Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Everyone Still Rumbling About PS3 492

Posted by Zonk from the money-men-and-men-with-no-money dept.
To put things in perspective, the Curmudgeon Gamer has created graphs showing inflation-adjusted console costs. The PS3 is far from the most expensive console in history (that would be the Neo Geo, at almost $1000 adjusted price), but that hasn't stopped analysts, publishers, developers, and gamers from grumbling about it the week after E3. ABI Research has publicly stated that Sony may have 'hamstrung' itself with the console's high price. Publishers and developers are worried because (despite Sony's protests to the contrary), developers just don't have the kits to make the games. From the GameDaily article: "'A lot of developers have not gotten the kits,' said Sega of America president Simon Jeffrey while attending E3 last week. 'There certainly will not be a lot of titles available.' The result is that publishers that do want to take part in the PS3 launch will have to release games that don't fully take advantage of the power of the Cell processor, added Jeffrey."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Everyone Still Rumbling About PS3 More

Everyone Still Rumbling About PS3

Comments Filter:

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) * on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @02:07PM (#15344246)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Aww. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Golias ( 176380 ) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @02:38PM (#15344502)
      It seems that the PS3 is all about using their popularity as a console to push the Blu-Ray market forward. One could even speculate that they don't even care if the high price chips away at their game console dominance, so long as it give a boost to a new media format.

      That stragety might actually work in Japan. They seem to jump on board with MD's, LD's, PSP disks, etc.

      But here... I don't know anybody that really gives much of a crap about either Blu-Ray or HD-DVD. Even if one format or the other does eventually get adopted, nobody's in any hurry to replace their DVD collections.

      I think both Microsoft and Nintendo might have a real window here to gain a little ground. I don't think either of them will become #1 in the US market, but the game might no longer be defined as "Sony and everybody else."

      • Re:Aww. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Deathlizard ( 115856 ) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @02:53PM (#15344619) Homepage Journal
        I posted this yesterday, but anyway I though of something when they were taking about how cheap the PS3 was since Bluray was implemented, and it's doesn't look good for Bluray. Basically, the PS3 is going to kill off Bluray, and I'll tell you why.

        Lets say you're a manufacture of equipment and are choosing which player to make. The HD-DVD player is easier to build and cheaper, while the Bluray player is more expensive but has more storage and possibly better quality video. Now, when you look at your bottom line you can sell an HD-DVD player for $500-$700 but your Bluray player will sell around $800-$1000.

        Now, here comes Sony with their BluRay equipped $500-$600 PS3. You know that you'll be selling your Bluray player at a loss if you sell it any less than $800 and you know anyone that wants a Bluray player will just get a PS3 since it's cheaper. You also know you can't compete against it with Bluray but can easily compete with an HD-DVD player and even the XBOX 360 plus HD-DVD will be in that $500-$700 competitive range your player will be in.

        As a manufacture looking out for your Shareholders, what are you going to build?

        Basically, the PS3 will be the only Bluray player in the market because it will drive the market away from it and toward the cheaper HD-DVD. That is until Bluray drops in price, and by then, the format war will be over and HD-DVD will be the winner.

        As for Japan, if it says Sony, it sells regardless of what it is. Those Aibo robot dogs were a great example since they were selling those for $1000+ and still couldn't make them fast enough.

        • Re:Aww. (Score:3, Insightful)

          by DragonWriter ( 970822 )

          Now, here comes Sony with their BluRay equipped $500-$600 PS3. You know that you'll be selling your Bluray player at a loss if you sell it any less than $800 and you know anyone that wants a Bluray player will just get a PS3 since it's cheaper.

          False assumption. Lots of early adopters will likely pay $1,000+ for feature-packed players, just as they did with earlier new formats. That's why there are Blu-Ray players now lining up with prices of $1,000 to $1,800 (just from the ones in the Sacramento Bee arti

          • Re:Aww. (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Firehed ( 942385 )
            I'd like to point out that those same early adopters were the ones who bought the first HDTVs. The ones that weren't HDCP-compliant. I figure that unless HDCP dies entirely, neither format will have much success. The first movies aren't being flagged to use it (or so is my understanding) because they know they'd alienate and screw over their initial target market, but chances are that if they've sold enough units to declare a winner, they'll be to a point where flagging movies as originally planned would

        • Re:Aww. (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Chris Burke ( 6130 )
          I posted this yesterday, but anyway I though of something when they were taking about how cheap the PS3 was since Bluray was implemented, and it's doesn't look good for Bluray. Basically, the PS3 is going to kill off Bluray, and I'll tell you why.

          Then there's the fact that most gamers interested in the PS3 don't care about Blu Ray. Since Blu Ray is both the reason that the PS3 is so expensive and the killer feature that is supposed to make you want it despite the high price, I think it's also fair to say t

        • Re:Aww. (Score:3, Insightful)

          by jonabbey ( 2498 ) *

          Basically, the PS3 is going to kill off Bluray, and I'll tell you why.

          Great, let's hear it.

          Lets say you're a manufacture of equipment and are choosing which player to make. The HD-DVD player is easier to build and cheaper, while the Bluray player is more expensive but has more storage and possibly better quality video. Now, when you look at your bottom line you can sell an HD-DVD player for $500-$700 but your Bluray player will sell around $800-$1000.

          What's your evidence that the HD-DVD player is

  • Yes (Score:3, Insightful)

    by AoT ( 107216 ) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @02:08PM (#15344249) Homepage Journal
    The fanboys will line up to buy it even at $600.

    And it will hit $1000 on Ebay.

    No suprises here.

  • Inflation-adjusted Insanity (Score:4, Insightful)

    by LunaticTippy ( 872397 ) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @02:11PM (#15344273)
    If you inflation adjust TVs, vcrs, dvd players, stereos, computers, or ANY other consumer electronic device you will see a violently declining price.

    What the hell does inflation-adjusted have to do with consumer electronics? What a completely retarded justification.

    • I had the same thought, but you beat me to the punch. My dad paid $4500 for our original IBM PC. By the adjusted dollars, that'd mean computers should cost $7000! Wow!! That $5000 system seems like a bargain.
    • It means that those of us who have been around for a while can justifiably laugh off the current generation's bitching about how much games cost.

    • Re:Inflation-adjusted Insanity (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Kadin2048 ( 468275 ) <slashdot@kadin.xoxy@net> on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @02:41PM (#15344514) Homepage Journal
      If you inflation adjust TVs, vcrs, dvd players, stereos, computers, or ANY other consumer electronic device you will see a violently declining price.

      That's kind of the point here. If you look at the graph, the price isn't declining all that violently. They declined pretty sharply in the late 70s, 80s, and early 90s, then climbed in the mid 90s, collapsed with the debut of the N64 and Dreamcast, and are now going back up again in inflation-adjusted (real) dollars.

      From a perspective of someone interested in a PS3 is that Sony has priced its product into a range previously occupied over the past 20 years by the Neo Geo, CDi, and 3DO -- none of which were terribly successful commercially, at least when compared to less-expensive platforms like the NES, SNES, and Playstion.

      So while experience in other technology sectors indicates that consoles ought to be dirt cheap right now, Sony is still trying to charge a 1982 price for a 2006 product. It remains to be seen whether consumers will be wooed by the technology into shelling out that much dough. Frankly, I'm skeptical. But then again, I've never bought a new console in my life: I wait until they're one generation out from new and I get can get one used, complete with a mod chip and other goodies that early adopters have to live without.
      • You have said perfectly in one sentence what hundreds of bloggers have spent millions of sentences trying to say:

        ...Sony has priced its product into a range previously occupied over the past 20 years by the Neo Geo, CDi, and 3DO -- none of which were terribly successful commercially ....


        I mean, there it is. You can't shorten it any more than that without editorializing or removing vital information, and nothing more needs to be added to it to explain the situation. There's the facts of the case, and from them, you can deduce all that remains.

        As a semi-professional blogger, I envy your writing skills, sir.
    • The PS3 is expensive even when adjusted for inflation compared to the average price of consoles since the early 80's. Not only that but recall that those first systems typically came with two controllers and a game. Add that extra $80 to the PS3 and your theory that consumer electronics are violently declining in price goes down the drain.
       
      -Kap
    • Inflation is inflation -- its a reflection of how things cost more on average with time. 2% more per year right now in Canada. That is to say, if you save $1000 and make 2% interest on it, you've gained nothing in spending power.

      Inflation is a fact of life these days with current economies.

      A loaf of bread costs more right now than it did 20 years ago too. So do houses.

      Electronics are slightly different in that the quality for a given price point increases dramatically with time (Moore's law and all that)

  • history isn't very good (Score:5, Informative)

    by prockcore ( 543967 ) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @02:11PM (#15344276)
    Except for the 1st generation systems (Atari), no system that has cost as much as the PS3 has succeeded... even taking inflation into account.

    That and he's got the $500 PS3 on there, comparing with the highend 360. He should really have the $600 PS3 on there.

    • Re:history isn't very good (Score:4, Funny)

      by voice_of_all_reason ( 926702 ) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @02:17PM (#15344328)
      That and he's got the $500 PS3 on there, comparing with the highend 360. He should really have the $600 PS3 on there.

      Come on, everyone knows you have to buy two copies of every system. One to open and play, the other to keep in the sealed box as a collectible.
    • Except for the 1st generation systems (Atari), no system that has cost as much as the PS3 has succeeded... even taking inflation into account.

      Except for the 1st generation systems (Atari), no system that has cost as much as the Playstation 1 has succeeded... even taking inflation into account.

      Sony's doomed! Doomed!

      That and he's got the $500 PS3 on there, comparing with the highend 360. He should really have the $600 PS3 on there.

      You're wrong. He's comparing both the $300 and the $400 360 to both the $5

  • Pre-E3... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bluemeep ( 669505 ) <{bluemeep} {at} {gmail.com}> on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @02:12PM (#15344282) Homepage
    I had every intention of purchasing this console. Now there's a snowball's chance in hell of that ever happening. Nintendo is going to be my camp for this generation of consoles now.
    • Same here.

      MS? same old story.
      Sony? rootkits et al.. no thanks, no more of my money will go to sony.
      The Wii looked to me like the only really FUN console of E3. for classic gameplay I can use my brother in law's ps2 or my pc.
      and besides that, $500/600 is just too damn much.

  • well (Score:5, Insightful)

    by flynt ( 248848 ) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @02:13PM (#15344296)
    Well this is interesting, I think the price concern is still justified considering the systems that beat it were the 3D0 and Neo-geo. Didn't everyone think those systems were ridiculously expsensive at the time, too? It would be more convincing if the PS1 and PS2 prices adjusted to inflation were in line with the PS3 price.

    • Re:well (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cowscows ( 103644 ) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @02:33PM (#15344448) Journal
      Yeah, the fact that the Neo-geo cost more back in the day than the PS3 will is hardly a saving grace for Sony. Apple's G4 Cube wasn't the most expensive computer ever, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't over-priced, and the fact that it was basically a flop in the marketplace, despite winning all sorts of design awards is no fluke.

      The most useful thing to compare the PS3 to in terms of price is its contemporaries, which are the Xbox360, and the Wii. When you look at the prices of those two systems, and see how much higher the PS3 is, Sony really needs to be clearer about what they're offering to justify that extra expense. They've been rambling a lot about Blu-ray and some sort of nebulous media center stuff that doesn't really mean that much to most people, because it's basically vaporware at this point. The crux of it is that although DVD support helped with the PS2, most people associate the playstation brand with video games, and most people who are interested in it are looking forwards to using it to play video games.

      The point is, as many have said before, the games are really what do the talking. Sony's execs can spend as much time and money convincing themselves that a media center is what we're all interested in, but that doesn't make it so. There's certainly a chance that somewhere down the line it will all come together, and the PS3 media experience will be sort of like TiVo, once you've had it, you can't live without it. But there's a lot of potential problems involved there. Can it all come together in a useful way? Is Sony set up to make it work? Will other content developers go along with it? Will DRM make it fail? And possibly most important, even if all of that can work itself out, can it happen fast enough? I'm not sure Sony has the luxury of time in convincing us all that our lives need this. If the video games aspect of the PS3 can't float the system long enough to get a critical mass of units out there, then it'll all implode before it hits its stride.

      • Re:well (Score:3, Insightful)

        by normal_guy ( 676813 )
        I agree entirely. The PSP is much more expensive than the DS, but it plays Sony-formatted movies (which I've generally already purchased for another medium) and is shinier.

        I'm concerned only with quality games, and am obviously outside their target market. That's why after one last "local-only multiplayer" game came out, I traded the PSP towards a new DS Lite. I get the feeling that Nintendo understands games and amusement, whereas Sony is only interested in it as far as they can tie in their Hollywood

    • Even adjusting for inflation, look at the relative price of the most popular systems: NES, SNES, PSX, N64, PS2, Gamecube and Xbox are all under $400. The failures are mostly all higher priced systems: Neo-Geo, CD-i, 3DO and Saturn. XBox 360 is bucking that trend so far, but it was also able to take advantage of a year of being the only "next gen" system on the market. If it and a $300 PS3 had come out at the same time you can bet that the 360 would not have been very popular.

    • Re:well (Score:5, Insightful)

      by fbjon ( 692006 ) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @02:44PM (#15344534) Homepage Journal
      Also interesting, looking at the adjusted prices for Nintendo systems, they are in a steady decline, going from $364 for the NES to $225 for the Gamecube. Or even better, looking at the remarkable curve for absolute prices: $200 (NES), $200 (SNES), $200 (N64) and lastly, $200 (GC).

      I have a gut feeling what the price for the Wii will be.

  • Even adjusted, still expensive (Score:4, Informative)

    by tengennewseditor ( 949731 ) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @02:14PM (#15344302)
    That chart doesn't really make me feel any better about the PS3's price, the only consoles more expensive on the adjusted chart are stuff like the Neo Geo (rich, niche market), the failed "multimedia" consoles like the CD-i, and the pre-1980 stuff that was ahead of its time. The only comparable (meaning, not niche) console that was more expensive than the PS3, even after adjusting price for inflation is the Saturn, which failed in the US.
    • But the Saturn was far ahead if it's time. People were still happy with their SNESs and whatever when Saturn was released.

      PS3 may still have a chance, but IMHO it's all the delays that are going to kill them. Mind you, all the bad press and all the BLU-RAY/HDDVD garbage can't help... And the lame controller... Ok, maybe they're in trouble...

  • Not the most expensive, but... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by interiot ( 50685 ) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @02:14PM (#15344303) Homepage
    It's not the most expensive, but it's nearly as much as the Sega Saturn, which wasn't all that successful. Really, the highest priced console so far that's done really well was the PS2 *, which is 40% cheaper than the low-end PS3. If it turns out that HDTV owners really should buy the high-end one instead, that makes the PS3 70% more expensive than high-priced successful consoles.


    * except for first- and second-gen consoles, which were understandably expensive, since home electronics was a new market
    • Saturn "wasn't all that successful"? That's like saying that nuclear-powered cars "aren't all that popular". You win the understatement of the year in gaming award... Of course, the Saturn wasn't killed as much by price as by limited game selection. Some of the games on the Saturn are some of the best games made for any platform, but most of them are PURE UNADULTERATED CRAP. And yes, I've played a huge number of saturn games.
      • Don't forget that the Saturn actually did all right in Japan. That's why Sega was able to make the Dreamcast in the first place instead of moving to software only earlier. Who knows? Had the Saturn failed completely everywhere, the Dreamcast might have been an actual Microsoft/Sega collaboration instead of a Sega console with some [weak] Microsoft software on it.

  • Sony's Boardroom (Score:5, Funny)

    by imsirovic5 ( 542929 ) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @02:14PM (#15344304)
    Not written by me(quoted from the inquirer) but kinda funny:

    Sony boardroom last June. Welsh wizard, Howard Stringer, is in the chair for the first time.

    (ACT ONE)
    The Sony boardroom. SONY EXECS seated. STRINGER pacing.

    STRINGER. OK, moving onto the PS3... what is the easiest way for us to lose the ball on this one?
    SONY EXEC ONE. Price, if we make it too expensive then Nintendo and Microsoft will screw us to the wall. Most people will not pay more than what the XBOX360 costs.
    STRINGER. Great, anything else?
    SONY EXEC TWO. We could delay it for ages until box Microsoft has established itself in the market. That would make it harder for us to claw back our lucrative European and American base.
    STRINGER. Not bad, need a few more here.

    SONY EXEC THREE. Well it is a bit tricky but we could make two versions of the PS3. One will have all the wi-fi gubbins and other bits that people want and will make it different from the XBOX360 and the Revolution. But make this version even more expensive than the base unit.
    STRINGER. Nice thinking. It would also split our marketing budget between two similar products and the punters wouldn't know what we were selling.
    SONY EXEC ONE. We could also make a really low key launch of all the details while our competitors are all over the games press like a hot rash.
    STRINGER. Interesting how do we do that? There will be a lot of people interested in the PS3.

    SONY EXEC ONE. We could go to E3, lock the demonstration models in a glass box and be evasive about crucial things like launch dates.
    STRINGER. I like it... we will do all those things.
    Sony Exec Two: Are you nuts?
    STRINGER. No I am Welsh, we have a long history of being shafted by everyone from the Romans, the Normans, the English and the European Union but singing beautifully while it is done. I have no intention of winning against Microsoft or Nintendo. Now about what is happening with that Blu-Ray thingee. How are negotiations going with the HD-DVD crowd? &#181;

  • "far from the most expensive console in history." They say it like it's some sort of accomplishment or something.

    What's next...a different study showing that the Sony Rootkit was "far from the most invasive rootkit in history?"

    Whatever.

  • More than the console race at stake (Score:5, Insightful)

    by r_glen ( 679664 ) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @02:15PM (#15344313)
    By pricing the PS3 so high, not only are they making the choice easier for next-gen gamers (PS3/Xbox360/Wii), but they are blowing their trump card in the next-gen format war.

    It seems to me that a better move would have been to take a big(ger) loss on the consoles for the sake of saturating the market with Blu-Ray. Instead, they've set themselves up to lose both races.
    • this may be total crap but I thought I should ask just based on a coversation I had in a Sony shop today with a guy who worked there; he seemed to be under the idea that Blu-ray players will be able to play both Blu-ray and HD-DVD... I think it is total crap, I would have smacked some sense into him, but the Cartesian method of doubt stopped me from being sure... will it?

      It seems if it will then it will win anyway...
    • I think Sony might have been willing to take a bigger loss for the sake of Blu-Ray. But, Sony has to do something of a balancing act if they want BR to have any chance at all. If they price the PS3 too aggressively they could win the console battle and lose the Blu-Ray war because other hardware manufacturers won't build Blu-Ray players if they can't make money.

      Odd as it may seem, Sony needs competition in the hardware space if Blu-Ray is going to succeed as the next big format.

  • Comparing to the Neo geo is rather unfair... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Vthornheart ( 745224 ) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @02:16PM (#15344323)
    The Neo-Geo (which if I remember correctly had CARTRIDGES that sold for almost 1000$ let alone the system itself... granted, it's been a long time and my youthful memory might be decieving me... and no, I'm not going to bother to take the time and look it up, someone else go do that and report back =) ) was that expensive for a couple of critical reasons.

    1) It was a console that had technology far exceeding any capabilities available at the time. When Neo-Geo was selling to the elitist rich kids, the masses were just beginning to poke their heads into the SNES/Genesis market. A system of comparable power to the Neo Geo was at least... what? 4 years away? Possibly 5?

    2) It was a console that was not marketed for the masses. Its advanced technology was marketed only to the few that could afford it. They felt that point (1) justified that marketing. Sony cannot claim that for the PS3, because no matter how many processors its core system is equivalent to, the end user is not going to see a dramatic difference between it and, say, the XBox 360. It's not like it was back then, when gamers who were used to 2D pixels suddenly had a system powerful enough to render 3D scenes. THAT was a significant jump... the jump between the Neo-Geo and its peers at the time was infinitely larger than the jump between Sony and its peers in technology.

    If Sony wants to market to an exclusive lot, that's fine and entirely their perogative. But they won't sell many copies that way, and they're not going to make a lot of money that way. Where's SNK right now? I think last I heard they went bankrupt. Sony could learn from that example.

    Of course, in order to actually appeal to an elite few, you have to offer them a truly elite product. They're going to need to beef up those system specs if they want to hit a market like that... and beef it up in such a way that an actual end user could visibly tell the difference in each and every licensed game they purchase.

    • They're going to need to beef up those system specs if they want to hit a market like that... and beef it up in such a way that an actual end user could visibly tell the difference in each and every licensed game they purchase.

      Yeah well the only way to do that is to release a PS3-only dick-sucking peripheral because unless the thing fucking blows me every time I play, it just doesn't have enough to differentiate itself from the competition (given that I don't give one tenth of one shit about Blu-Ray.)

      Let's face it, a 50% improvement in graphics on the system (I just made that number up, let's just run with it for the duration of this comment) is not going to translate into a 50% improvement in graphics, let alone gameplay.

  • Basically (Score:5, Insightful)

    by American AC in Paris ( 230456 ) * on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @02:17PM (#15344326) Homepage
    ...so once you leave the Stone Age of video game consoles, the non-crippled PS3's (inflation adjusted) nearest neighbors are as follows:

    Neo Geo
    3D0
    PlayStation 3
    CD-i
    Sega Saturn

    SONY, if you can pull this one off, you'll easily have the highest-priced success story in the history of video game consoles.

    I don't think you can pull it off. $500-$600 is too much to pay for a video game console that, as far as I can tell, isn't doing that much of consequence to distinguish itself from the XBox 360 in the eyes of your average consumer.

    • Another interesting statistic to note is that Nintendo's console's have become less and less expensive as time goes by, even though they're getting more and more powerful. Let's hope the trend continues and see a $200 Wii.
    • To be fair, the PS3 is almost half the price of the Neo Geo or the 3DO. Still, it's hanging out with CD-i and Sega Saturn, and yes, if it did well, it would definitely set a new record for successful console prices (at more than 40% higher than the current record holder, PS2).

      What could help it be successful? BluRay maybe, but that's a long shot, especially with Sony execs saying that most people's TV's don't support HDMI and it's not all that important.

      Are there that many must-have games for the syst

    • It's 3DO - three dee oh, not three dee zero.

  • Yes, Zonk, we get it already. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @02:19PM (#15344342)
    The PS3 will cost a zillion dollars and not have any games or any online or any vents and the controller was stolen from the Nintendo 64 and the games will be stored on Betamax tapes and you really, really, really hate Sony.

    We get it already that you hate Sony and hate the PS3, and everyone agrees with you. This is established. You don't really need to post more stories about it, especially not on the front page, unless there are actual new developments. Can we have some stories about games now?
  • The graphs show the PS3 is not the most expensive console in history by adjusted prices, sure. And the 3DO and neo-geo were huge flops. And yes, back in 1982 dollars, people paid more for the Atari 2600 and the intellivision.

    But there are two elements missing here.

    A) Total Sales at Price. How many Atari 2600s sold at a price point above the PS3's adjusted value? If the PS3 sold like that, would it be a success?
    B) Relative price to PCs. There's a reason the last "successful" console priced (in adjusted val

  • More Neo-Geo info (Score:5, Insightful)

    by The-Bus ( 138060 ) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @02:20PM (#15344349)
    A bit of a defense for the Neo-Geo...

    Neo-Geo like it's co-"competitor" the SNES, was arguably the console with the longest lifespan. It debuted in 1990 and the last game for it was released in 2004, a full four years after the original company (SNK) had declared bankruptcy. And some of the games that came out late in the system's life, including Metal Slug 3, King of Fighters '98, and Mark of the Wolves are some of the best games in their respective genres. Neo-Geo also had two main two systems: the AES (the regular Neo-Geo) and the MVS (the arcade system). Both of these were basically the same hardware, and software could run on either. Even if your favorite arcade game never reached the home system, with some soldering you could easily make a home-version of the game from the arcade one.

    The price was always prohibitive, sadly. Old AES systems, even today, command a premium and most new games had an MSRP of $200-$300 each, if not more. Specific versions of old carts can go in the four figures.

    Thankfully, the Neo-Geo lives on. There's still a very healthy market for it among collectors (see above), emulation of the hardware is almost arcade-perfect, and the most popular series (King of Fighters, Metal Slug) have been appearing as re-issues for more popular systems (Xbox, PS2, etc.).

    Out of all the high-priced systems of the past, Neo-Geo was definitely the most popular and lasting, a credit to the game-centric (but ultimately unprofitable) ideology of its creators.
    • The Neo-Geo was totally rad (to use the parlance of the times) but even the rich kids I knew didn't have one. I hear you can get them pretty cheap now, although good games are spendy. Frankly there's nothing on that platform I even give a damn about since I got over my fascination with fighting games, and they don't have any good shooters. (There are only two good shooters anyway, and they're both called Raiden (something).)
    • Yes, NeoGeo had some of the finest arcade games. And I have almost all NeoGeo roms for various emulators :-).

      What I would like to see though is SEGA release its twin 68000 superscaler arcade board as a home console (much superior hardware than the NeoGeo). Outrun and Powerdrift for home? I would sell my house to buy it!!!

      20 years later there is no SEGA console left on the market...

  • Actually, you know. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by oGMo ( 379 ) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @02:21PM (#15344359)

    Step back a minute and think about it. A few weeks ago, Nintendo announced the name "Wii". Everyone was doom and gloom for Nintendo, nothing but lamenting, ...but they were the talk of the town.

    This week, Sony says "$500"! And everyone is doom and gloom. But they're the talk of the town.

    From a marketing perspective, it's far better for people to be passionate in either direction (love or hate) about something than for them to be indifferent about it.

    • Yup, thats why Jeffrey Dahmer t-shirts sold like crazy.

      The old saw about nay publicity being good publicity is bullshit. THere is good publicity, there's bad publicity, and there's mixed. The Wii name changed was bad publicity. Had they not kicked total ass at E3, they'd be looking worse than Sony right now. The $600 price for the PS3 is even worse publicity- large number of hardcore gamers, their key crowd, are saying they won't be buying. Ignoring this won't make Sony a winner due to publicity, it m

  • Grumbling or grassroots? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @02:22PM (#15344365)
    For the conspiracy minded, there are a lot of negative stories floating around forums about the PS3, and Microsoft has been known to astroturf before... something to think about.

    It's pretty funny to hear people complaining for example that the console is "really" $600 and not $500 (base model) because it lacks HDMI and therefore you'll not be able to play games in HD. Except that the 360 lacks an HDMI interface on ANY model...
    • The lack of HDMI is most significant when you're talking about playing movies. It's hard to justify the $500 price tag if it's just a game console. Of course, I still don't think anyone gives a fuck about Blu-Ray except people who have probably already bought Sony's player.
    • For the conspiracy minded, there are a lot of negative stories floating around forums about the PS3, and Microsoft has been known to astroturf before... something to think about.

      Prove it. I keep hearing this claim on Slashdot, and I've never heard ANY proof of it.

    • Re:Grumbling or grassroots? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by CaymanIslandCarpedie ( 868408 ) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @02:46PM (#15344558) Journal
      I think your overlooking why HDMI is and isn't important. HDMI is not needed for HD. The Xbox comes with HD component video. This will give you the same HD content and is MUCH more widely available on the HD TVs in circulation today. What HDMI is important for is the next-gen DVD DRM. There is a lot of back and forth on this as far as who will require what, but it is in the specs that the content providers can require HDMI in order to get the full HD resolution.

      Now for the 360 this isn't an issue because it isn't a next-gen DVD player and thus is irrelevant. If the PS3 wants to sell itself as a next-gen DVD player than it damn well better support the next-gen DVD specs! As of now, its possible with the base PS3 unit that some content providers using Blu-ray will force your video to be displayed at a worse resolution because it doesn't provide HDMI.

      In fact the 360 (both versions) does support HDMI, its just that the HDMI cable isn't included. My guess is it will come with the optional HD-DVD player when that is released or for that matter you can buy it now at many places on the web (the 360 HMDI cable not the HD-DVD player).

  • Pretty numbers (Score:2, Offtopic)

    by suv4x4 ( 956391 )
    The PS3 is far from the most expensive console in history (that would be the Neo Geo, at almost $1000 adjusted price), but that hasn't stopped analysts, publishers, developers, and gamers from grumbling about it the week after E3.

    The market still relies on the dumb "9" prices (199, 149.90, 399, you know the drill).
    Of course, we all know paying $600 is not different to $599, but they do it, and we're flooded with such prices, get tired and occasionally fall for it while doing quick comparisons.

    And why they d

  • Nintendo Pricing Always $200? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by IanDanforth ( 753892 ) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @02:25PM (#15344385)
    Looking at these graphs I didn't realise that Nintendo has always released its new console at $200. It seems odd in all the speculation over the Wii's price, this is never mentioned.

    Furthermore looking at the inflation adjusted model I have to say thanks to the big N for bringing us newer and better systems cheaper each time!

    Sony can go jump in a lake.

    -Ian
  • The PS3 is expensive. Adjusted to inflation or not, 600 is something that buys a fairly ok computer these days.

    Most people who will want a PS3 already have a PS2. So the make or break point for PS3 sales will be whether there is a "must have" title for it. 600 isn't quite a price that makes players go "Ah well, let's buy it, they'll release a cool title for it soon". It's rather something that makes people think "Well, I'll hold it off 'til a cool title comes out, maybe it's also cheaper by then".

    So what wi
    • I'm a hopeless fanboy of certain things. As far as Playstation goes, "Metal Gear Solid" and "Final Fantasy" are my "must-have titles," which I really, really want to play. I mean, I can't wait to try them. I'm a card-carrying, poster-hanging, action-figure-owning, soundtrack-listening, message-board-haunting, desktop-displaying fan.

      But, I'm not rich, and I'm not able to justify blowing double what I did on my first PS2, just to play two or three games. There is just no way for me to blow the cash on a P

    • In no particular order, off the top of my head, candidates are
      1. Metal Gear Solid 4
      2. Heavenly Sword
      3. Final Fantasy XIII
      4. Final Fantasy XIII-2
      5. Devil May Cry 4
      6. Virtual Fighter 5
      7. Resistance: Fall of Man
      8. That weird karaoke game

      Now, call me crazy, but I think it's rather probable that one of these games will turn out to live up to its potential and qualify as a "must own". Just possibly. It's also possible, since the games I list above are generally in distinct genres, more than one of them may be "must have" titles which a

  • $500 US dollars.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Duncan3 ( 10537 ) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @02:27PM (#15344399) Homepage
    Maybe is the Dollar wasnt going down so fast, they wouldnt need to charge so many...
    • The USD isn't quite in a nose dive. It did lose some value compared to Yen or Euro in the last few years, but we're talking a few percent here.

      So currency devaluation is, at best, 5-6 percent of the price tag.

  • $600 (Score:5, Funny)

    by Seraphim_72 ( 622457 ) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @02:27PM (#15344406)
    $600 [newegg.com] And comes with not one [wikipedia.org] but TWO [wikipedia.org] games that dont take advantage of it's processor either.

    Sera.

  • Can we please stop strawman crap like "By infilation the Snes would be 5 billion zillion dollars! PS3 is just keeping the trend!" and instead stop being ignorant and take the entire culture into account here. You could say inflation goes up from the 90s till today but console prices are still in the same area (at least in the UK). This is because if figures go over £300-£400 then human nature kicks in and goes "Wow that's expensive!"

    Back in the 80s (which most compare this to), people bought 1 c

  • Neo Geo was NOT a console (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rAiNsT0rm ( 877553 ) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @02:30PM (#15344428) Homepage
    The Neo Geo was not a console, I owned one. It was not marketed as a console, it was not *meant* to be a console. It was sold as a true arcade unit that had the ability to play all of the arcade titles without needing to buy individual cabinets.

    The Neo Geo did exactly what it was supposed to do, be a 100% exact copy of the arcade unit, NOT a port or a very close remake.

    For what it was the Neo Geo was a hell of a deal. A single arcade cabinet would have cost as much as the system and just one game, so after purchasing a few titles you had saved a considerable amount of money over individual stand alone units.

    I will say that the Neo Geo would have been much better had it come as a stand up cabinet that allowed the games to be changed, for the money. But then it did not take up the space of a cabinet, so I guess that was the tradeoff.

    In any event, this is not a fair comparison. The 3DO, fine, but not the Neo Geo. Everyone likes to use it as the comparison and it is so damn frustrating because it most certainly was not a console, not even close.

    • Re:Neo Geo was NOT a console (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Gulthek ( 12570 ) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @03:41PM (#15345086) Homepage Journal
      Eh? Are you saying it wasn't a console because of its capabilities?

      Is the XBox a console? After all, it can run Metal Slug 3 without any slowdown (a problem that hindered the arcade and Neo Geo releases).

      You should head over and fix Wikipedia's article on Neo Geo [wikipedia.org], it's listed as a console there. In fact, this whole console vs. arcade recreator "debate" isn't even being discussed [wikipedia.org]!
    • It hooked to your TV. It took cartridges.

      It was and is a console.

      You might be able to argue a Super Gun (JAMMA to TV adapter) wasn't a console.

      But Neo-Geo? It was.

      And it was a ripoff. It had a 16MHz 68000, and an 8 MHz Z80 in it. That's the same hardware as a Genesis, which cost $150.

      Was Dreamcast not a console because it used the Naomi hardware, which was the same as some of Segas arcade machines?

    • Neo Geo was MOST CERTAINLY a console (Score:4, Insightful)

      by freeweed ( 309734 ) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @05:10PM (#15345963)
      The Neo Geo was not a console

      The NeoGeo was most certainly a console. It came in a small form factor, with interchangable cartridges, independant controllers attached with long cables, and was designed to be plugged into a television set. It was the very definition of a video game console, just more expensive. It was marketed as a console, targetted at the wealthy ("play the hottest arcade games at home!", etc). The machine itself was entirely inappropriate as an arcade unit - the controllers alone would have broken given a few weeks in your average arcade. Plus, the whole television thing. It would have looked pretty 1972 to have your arcade running off TVs.

      I will say that the Neo Geo would have been much better had it come as a stand up cabinet that allowed the games to be changed, for the money

      This happened. It was called the MVS. But if you didn't want to buy a cabinet, you bought the NeoGeo - a home gaming console system.

      In short, you either don't know what the hell you are talking about, or you don't understand what a video game console (or arcade game, for that matter) is.
  • ...how many of us gaming enthusiasts owned a NeoGeo, or a 3DO? Now what about the general public?
  • Sony would rather lose $1 billion in actual lost sales than have $1 million of thier content pirated.

    That's the choice they made, and the result they're seeing.

  • Notice... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Quaoar ( 614366 ) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @02:32PM (#15344438)
    How ALL of Nintendo's consoles, from the very first one, sold for $200. The Wii might be the first to sell for a bit more, but still, that kind of fortitude is impressive.
  • I enjoy gaming and consoles are a really convenient way to do it. However, I don't see why I would want to spend US$800 to play a few new games. Now, I know the base price isn't US$800, but I also have to pay 7% in sales tax when I buy the thing, and then I have to buy a game or two, which may run up to $150 bucks. Now I am at US$800.

    While the graphics on newer games are really great, I haven't seen any really innovative games. If I like a specific genre, I can go find dozens of older games that are
  • The PS3 is far from the most expensive console in history (that would be the Neo Geo, at almost $1000 adjusted price) but that hasn't stopped analysts, publishers, developers, and gamers from grumbling about it the week after E3.

    Well, when you put it like that... I guess I won't be buying a NeoGeo either!

    Of course that comparison hasn't stopped people from complaining. Nobody cares about a favorable comparison against a ridiculously overpriced console that never saw any mainstream (i.e. not arcade) succe
  • The PS3 is far from the most expensive console in history (that would be the Neo Geo, at almost $1000 adjusted price), but that hasn't stopped analysts, publishers, developers, and gamers from grumbling about it the week after E3.

    That comment would have made more sense if the Neo Geo had been the sort of monster hit that Sony needs with the PS/3. If the PS/3 only achieves Neo Geo like sales that will be very bad for Sony and PS/3 developers. The developers are right to be complaining and very concerned.
  • Raise your hands if you had a NeoGeo. Anyone, Bueller? If you had one, you're probably a VP at Daddy's company right now, not reading Slashdot.

    Different system. Different time. "Adjusted price" for electronics is a joke.

    When the NeoGeo came out, pre-teen kids like myself drooled over its coolness, but knew Pop would never allow such an exorbitant amount for a video game machine. Of course, if it were for the computer, that's a different story - because "Dad, it's for school!"

    Nowadays, the target for PS
    • Personally, $600 for a console is an outlandish sum in my household, and if my boy asked for one, I'd tell him he's nuts and he'd better get a job (thankfully he's only 2).

      Yeah, if he was older it'd be much worse. I hear the labor market is really suffering now for the five to nine year old demographic. As it is he shouldn't have much trouble landing a job.
  • This is not a really fair comparison as the Neo Geo was not originally intended to be a home machine and the price insured that it did not become a popular game console. The Neo Geo console cost $650 with one game, memory card, and controllers; additional games cost $200 EACH. On the other hand, Sony is REALLY hoping that the PS3 becomes a popular game console and Blue-Ray video player.

    I wonder how many PS3 owners will actually play Blue-Ray disks using their PS3. The original X-Box and the PS2 both had

  • And the IBM 7094 cost more in constant dollars... (Score:3, Funny)

    by dpbsmith ( 263124 ) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @03:02PM (#15344720) Homepage
    ...than a Dell Optiplex GX520 does today.

    So, what exactly is the point?

    In 1962 an IBM 7094 cost $3,134,500 [ibm.com].

    Does that mean that $19,356,198.10 [westegg.com] is a reasonable price to pay for a Dell Optiplex GX520 today?

  • what about the price of the games? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by The_Rook ( 136658 ) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @03:22PM (#15344897)
    unfortunately, the article ignores the price of the games. factor in the cost of the games, they arguably cost much more than the console.

    in my opinion, the success of a game console hinges as much on the cost and availability of games as well as the console.

    what i'd like to see is a development cost comparison of games for the different consoles and a comparison of the average retail cost of the games for the different consoles.

    as i understand it, the reason why sony was able to break into game consoles was that the original playstation was not only competitive with sega and nintendo (remember that at that point, sony had virtually zero experience selling game computers) but was very simple and cheap to develop for. sony even offered a development platform for hobbyists. hobby programmers were responsible for a number of significant games on the original playstation (i think parrapa the rapper was one of these). paradoxically, sony, microsoft, and nintendo have been making a habit out of making it hard and expensive to develop console games so as to force developers to be exclusive to one or another platform.
  • is that the PS3 is also a Blu-Ray disk player.

    We just saw a Toshiba HD Disk Player debut at $500 [themanroom.com] (and it apparently sucks in general, though renders well - this is from a different review).

    Yes, the $599 USD price is a lot in one bang, but I think most first adopters see the reality that they're getting two systems. Two first generation systesms, a $500 Blu-Ray disk player, and a $99 next gen console. (You can move the numbers about to taste.)

    If you're a scrimping College kid, then yes, this system is a little pricey for you, but I think many will pony up.

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't get suckered in by the comments -- they can be terribly misleading. Debug only code. -- Dave Storer

Close