most people who are buying a PS3 at this point already have a PS2. Those who buy the console when it is more mature (e.g. cheaper) will have a good library of PS3 titles to choose from, and BC may be better by then.

          However, Sony's marketing is shit. The PS3 is actually a pretty damned good console. It has a lot of nice features (Blu-Ray, Linux, web browser, upgradable HDD, built-in WiFi) that the 360 lacks, but it has two problems: it's too damned expensive, and Sony's hubris has shot themselves in the foot.

          It's OK to be enthusiastic about your product. But don't piss on us by doing a non-price-drop-price-drop. You're clearing out old inventory of 60GB PS3s, which is fine, but don't dick us around by pretending it's a price cut and then later "clarifying" that it's a limited time thing. This is a firesale. Don't dress it up another way because you produced too damn many 60GB PS3s and they are going to take months to sell at your current lousy rate.

          Your hardware is fine, Sony. But your customers will only take so much shit.
          • by BrerBear (8338)

            Despite the fact that the 360's compatiblity is only 42%, the vast majority of that list works more or less perfectly. That's not to say that there aren't exceptions, but Microsoft appears to have at least tested the titles that they support

            You've got to be kidding. We've tried running many of our old Xbox games on my 360, and the "supported" titles have major issue.

            * Munch's Oddysee is unplayable because the character voices in game are all distorted like they're spoken underwater. Been in their supported list for ages.
            * Knights of the Old Republic and lots of other titles have terrible frame rates that make them a chore to play.

            We were looking forward to finishing some of our old Xbox games on the new hardware, but just gave up. Granted, th

            • by BrerBear (8338)
              Looks like the 360 compatibility page [wikipedia.org] on Wikipedia confirms my experiences... not so great. Lots of slowdowns and bugs.
            • by steveo777 (183629)
              Knights of the Old Republic... have terrible frame rates that make them a chore to play.

              Both KotORs had bad frame rates on the XBox anyway. Shouldn't be anything new.

    • by donaldm (919619)
      At the moment PS2 backwards compatibility on the PS3 with emulation software is approx 80% to 90% compared to the Xbox360's 38% as per last week. To put this in perspective from the time of the EU/UK/Aust/NZ released on the 23rd of March 2007 and with firmware 1.8 (23rd May 2007) the PS3 was able to play without issues over 80% of all PS2 games was approx 2 months while for the Xbox360 to get to 38% took over two years. Read in to that what you may.

      It is difficult to determine what PS2 games don't play si
  • by MankyD (567984) on Saturday July 14, 2007 @02:24PM (#19861047) Homepage

    So in those meetings next week, Sony will have cause to look back and consider how things might have been done better."
    Not to be too cruel, but I think that Sony already had several reasons to do this with the PS3.
  • Stop Saying 'SKU' (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hardburn (141468) <hardburn@@@wumpus-cave...net> on Saturday July 14, 2007 @02:26PM (#19861057)

    Stop using 'SKU' in news stories and posts. The word has no meaning outside internal retail outlets and distributors. Saying it makes you sound like a marketdroid.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      This message is encoded ROT0. Decoding is punishable by death under the DMCA.
      Stop using ROT0 and DMCA in post sigs. ROT0 has no meaning in terms of sigs, and DMCA has no significance outside the US.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by log0n (18224)
      Agreed.. this has been bugging me (and therefore everyone :) for quite a while. Gives the person using it the whole 'buzzword to compensate' impression.
    • Re:Stop Saying 'SKU' (Score:4, Informative)

      by MaineCoon (12585) on Saturday July 14, 2007 @03:28PM (#19861491) Homepage
      The term is used extensively in the games industry as well.

      When a game is being developed for multiple consoles, each target platform version of the game (the PS3 version, the 360 version, etc) is referred to as a different SKU, even though it may be developed simultaneously and we aren't making the game differently for the different consoles (beyond platform-specific code and perhaps minor asset changes).
      • I never do this, but I must. The parent is correct. SKU is a game industry term, this is a story about the game industry, stop complaining about our vernacular. 3 SKU means there's three different versions of a product/game (3 platforms, 2 platforms, 1 special edition, or Halo 3's 1 normal, 1 special, and 1 uber special edition). Microsoft has 4 360 Console SKUs in america, meaning there's 4 different versions (core, premium, elite, and now halo 3).
        • by Nasarius (593729)

          SKU is a game industry term
          Uh...no [wikipedia.org].
          • by kinglink (195330)
            Uhh Yeah? Us in the industry, use that as an term. It's the same meaning as the retail industry, but that doesn't mean the games industry doesn't also use it in a very similar way.

            Or have most of you guys forgot the Games industry deals with retail very closely at the end of a game's development cycle?
        • by Lisandro (799651)
          KU is a game industry term, this is a story about the game industry, stop complaining about our vernacular.

          Um, no. SKU [wikipedia.org] is NOT a game industry term, it's a term used internally by any industry that offers products and/or services to customers. Saying that, and i quote, "at which point the only SKU remaining in the states will be the $599 80GB + Motorstorm bundle", is as retarded as saying that after selling some books you're left with only one ISBN [wikipedia.org]. You are left with a stock of only one product, which happen
      • "When a game is being developed for multiple consoles, each target platform version of the game (the PS3 version, the 360 version, etc) is referred to as a different SKU, even though it may be developed simultaneously and we aren't making the game differently for the different consoles (beyond platform-specific code and perhaps minor asset changes)."

        I learned what a SKU is because of Sony. Around XMas time, 2005, Sony had a deal where you could get a PSP + a 1 gig memory card + a couple of other doodads fo
    • "The word has no meaning outside internal retail outlets and distributors."

      Really? [reference.com] Do you have to have a license to use that word or something?
    • by LKM (227954)
      Saying "SKU" instead of something like "model" is an annoying habbit, but I can just read over it. What's really annoying is that every /. post and comment containing the word "SKU" is invariably followed by dozens of posts complaining about it. Just ignore the damn thing.
      • by Babbster (107076)
        What makes the complaints even more deliciously irritating is that they're not really complaining that the term is inaccurate. They, apparently, just don't like the way the acronym sounds/reads. That, to me, is the reason to get over it - the term is being used properly. It would be like getting angry because a person says "pop" instead of "soft drink."
    • by nuzak (959558)
      Look, when you're talking about a particular model at a particular price for a particular sales period, using "SKU" is actually appropriate.

      But yeah, most people use it wrong. "Price point" also irks me the same way.
    • by DeeDob (966086)
      Because it's "internal" by your definition, no one should speak the word?

      It's not as if you have to be a member of the selective "internal retail outlets and distributors" club in order to be able to understand and speak the "SKU" word.

      Everyone understands what a SKU is, therefore the word HAS meaning outside the limited use you want to give it.

      "Two PS3 models" is the same as saying "Two PS3 SKUS" as they are effectively a different product.
  • This 60GB PS3 will be the last available model in north america with the PS2 compatibility 100% in hardware, no software emulation?

    Anyone playing FF XI on a PS3? Any screenshots comparison with the Xbox 360 version?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Reapman (740286)
      No, and I haven't even bothered... basically FFXI runs just like on the PS2... you'll get upsampled, but if you want the gorgeous graphics of the 360, you'll NEED a 360 (or PC)

      I'd kill for a PS3 port of it, but I know I'm one of the few.
      • by Yvan256 (722131)
        Well, if you take into account that I'm playing on a 4:3 36" CRT in 480p, I don't know if I'd see much of a difference given the upsampling of the PS3. All I know is that FF XI keeps the DVD drive active and my Xbox 360 sounds like a jet about to take off. I know it's mainly the DVD drive, but still, it sucks - I'm used to the silence of my Mac mini.

        • by Reapman (740286)
          Hmm well no idea how FFXI as a PS2 game would handle the PS3, but in general my PS3 is VERY quiet. It does get a bit loud if I'm playing something intense, but it's quieter then the 360's I've played (just my own experiences talkin here) I'm guessing a PS2 game isn't that intense so it might be a lot quieter.
          • by Yvan256 (722131)
            It's more the fact that FF XI seems to keep the DVD drive active no matter what the game is doing (at least on Windows and Xbox 360), I've never seen FF XI on the PS2.

            • by Cutriss (262920)
              Good weather effects, horrible resolution, choppy framerates with effects on. No need to have the disc in to play. In short, it's useful if you've got a spouse that doesn't care so much about the bells and whistles but just wants to play, or if you want a power-cheap machine to idle-bazaar with.

              Why the 360 version requires the disc inserted to play is utterly beyond me.
  • Good Ole Sony (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dunezone (899268) on Saturday July 14, 2007 @02:54PM (#19861269) Journal
    What I found awesome about this how situation is how Sony presented it to us.

    On Monday they announced the price cut of the console. Gamers were excited.

    On Wednesday they showed off whats to come to the console. Gamers were amazed.

    By Thursday, early reports were coming in that the price drop was limited.

    At this point we were all fooled by Sony once again. They showed us all their new products and I will admit some of which look really cool. Then they tried to slip this under the radar without anyone noticing. That would of worked ten years ago without much notice but its not that easy today

    Whats worst of all though, when their done selling the 60gig model, all you have is a 80gig model which is actually more crippled then then the launch model which had the emotion engine for backward compatibility.
    • by Rosyna (80334)
      Whats worst of all though, when their done selling the 60gig model, all you have is a 80gig model which is actually more crippled then then the launch model which had the emotion engine for backward compatibility.

      So you had better go and buy the 60gig $500 version now, before they go out of stock.
    • And yet Microsoft admitted in a conference call recently that _EVERY_ 360 that has been sold has the potential for the RROD, and they are taking a $1 billion charge against having to fix _ALL_ of them. That's as close to admitting a severe design flaw as I've seen so far... Of course it doesn't fix the problem... because what of those consoles that last beyond the warranty by a week or a month? The flaw manifests itself differently and some people will _STILL_ be SOL... but removing the EE from PS3's is
    • by elrous0 (869638) *
      Sony has a LONG history of hype, and a long trail of broken promises. This is hardly unique to this generation. Another hidden secret of Sony's glitzy presentation was the well-disguised fact that most of the games they showed don't even have released dates yet (and most of the ones that do are slated for "sometime in 2008"). Contrast that with the MS show, where almost every game shown is coming out THIS YEAR. Not as much flash to MS's show, but WAY more substance.
  • Sony sells a bunch of PS3s at $500, getting their marketshare up and bolstering the confidence of third-party developers, then when they've done that they sell a slightly better PS3 exclusively at $600, hoping that the better line-up (and, hopefully, better press) at that point will keep sales going.

    I don't know if this will work or just bite them in the ass. I think it would've been a good idea to sell the new PS3 at $550 and leave Motorstorm out of it, and maybe a better idea to just sell the 60GB PS3 at
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by alvinrod (889928)
      I think that their best bet would be to sell the currently available 60 GB models at $500 until their supply runs out and then immediately drop the 80 GB model down to $500, or possibly even lower in time for the holidays. Sony has a lot of inventory to move and if they're hoping to meet their sales goals that they set at E3, they really need to drop the price down to about $400.

      I can easily see Microsoft releasing a new version of their hardware in time for the holidays and having a firesale of their own o
    • by 7Prime (871679)
      Well, considering that a game disc costs next to nothing to produce, by including it and adding $50, they've just made $50 on every console, or at least insured a sale of Motorstorm with every console. "Leaving Motorstorm Out" doesn't save them any money. Remember, this is all about them, not about us.

      BTW: WTF is o great about Motorstorm anyway? I played it in a GameStop, and it basically seemed like a less-fun version of Excite Truck. Kinda sad when one of the biggest games for the PS3 is comparable to one
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by LKM (227954)

        BTW: WTF is o great about Motorstorm anyway? I played it in a GameStop, and it basically seemed like a less-fun version of Excite Truck. Kinda sad when one of the biggest games for the PS3 is comparable to one of the lower-rated games on the Wii.

        While I personally agree that Motorstorm (at least at first) feels like a slow, boring version of Excite Truck, the two games aren't really comparable. Despite both being arcade offroad racers, they are very different games. Excite Truck is a fast and insane with huge jumps. Large parts of the game are played in the air, and often, you don't control your car as much as trying to constantly do damage control at superhigh speeds.

        Motorstorm is much more of a simulation. You have to read the tracks, try to n

    • People seem to have forgotten that there already was a $500 PS3, right at launch. The 20 GB version. Basically it wasn't worth paying out the extra hundred bucks for what the 60GB version came with.
      That didn't seem to do any wonders to their sales numbers, so I doubt if this will.
      • by Pluvius (734915)
        People seem to have forgotten that there already was a $500 PS3, right at launch.

        That's probably because it might as well not even have existed considering the low quantities in which it was produced.

        Rob
    • by donaldm (919619)
      In Australia the PS3 is now selling with "pack-ins", however while this effectively brings the PS3 down to approx AU$830 (US$721) including GST the pack-ins may not be what you want. The Xbox360 plus 20GB disk and Gold online subscription on the other hand sells for approx AU$650 (US$564) with Halo 3 when it comes out but if you want a 120GB disk you can't get it although a good guess on price when it comes out is approx AU$200+ (the 20GB disk sells for AU$160) although it would not surprise me if the 120GB
  • by Hawthorne01 (575586) on Saturday July 14, 2007 @03:01PM (#19861319)
    1. Load gun.
    2. Aim at foot.
    3. Shoot.
    4. Repeat as often as possible.

    (Yes, I know, "Step 5: Profit!" should go there, but seriously, have you looked at their quarterly reports recently?)
    • Yes, I know, "Step 5: Profit!" should go there, but seriously, have you looked at their quarterly reports recently?

      No, but having a glance at their net profits for their past fiscal year ending on 3/2007, they're still making over $1 billion.
      • by Wdomburg (141264)
        Look just at the game division and the picture isn't very rosy - net loss of $1,969M for the fiscal year.

        The final quarter of their 2006 fiscal year was also ... disappointing, with a posted loss of $573M.
  • You know... a lot of the problems that Sony has had recently are not necessarily the action they took. Discounting this version of the product so you can introduce an improved* version can be a great move. The quote in the summary brings up a good point, though - it's about their PR! They had a chance to make this great PR, or at least "neutral", but they instead choose to confuse everybody with this idiocy.

    I think this has been typical of a lot of their boneheaded moves in the last few years; they have some brain-damaged idea they want to accomplish with the PR, and end up totally screwing the entire announcement. Someone needs to fire the entire PR department over there. It's really damaging their reputation in ways way above and beyond their "normal fuck-ups".

    (*) - for some definitions of "improved", which is not really relevant to this point
    • Hey, I'm no expert, but I'd imagine that this *isn't* the PR departments fault. I imagine that Sony execs do whatever bullheaded nonsense they want (like this fiasco) and then when PR goes, "Whoa, whoa! If you do that you're really going to piss people off!" they just get a cold reply of, "Well, we're going ahead with it. You're PR. You fix it."

      And that's why you see Sony PR guys always desperately spouting whatever bullshit they can muster to defend Sony. They know Sony is being ludacris, but their
  • If I was Howard Stringer the first thing I would do is fire the entire marketing staff. So far their advertising and handling of everything related to the PS3 has been bungled. From the crying baby advertisements that were outweirded only by Sega's Dreamcast campaign, the early arrogance in the press, to the latest price cut, its not a price cut debacle there hasnt been one element of their PR that has worked in their favor.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by rlp (11898)
      You left out the "Goat Sacrifice" event to promote "God of War II". And just about every recent public pronouncement of Ken "PS3 is too cheap" Kutaragi.
      • by grapeape (137008)
        Uggh I had blocked the goat thing from my mind. After thinking about it things have really been going downhill on the PR side since that whole black vs white and graffiti PSP campaigns long before the PS3, you would think after those they would have shifted gears a bit.
    • by Kelbear (870538)
      Don't forget the PS3 ad with the football(soccer) fanboy sitting naked except for a jockstrap on his bed fapping to a football game.

      And the busty blonde in a pink bikini telling audiences a story about her mom while sitting on the porcelain throne, panties down.
  • New Rumor (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mrshowtime (562809) on Saturday July 14, 2007 @04:02PM (#19861765)
    There is a new rumor that the 360 will drop to $199 for the core and $250 for the "real" 360. If this rumor holds true, then Sony might as well pack it in, as there is no way a $599 system will be able to compete against a system that is 90% it's capability at more than 1/3rd the price. Sony Bots have been touting the "Incredible capability" of the PS3 and what an awesome value it is. My biggest question is why the PS3 is not significantly better than the 360, especially given the year's lead time? I own a PS3 and a 360, so don't mark me as a flamebait. I am still smarting after this past Christmas day when my friends (all in their 30's, who have owned every game system ever, like me) came over to see the PS3 and play Resistance: Fall of Man. They could not stop laughing at me and the game. The consensus was, "You paid $800 for this?!"
    • Only 1/6 as good (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Tony (765)
      As I see it, the XBox 360 is only about 1/6 as good as the PS3, and isn't that much cheaper.

      First, the price: Microsoft charges for XBox Live. A couple of years of XBox live subscription pretty much wipes out any price advantage over the PS3. And I suspect the PS3 will continue to see price drops, but XBox Live will not. So, in the long run, the PS3 will be a bit cheaper. Not by much, but by a bit.

      As far as the "goodness" of the system, the 360 is limited by the DVD, *not* by the hardware. The 360 has a bet
      • I realize the system is hardcore system, and for that reason the average interest in various features will be different. However, I thought I'd clarify a few things.

        1. Live - While online play is increasingly important, the majority of console gamers still don't care. For gamers who don't care about online play, this is a non-issue.

        2. Thus far, none of the cross platform games have shown significant differences between the 360 and the PS3. If content is being sacrificed currently, it's being sacrificed on b
      • There is little doubt that the PS3 is more "future-proof" (thanks to blu-ray) and has generally more "muscle" than the 360. But that will do them little good if no one buys the damn thing (that $600 price tag is KILLING them) and the games aren't there (so far, they've made a lot of promises in this arena, but delivered on none). For all the glitz of the Sony presentation at E3 (compared to the Microsoft presentation) all the games that MS showed will be out THIS YEAR--and most of the Sony games shown eithe
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by tjrw (22407)
      "My biggest question is why the PS3 is not significantly better than the 360, especially given the year's lead time?"

      Because they held up delivery and screwed themselves over by sacrificing themselves on the altar of the entertainment division (a common theme at Sony, sigh). If they had said "to hell with Blu-Ray" and just aimed to get a games machine out there, they would have had it to market much earlier. But therein lies the tragedy of the PS3. They wanted everything. They wanted it to be the trojan hor
  • So from what I gather, the 80GB PS3 is going to be like the European models, but with an additional 20 GB. Are there no more benefits other than a larger hard drive and the removal of the emotion chip? I mean, for the 60GB over the 20GB, there was the built-in Wifi, card readers, etc. So what I'm trying to get at here is this: Why shouldn't I just get a 60GB PS3 for $500, then swap the default hard drive with a larger hard drive if the 60GB ever gets filled up?
    • by DeeDob (966086)
      Why shouldn't I just get a 60GB PS3 for $500, then swap the default hard drive with a larger hard drive if the 60GB ever gets filled up?

      Because the 60GB PS3 will no longer be available. When they are sold out, they won't make them anymore, like TFA says. You won't find a PS3 for "only" 500$, you'll HAVE to fork money for the extra 20GB and Motorstorm and forget the fact that you have less BC.

  • WTFH (Score:4, Interesting)

    by shoptroll (544006) on Sunday July 15, 2007 @08:02AM (#19866353)
    You know, it's no wonder the PS3 is selling as bad as it is. How can anyone take this company or division seriously when you have an executive in Europe saying "they're doing this to clear out units", the American executive saying "it's not a fire sale" and then the head executive in Japan saying "the Euro guy was right but he forgot to mention we have enough stock to last a few months". I'll admit Nintendo's done some stuff like this before, like when people were trying to find out if the Wii was region-free, but when you have a system that isn't selling, it's not the time to be displaying confusion and incompetence of this magnitude.

    It's really starting to get really hard to understand the truth in any news that comes from Sony these days. These guys should run for Congress.
    • Well it is easy
      1. Listen to what the european CEO has to say, and take it seriously
      2. Wait for the american CEO to start to cry and start to watch the show with a package of popcorn
      3. Wait for the official confirmation of Japan then you know the show is over :-)
  • From a PR perspective, I completely agree that Sony has screwed [joystiq.com] the pooch [next-gen.biz] on managing consumer opinions, at least within the industry. Outside, however, the average consumer just sees a $499 60GB PS3 on sale.

    I disagree with the people that insist Sony is driving for some "magic" $599 price point. If it were, I think the sales spike the will see from this price drop will convince them otherwise. The reality for Sony is that they have a huge number of 60GB systems collecting dust on store shelves. The st

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Babbster (107076)
      It's long past time to call Sony's tactics for exactly what they are, from the PS3's beginning to right now: "Bait and switch." First, they released the $500 20GB version in such small quantities that people couldn't find them, then they discontinued them completely. Now, they've managed to convince people that selling a 60GB console at $500 constitutes a "price cut" (kids, if a console is $500/600 at launch and is $500/600 today, there's been no price cut), only to admit that they've discontinued that m

Old programmers never die, they just branch to a new address.

Working...