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

 



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

Game Publishers Pressuring Sony For PS3 Price Cut 232

Posted by Soulskill
from the i-can-get-behind-that dept.
Bloomberg is running a story about several video game publishers and developers who are pushing for a long overdue price cut on Sony's PS3 console. Sales of the PS3 are lagging behind both the Wii and the Xbox 360 despite the PS2's resounding victory in sales of the previous generation of consoles. One of the creators of LittleBigPlanet, a PS3 exclusive, made similar comments in an interview with Gamasutra, acknowledging that they're looking forward to the day Sony drops the PS3's price. An analyst from Janco said such an action is necessary if Sony doesn't want to "lose support from game developers and publishers."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Game Publishers Pressuring Sony For PS3 Price Cut

Comments Filter:
  • by Macthorpe (960048) on Wednesday March 18, 2009 @05:34AM (#27238855) Journal

    The only way Sony can win is if they pretend they're not competing with Nintendo, [guardian.co.uk] and say that the Xbox 360 will be surpassed in 10 years. This conveniently ignores the high probability that the PS3 will be completely dead in ten years if they don't do something now.

    Kaz Hirai is a lunatic and he's going to run the PS3 into the ground.

    • by Nested (981630) on Wednesday March 18, 2009 @05:47AM (#27238909)
      Xbox 360 will be surpassed in 10 years

      I agree with your post. There's zero chance Microsoft will wait seven more years before releasing the next Xbox. Additionally, any student of MS product history will know that by version 3 of a product they've usually got the formula down and understand the market pretty well. Looking at the 360 and knowing how bad MS wants this market should keep Sony up a little later each night.
      • by samkass (174571)

        But eventually Microsoft will have to stop subsidizing the XBox by diverting Windows and Office money to it. Anyone who's bought an XBox or XBox360 at the loss-leading prices Microsoft charges is benefiting from the Microsoft Windows/Office monopoly. Considering the billions the division has lost and the fact that even now it's barely break-even, it's going to be many many years before you could consider Microsoft truly competitive in this market.

      • Additionally, any student of MS product history ...

        Now THERE is a useless major. I thought "Communications" was bad, at least they can get hired by more than one company.

    • by tomhudson (43916) <barbara.hudson@nOSpaM.barbara-hudson.com> on Wednesday March 18, 2009 @06:11AM (#27239021) Journal

      The only way Sony can win is if they pretend they're not competing with Nintendo,

      The reality is that they aren't competing with Nintendo - it's not even close.

      People rationalized the purchase of a PS3 by saying to themselves "well, I get a blu-ray player "free" with it" ... but now that blu-ray players are under $200, that rationalization is gone - you can buy either competitor + a stand-alone BD player for the same or less. and if you're not in the market for a BD player, then it's no contest, price-wise.

      • by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Wednesday March 18, 2009 @07:17AM (#27239403) Homepage Journal

        People rationalized the purchase of a PS3 by saying to themselves "well, I get a blu-ray player "free" with it" ... but now that blu-ray players are under $200, that rationalization is gone - you can buy either competitor + a stand-alone BD player for the same or less. and if you're not in the market for a BD player, then it's no contest, price-wise.

        Yes, just like the PS2 and DVD. The problem is that everyone HAD to have DVD, and everyone HAD to have a PS2 - the original Playstation having been the most badass system ever, right? (It was pretty fantastic.) The PS3 had a lot of competition, and it has failed to compete. Xbox 360 is just as fast, if not faster. Wii is cheaper and, you know, innovative. Like we always said we wanted, and we got it, and guess what? We did want it. And while we could all benefit from DVD, not all of us have the 1080i/p display that is necessary to derive any actual benefit from it.

        • And while we could all benefit from DVD, not all of us have the 1080i/p display that is necessary to derive any actual benefit from it.

          True, DVD had the advantage of no rewinding. But at the time, a lot of paid-for TVs had no composite input jack, only an RF jack. The $25 RF modulators brought DVD's picture quality down near VHS's.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by drinkypoo (153816)

            True, DVD had the advantage of no rewinding. But at the time, a lot of paid-for TVs had no composite input jack, only an RF jack. The $25 RF modulators brought DVD's picture quality down near VHS's.

            This is a lot of nonsense. I have a crappy Philips TV with a composite jack and an RF jack. I get basically the same picture whether I hook a player up to the Composite directly, or use the RF. In fact, my Xbox is connected to my TV via RF, through my Panasonic S-VHS which is basically just converting S-Video to RF. I realize that the conventional wisdom is that there is less bandwidth available for RF and so anything else should look better. In practice, the composite input is usually very poorly implement

            • by tepples (727027)

              I have a crappy Philips TV with a composite jack and an RF jack. I get basically the same picture whether I hook a player up to the Composite directly, or use the RF.

              But do you get the same picture if you use a VHS VCR, which most of DVD's target audience in the late 1990s already owned, as your RF modulator?

              • by drinkypoo (153816)

                But do you get the same picture if you use a VHS VCR, which most of DVD's target audience in the late 1990s already owned, as your RF modulator?

                No, but that's irrelevant. Only the signal between the system and the RF modulator is relevant. All Playstation consoles can provide at least an S-Video signal, although to be honest I don't know what was actually used on the later model Playstations. Early model systems used composite-to-RF. As I recall, it wasn't that bad. The connector layout on the back included power so that the RF converter component could be active, and was borrowed from Sony Camcorders.

        • And while we could all benefit from DVD, not all of us have the 1080i/p display that is necessary to derive any actual benefit from it.

          DVDs worked wonders for users of the pirate bay.

          Do you know how frigging hard it is to digitally rip a VHS tape?

          :(

      • by EdZ (755139)

        People rationalized the purchase of a PS3 by saying to themselves "well, I get a blu-ray player "free" with it"

        Really? I rationalised my purchase with "Well, it has exclusive games I want to play". It is a games console after all, that's what it's for

        • by DrWho520 (655973)
          Which games are you playing on the PS3?
        • You play games on your PS3? It's other functions are so useful that I actually play games less than I use the GameOS functions or run Linux on it, but I do use it... a lot.

      • People rationalized the purchase of a PS3 by saying to themselves "well, I get a blu-ray player "free" with it"

        For me it was "I get a Blu-Ray player that also plays Ratchet & Clank".

        The R&C games are like digital crack to me. :-) I loved Uncharted and the Resistance games as well, and Infamous is nearly here.

        I own all three consoles, and still play the XBox 360 the most, but with Insomniac, Naughty Dog and Sucker Punch developing PS3 games in full force now, I expect much better things.

      • Sony is right - the PS3 doesn't compete directly with the Wii. However, in bang for the buck it surpasses the 360.

        New PS3 80GB = $400.
        Wireless Networking = built in
        Network Gaming = free
        Blu-ray = included
        ----------------------
        TOTAL = $400

        Xbox 360 60GB = $300.
        Xbox Wireless Adapter = $87
        Network gaming = $78 (covers your first 26 months only.)
        Cheapest Blu-ray player on Amazon = $175
        ----------------------
        TOTAL = $640

        For an extra $240, you get a system with a smaller drive and an inferior Blu-ray player, and that

        • Personally, the reason that I don't have a PS3 is not because it's too expensive or has no games, or that Home sucks. It's a combination of these things. Given the choice between the xbox and PS3, it's no contest. The xbox is cheaper (I have cat6 runs all over the place), has more games, and has an online service that is top notch.

          Some people complain that you have to pay for Live, but if you buy the year membership, it works out to like $.16 a day. As someone else put it "you could literally pay for l
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Macthorpe (960048)

          The PS3 costs more because it comes with more.

          Yes, but I can't drop any of it to drop the price. The fact is, here in the UK I can get a 60GB 360 here for just over $200. The cheapest PS3 bundle is $400. Which do you think people are going to look at first?

          Also, 'bang for the buck' implies that games are better quality on the PS3 - which just isn't true. When you actually compare them as consoles, rather than as multimedia centres, the Xbox 360 looks just as good as the PS3 and is half the price.

        • by Blakey Rat (99501)

          Ok; so where can I buy a PS3 without wireless networking (which I don't need) or Blu-Ray (which I don't care about)? By your reckoning that should cost about $140 right? ($400 - $175 Blu-Ray - $87 wifi) Which store do I pick it up at?

          BTW, Sony Home might be free compared to Xbox Live Gold, but it's also only comparable to Xbox Live Silver, which is also free. If that makes sense.

    • by Blakey Rat (99501)

      Kaz Hirai is a lunatic and he's going to run the PS3 into the ground.

      While I agree with you, what are we going to do for entertainment when that happens!?

      I'd like to recommend Sony hire this guy to head the PS4 department: http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/ [welovethei...nister.com]

  • i get the feeling the title of this pose is true, i wonder if easier to pirate PS3 games would results in more PS3 sales, and as a result more legitimate game sales
    • by Fr05t (69968)

      It's already easy to pirate everything else. I've had several friends buy PS3s once they realized it will play almost anything (mp3, wmv, divx, etc) without any DRM. Plus it upscales and looks great. When you add up the price of a great Bluray player (not all are created equal), an upconverting dvd player which plays divx, and a console the price isn't hard to justify.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Saffaya (702234)

        If only it could play PS2 games, I would be more tempted to acquire one.
        I play in progrssive scan since the DreamCast, and would like to try some of the best games that the PS2 has.

        But I'm afraid for Sony that PC-based emulators will get enough power with quad-cores CPU to run PS2 games flawlessly before they manage to provide a back-compatible PS3 again.

      • by Blakey Rat (99501)

        ... except the Xbox 360 can play all those formats, as well, so that's not really something that pushes Sony ahead.

  • I want a PS3 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by squoozer (730327) on Wednesday March 18, 2009 @05:55AM (#27238943)

    I've never owned a console but lately I've been considering getting a PS3. The only thing stopping me is the price which when compared to the 360 is just plain silly. It's not that I can't afford the PS3 at the current price I just can't justify paying more than double the price of the 360 for something that is only a little better. The price of the PS3 really pushes it into the luxury / enthusiast bracket for me. I want something I can just kick back on occasionally not something where I feel guilty for not using it because I've spent a fortune on it.

    Just my 1c worth.

    • by Tridus (79566)

      Well, I own both of them. I only paid for the PS3 (the 360 was a gift because I refused to buy one due to the RROD). RROD jokes aside, I actually use the 360 more for games. Mostly it's due to the controller, which on the 360 is FAR better then the PS3 one.

      That's even before you count the stupidity of having to charge the PS3 controller by plugging it into the system, and leaving the system on for hours. On the 360, I just swap out a pair of rechargable AA batteries (conveniently the same ones that the Wii

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by feepness (543479)

        That's even before you count the stupidity of having to charge the PS3 controller by plugging it into the system, and leaving the system on for hours. On the 360, I just swap out a pair of rechargable AA batteries (conveniently the same ones that the Wii uses) and go right back to it.

        The PS3 controllers will charge off any mini-usb plug. I think I have a dozen lying around right now. I try to avoid hardware unless it charges through that.

      • by ookaze (227977)

        Mostly it's due to the controller, which on the 360 is FAR better then the PS3 one.

        Actually, that depends on preferences and the kind of games you play. The XB360's D-pad is notoriously flawed, so not good at all for fighting games for example.

        Anyway, all of this doesn't matter.
        What will make you want to buy the console are some features (like no region lock for example), and mainly the games, or rather exclusive games.

      • F to the Y to the I, with the 360 rechargable kit, you plug in the controller, and turn off the 360. It will leave the USB port powered, to recharge the controller; once the controller's fully charged, the 360 will depower the USB port. Pretty slick.

        Oh, and the rechargable battery pack just replaces the AA pack, so you can switch back as required.

    • by feepness (543479)
      I consider it a much higher value, even without the massive RROD issues considered.

      While BluRay players are dropping in the sub $200 range, it is nice to have all contained in one unit and to be able to keep stuff on the PS3 harddrive which the low end Xbox doesn't have. And there are things on the PS3 that are simply stunning which I haven't seen on the Xbox. There are a huge number of exclusives coming out as well. I'm a baseball fan and between MLB09 on the PS3 and 2K9 on the XBox... well... it was
    • Re:I want a PS3 (Score:4, Informative)

      by Lumpy (12016) on Wednesday March 18, 2009 @07:15AM (#27239395) Homepage

      you are forgetting something.

      The Xbox360 as it is CAN NOT PLAY ONLINE without you buying a gold membership. Some of the new games will play with the free membership but an Xbox 360 costs you an additional $59.00US a year to own if you want to play online.

      • The Xbox360 as it is CAN NOT PLAY ONLINE without you buying a gold membership.

        Nor can the Wii, unless you have friends from the real world who happen to own a copy of the same game. Nintendo WFC does not have lobbies. Either you play with friend codes that have been exchanged mutually out of band, or you play against anonymous opponents that are indistinguishable from CPU opponents.

        • by bilbravo (763359)
          The Wii most certainly can play games online without buying a membership. You even said so yourself.

          Just because the anonymous users are anonymous does not negate the fact that you are playing games against human players. If they are indistinguishable from CPU opponents then 1) the game has great AI or 2) the human players are horrible. :-)
          • by tepples (727027)

            The Wii most certainly can play games online without buying a membership.

            But can you even tell you're online, other than that it's laggier?

            Just because the anonymous users are anonymous does not negate the fact that you are playing games against human players.

            Some games are friend-code-only, such as Animal Crossing: Wild World and Animal Crossing: City Folk.

            If they are indistinguishable from CPU opponents then 1) the game has great AI or 2) the human players are horrible. :-)

            When Tetris DS was popular, most human players were horrible. As long as you were rated below 6500 in standard 2-player, the level 5 CPU opponent (Bowser) would hand you your behind more often than not.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by ookaze (227977)

          So basically you contradict yourself ?
          You CAN PLAY the Wii ONLINE without having to pay anything more.
          The XB360 is the only console that requires that you pay a yearly or monthly fee to play online against others.

          • by tepples (727027)

            You CAN PLAY the Wii ONLINE without having to pay anything more.

            Let me put it another way: With the Wii, how do I get friend codes without paying to join some AFK club? Nintendo doesn't want players posting friend codes online; they're considered "personal information".

            • What makes you think Nintendo cares? They may warn you not to share if you don't want to play with strangers but I doubt they really care if you do end up playing with strangers. The problem I've heard is that there are so few games that actually have online play.
              • by tepples (727027)

                What makes you think Nintendo cares?

                The NSider forum TOS banned sharing friend codes. (This policy changed once NSider left Nintendo.com for NSider2.com.)

      • Re:I want a PS3 (Score:5, Informative)

        by hansamurai (907719) <hansamurai@gmail.com> on Wednesday March 18, 2009 @07:56AM (#27239747) Homepage Journal

        For the record, it doesn't cost anywhere near $59.00 a year, heck, the MSRP is 49.99. Amazon is selling the 13 month Live cards for $38.99. I bought mine from them a few months ago for something like $29.99.

        http://www.amazon.com/Xbox-360-Live-Month-Gold-Bonus/dp/B000B9RI00 [amazon.com]

        • by Lumpy (12016)

          doesn't cost anywhere near $59.00 a year, heck, the MSRP is 49.99 MOST people buy their cards at walmart or other stores, incredibly few but it online and wait a week for the card to show so they can use it.

          Many places like California and Chicago have the cards in store for that price and if you give them your CC# Microsoft happily charges you MSRP online.

          SO yes Many places it IS more expensive. and YES if you are savvy enough to go looking for a deal you can find them. Remember most consumers are NOT SAV

      • by bilbravo (763359)
        I don't own an Xbox360, but even I know that a gold membership does not cost $59.00 US. In fact if you deal shop, you can usually get a 12 (I think it's 12 + 1 actually) month card for between $35-40 USD.
      • by frission (676318)
        yes, not only that, but you CAN get good deals on PS3s already if people look a little harder. For example, they were running a promo, where if you opened up a Sony credit card (I think through chase) you got $150 off your first purchase. so, $400 (retail PS3) - $150= $250. That means you CAN get a PS3 for the same price as a Wii, and you get the BD player, etc...
      • by Blakey Rat (99501)

        Some of the new games will play with the free membership but an Xbox 360 costs you an additional $59.00US a year to own if you want to play online.

        You're either spreading FUD, or getting ripped-off. The LIST price is $49.99 for 13 months, but you can easily find them for $35-40 if you even bother looking. Hell, here's the first entry on the Amazon search: http://www.amazon.com/Xbox-360-Live-Month-Gold-Bonus/dp/B000B9RI00/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1237408682&sr=8-1 [amazon.com]

        Anyway, the theor

  • by ernest.cunningham (972490) on Wednesday March 18, 2009 @06:33AM (#27239153) Homepage
    Own all three. PS3 is a great gaming system with really nice media center features etc. Xbox 360 is a great gaming system with really good online gaming solution. Far superior online system to Playstation network but you pay for it so meh. Wii is perfect for when the mates come around etc or friends or family for a social visit. Its a hit with my young nieces and nephews, but also a hit with my mother so its very popular. However as an out and out gaming machine the wii graphics are very poor but the social benefits of its setup are plenty. Sooo, where am I going with this state the damn obvious here...... Sony's product IMO is a far better system to have in the living room. I mean you can actually copy movies and music onto the damn thing unlike the 360 (yeah I know direct cd import but not mp3 support???) So to me the extra price is actually worth it! Sony are not really competing with Nintendo or Microsoft here as their machines all concentrate on different aspects. PS3 = Home entertainment system Xbox 360 = Gaming system with kickass online play Wii = Family casual gaming fun. So not really competing here in terms of what they are trying to offer. Well the only problem here is that somebody forgot to tell the consumer that they are not competing. They see Call Of Duty World at War on all three systems. To most people they see all three as gaming systems pure and simple and do not know they differences between the xbox 360 and the ps3 and usually go for the cheaper ones. I know the parents who are purchasing the systems do... If you ask a salesman, whats the difference between the Ps3 and the Xbox 360, the most common answer will just be "The PS3 has a built in Blue Ray player which the xbox 360 does not have". In reality there are many more pros and cons that can in use would change their minds about the console they would like. So overall I beleive the PS3 is worth the sale price, but most consumers will not see it that way and they only thing for Sony to do now is drop those prices and try and compete in the consumers ignorant eyes. Well thats just my $2.50, take it or leave it.
    • by drinkypoo (153816)

      Sony's product IMO is a far better system to have in the living room. I mean you can actually copy movies and music onto the damn thing unlike the 360 (yeah I know direct cd import but not mp3 support???)

      Install the Homebrew Channel on the Wii via Twilight Hack and you can copy movies and music onto that; I personally stream them to my Xbox, and only my Xbox games (original Xbox) are stored on my hard disk, along with XBMC.

      Sony are not really competing with Nintendo or Microsoft here as their machines all concentrate on different aspects.

      Aside from the lack of Blu-Ray support, XBMC is still a better media player than the PS3, with support for vastly more formats. Since I don't have any HD movies (yet) the Xbox is still serving my needs; it does have 720i/p and 1080i output so it can at least scale - scaling is done by the

  • Hidden Costs (Score:5, Informative)

    by ifrag (984323) on Wednesday March 18, 2009 @06:45AM (#27239219)
    Total cost of ownership turns out to be a lot more similar in the long term though. I don't think the PS3 should have any problem competing with the 360. The initial price sticker shock may be having some effect but consider that:
    • PS3 - Stock wireless controller is rechargeable. XB360 Stock controller requires user to provide rechargeables, or just burn through normal batteries.
    • PSN Online is provided free of charge, with multiplayer gaming. XBox Gold membership is something like $50/year, and is required to actually play multiplayer games on XBLive.
    • Most PS3 models have built in wireless support (although there were some that didn't), the XB360 Wireless Network adapter is something around $50.
    • PS3 ships with a larger hard drive than the XB360 (80GB PS3 has been the standard model for some time now). The hard drive is also replaceable with a standard consumer drive. XB360 drive is upgradeable but only with MS product (although I think there are adapters to use other devices, the adapter is once again cost added).
    • PS3 is bluetooth headset compatable, XBox 360 requires use of proprietary headset if the user wants to have a wireless earpiece.

    With accessories and online costs considered, I'd say it evens out, and rather quickly at that.

    • by Lumpy (12016)

      Xbox360 CAN be upgraded yourself. It's not easy but I bought a 120 gig drive from newegg and flashed it's firmware with a hacked one that identifies it as a xbox drive. used a few tools to move my bought games and other crud over and I now have a 120 gig drive for $39.95 and 2 hours of tinkering at home.

      Honestly the bluetooth headset sucks. The wired ones are more comfortable and are less "icky" when you share with buddies or family members.

      Finally, most people buying a ps3 vs an xbox360 do not factor in

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by feepness (543479)

        As for the built in Bluray. Most people dont care about bluray. The dismal sales of the players and discs scream that one loud and clear.

        Sales for BluRay discs/players are beating DVD at this point in its lifecycle. We'll see what the economy does to that though.

        • by Binestar (28861)

          Exactly True. I'd love to have Blu-Ray. I've been incrementally upgrading my home theatre and have to do it as I can afford it. 2 years ago I got the nice TV & converted to HD Cable. Last year I got a nice Upconverting A/V receiver and an upconverting DVD player. Moved everything over to HDMI.

          Blu-Ray is low on the list for 2 reasons. The Blu-Ray selection at my local rental shop isn't of interest to me yet (About 5 I'd like to see and 10 or 15 I've seen already on DVD). I know I can go netflix, b

        • Citation needed. Where do you get that? I just did a search and everything I've found showed BR holding only 3.5%-10% of the market. I'm sure there are individual movies where bluray sold as well or better than dvd but overall it hasn't from what I can see.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by feepness (543479)
            Here you go. [vgchartz.com]

            I didn't mean BluRay had actually beaten DVD now. I'm saying two years after its release (and scarcely one year after a format war) it is doing better than DVD did vs VHS at the same point in DVDs lifecycle.

            I'm not sure if BluRay will have the 10 year timespan of DVD due to digital downloads, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me. I keep hearing about people still using dial-up.
    • DNAS Error -103 (Score:3, Interesting)

      by tepples (727027)

      PSN Online is provided free of charge, with multiplayer gaming. XBox Gold membership is something like $50/year, and is required to actually play multiplayer games on XBLive.

      Sony also has less incentive than Microsoft to keep a given title's matchmaking servers going. In fact, Frequency and Dance Dance Revolution Supernova were turned off (DNAS Error -103: Title is not in service) before I could log in even once.

      Most PS3 models have built in wireless support (although there were some that didn't), the XB360 Wireless Network adapter is something around $50.

      Which isn't worth much if your existing network is all-wired. A lot of Wii owners had to buy a Wi-Fi gateway just to get the console onto Wii Shop Channel.

  • hypocrisy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by papabob (1211684) on Wednesday March 18, 2009 @06:59AM (#27239297)
    And if Sony cuts down the PS3 price EA and Blizzard are going to stop selling games at $70 each? I doubt it.
  • by 0xdeadbeef (28836) on Wednesday March 18, 2009 @07:36AM (#27239573) Homepage Journal

    One of the creators of LittleBigPlanet, a PS3 exclusive, made similar comments in an interview with Gamasutra, acknowledging that they're looking forward to the day Sony drops the PS3's price.

    I look forward to the time when "exclusives" are no longer even pretended to be a good thing, and those who make those Faustian bargains are recognized as chumps.

    • As long as the consoles have such widely-ranging hardware, de facto exclusives are unavoidable. And once you have de facto ones, well, if you're a developer would you really say no to a bigger paycheck?
  • From what i understand, game developers are more interested in making it easier to develop the games for the PS3. Currently it is difficult and time consuming. This makes it less profitable for developers, so they have chosen to jump ship and go to the 360.

    I agree, the price difference between the two is almost the same 'for most people' with all the peripherals considered.

    But that initial price shock is enough to steer potential buyers the other way and that really is hurting the PS3's bottom line.
  • That's right, folks. The XBOX 360 is just as expensive as the PS3.

    A lot of people go around bashing the PS3, but I find that most of them don't own both systems, like I do. The PS3 is actually cheaper than the 360. Did you know that? Here's why:

    1. The PS3 comes with wireless capability. The XBOX 360 requires a $100 wireless kit. That right there makes up the price difference.

    2. The XBOX 360's controllers require batteries. An add-on rechargeable battery system costs about $20 per controller. The PS3's cont

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by hansamurai (907719)

      1. Not everyone needs wireless. My living room was already networked.
      2. AA's are cheap, and the batteries last for months. I've had my 360 since Christmas and only changed them once.
      3. Agree with this one. Bastards.

      • Not everyone needs wireless. My living room was already networked.

        You and I have our living rooms networked either hard wired or by having our routers in the living room, probably right next to the cable modem. The majority of the sports gamer/wrasslin gamer/atv racing gamer masses probably don't. They have their internet connection where their computer is, which is not in the living room.

    • by Blakey Rat (99501)

      1. The PS3 comes with wireless capability. The XBOX 360 requires a $100 wireless kit. That right there makes up the price difference.

      Ok; so where do I buy a cheaper one without wifi, which I don't need and don't want to pay for?

      2. The XBOX 360's controllers require batteries. An add-on rechargeable battery system costs about $20 per controller. The PS3's controllers are all rechargeable right out of the box.

      Fair point.

      3. If you buy something from the PlayStation store that costs $5 or more, you pay the exac

  • by Millennium (2451) on Wednesday March 18, 2009 @08:44AM (#27240357) Homepage

    Sony can't afford a price cut. Frankly, they can't even afford the current price, as evidenced by their having squandered almost all of the profits from both the PS1 and PS2 just keeping this train wreck afloat. That's the problem with predatory tactics like loss-leader hardware: sometimes you get burned by the risk, and Sony has gotten burned big time.

    Ultimately, the core problem is that people won't pay $600 for a game console. Truth be told, they don't really even tolerate $400 at launch, if the 360's sales are any indication (for all that we -rightly- speak of the PS3 as a failure, it still consistently outdoes the 360 at corresponding points in its lifetime). This is because people understand that the value of a console derives not from what the devs put into it, but from what the gamers get out of it, and that there is really only a small section of the market that can actually be swayed by "better value through bloat" marketing Kool-Aid. The proper response, therefore, is to make sure that you can afford to release your console at a price people are willing to pay for it en masse -$300 at launch seems to be the limit- and if you can't do this, then you need to scale your technology back until you can. Sony failed to do that with the PS3, and their current situation is nothing but a natural consequence of that.

    Truth be told, the 360 really isn't faring too much better. Neither market is large enough to sustain third parties on its own anymore, thus the glut of cross-platform games: the increased sales from being on both platforms can be just enough to eke out a profit despite the additional cost of porting. If anything, the real benefit of Microsoft's year-long headstart may be that it hasn't benefited from the marketing fallout of its failure due to there being no real basis for comparison. The PS3 has faced that in full measure.

    But the real problem that faces both consoles, really, is that the self-described "hardcore market" is dying (and no, Netcraft has not confirmed it). This fanbase's obsessive pwn-the-n00bs mentality and fetish for gratuitous complexity have between them driven away most of the new gamers who might otherwise be interested, ensuring that there a healthy influx of new players. Meanwhile, many of the existing gamers in that market have frankly grown up, and in the process have either gotten bored with gaming altogether or started wanting more from their games than the generic "hardcore" formula; these have sought greener pastures and found them elsewhere.

    But then, the attitude of the so-called "hardcore" has never been a gamer attitude anyway; it was a domination fantasy and nothing more. They've poisoned this market for far too long, and as a gamer I'm frankly relieved to see them being pushed back to the margins. If the 80s and early 90s were gaming's golden age, then let this generation be the start of a renaissance of gaming for everyone. The market will be so much healthier.

  • by tylersoze (789256) on Wednesday March 18, 2009 @09:18AM (#27240827)

    Now if we could only pressure Sony to make the damn thing easier to code for. Having developed for both I can tell you it's night and day. The XBox dev tools are much easier to use and better integrated into IDE and speaking from mostly writing multiplayer code the API are much simpler.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Zixx (530813)

      As a graphics programmer, I must say that it's not so clear cut. Back in the day, the XDK-tools were much better. But nowadays, the PS3 has some really, really good tools. API-wise, I think it's a matter of taste. I prefer libgcm to DirectX, but the latter surely comes with more features "out of the box".

      All in all, my experience is that you get stuff working so-and-so on the Xbox faster. But to get it up to maximum speed, you spend just as much time. So the 360 clearly wins in the prototyping department, b

  • Sony's between a rock and a hard place.

    Firstly, they have to decide if they want to push the PS3 as a Blu-Ray player or a games console. The issue is that the PS3 is effectively a "price ceiling" for blu-ray players - the market for players more expensive than a PS3 is very tiny, and thus the majority of Blu-Ray players on the market must be under the price of a PS3 (otherwise, people will buy PS3s as Blu-Ray players).

    Secondly, third party Blu-Ray manufacturers aren't dropping their prices fast enough - whi

  • Blu-Ray and the PS3 (and its power) are the future of gaming. The 360 is already at its limit as to what games it can handle. I'll still play Virtua Fighter 5 Online on my 360 until the day they drop the servers, but my PS3 is used for every other game I play on consoles.
    http://play.tm/news/23623/tekken-6-pushing-360-limits/ [play.tm]

    Katsuhiro Harada, one of the senior developers behind Namco Bandai's Tekken 6, has said that his new game is pushing the very limits of the Xbox 360 console, and that his game may have an influence over the specifications of the system's eventual successor.

    "It is a challenge to fit this game onto one DVD and to make sure the data is read at a fast rate," Harada explained in a new interview.

    Harada's title was conceived originally for the PS3, and squeezing the game on to the 360 seems to be quite a task, the designer struggling to ensure the title runs at a smooth 60fps on the new hardware.

    When games like Tekken 6, or Killzone 2, or Metal Gear Solid 4, begin being regularly produced for the PS3 it will be only that, for the PS3. No one will be able to make those games for

Line Printer paper is strongest at the perforations.

Working...