»

[merylsilverburg]

Originally Posted by Berserker

I remember when the ps2 was launched it was €599 over here which is like $699, sony's launch price was always high(at least in Europe).

Wha-? That's insane! It was only $300 over here in the US, maybe $400 if you count some games. Oh man, I will never complain again about the prices...

[Berserker]

Originally Posted by merylsilverburg

Wha-? That's insane! It was only $300 over here in the US, maybe $400 if you count some games. Oh man, I will never complain again about the prices...

Yeah, I know it's like I always said Sony hates Europe.

[jjmoohead]

When I purchased my ps2 on launch day it cost me over $700 canadian. That was with an extra controller, a memory card and a game. So $499 plus a second controller and a game should be similar.

I don't find the price that bad at all. I payed $700 for my videocard alone in my PC, and if the announcements are for real then the videocard in the PS3 will crush what I have. (I have an x-800 pro)

The best of it is as far as i am concerned with the price and the technology in the system, Sony is losing money on each system, it should be closer to $1000.

I am still getting mine at launch, it's already over half payed for.

CONTROLER
I knew sony wouldn't go with that banana stick. I truely feel it was just a way to avoid all that court crazy stuff going on with people suing due to the technology. I don't believe for a second the banana stick was for real.

[Spank-A-Thon]

Originally Posted by kupoartist

$499 is a bad price? £350 sounds like a usual price for a new console in the UK... And you don't really need the 60GB version unless you're going to go mad insane spending even more cash through their content delivery system. I know the PS3 standard appeals to me, someone who hasn't really an intention to splash out on too many console games. I actually found this price announcement reasonable, yet i'm probably the person least likely to be buying it!

Full backwards compatability too. Right to PS1.

The cheapo PS3 doesn't have Wi-Fi or HDMI (hi-def) AV outputs with it... so for me it's a no-brainer which one I'm gonna choose...

Though to be fair, a Blu-Ray player will set you back £1,000 when they hit the stores so £600 don't sound to bad to me really considering you get a top-spec (according to SONY) Blu-Ray player, hi-def output and a PS3 thrown into the mix...

To rationalise it a bit further, I could easily spend £600 in two months just on beer and going out (£50 a night, Fri and Sat for 2 months) and have nothing to show for it at the end other than numerous hangovers...

or I could cut down going out to once a month (for 2 months) and have a nice shiny PS3 to show for it...

But then again, people do say I have more money than sense...

- S

[kupoartist]

Originally Posted by Spank-A-Thon

The cheapo PS3 doesn't have Wi-Fi or HDMI (hi-def) AV outputs with it... so for me it's a no-brainer which one I'm gonna choose...

You still get some form of High Definition though. And to be honest, speaking as UK users, only the minority of users have HD capable TV sets. Perhaps you're one of them, but I know I'm certainly not and am unlikely to be one until well into the next, next generation (or is that, next, next, next?)

Originally Posted by Spank-A-Thon

Though to be fair, a Blu-Ray player will set you back £1,000 when they hit the stores so £600 don't sound to bad to me really considering you get a top-spec (according to SONY) Blu-Ray player, hi-def output and a PS3 thrown into the mix...

It's $600 or 600 euros. No Price in Pounds Stirling has been announced yet. Those currencies translate closer to £400

Originally Posted by Spank-A-Thon

To rationalise it a bit further, I could easily spend £600 in two months just on beer and going out (£50 a night, Fri and Sat for 2 months) and have nothing to show for it at the end other than numerous hangovers...

This is the dangerous rationalisation that nearly resulted in me buying a 1/60 Perfect Grade Zeta Gundam ("It's only two months or so of cider induced embarrassment!"). I stepped back from this brink of geek-insanity when I realised the dual social hit I would be taking by 1) Not going out for two months and 2) Owning a Perfect Grade Zeta Gundam. This tale has a happy ending of course.

I got a Master Grade instead, and used the 15,000 yen I didn't spend on buying fermented apple drinks. Well not all of it. Cider is cheap stuff

[Berserker]

Originally Posted by Spank-A-Thon

To rationalise it a bit further, I could easily spend £600 in two months just on beer and going out (£50 a night, Fri and Sat for 2 months) and have nothing to show for it at the end other than numerous hangovers...

Quoted for truth

Money will be spend, can't take it to your grave.

[merylsilverburg]

Originally Posted by Spank-A-Thon

Though to be fair, a Blu-Ray player will set you back £1,000 when they hit the stores so £600 don't sound to bad to me really considering you get a top-spec (according to SONY) Blu-Ray player, hi-def output and a PS3 thrown into the mix...

Pardon the dumb questions, but why would one need a Blu-Ray player? And is it really worth getting the 60GB for it?

The Japanese version is coming out November 11, while it's November 17 worldwide. Too bad it's black and only black for now. If I manage to save up enough by then and there seems to be a worthy launch game, I could try to pick up a JP version since all the games will be region-free now, huzzah!

[Harry]

Either Blue-Ray or HD-DVD will replace DVDs in the future; the PS3 basically offers a quality Blue-Ray player at a relatively low price, considering this is a gaming machine.

The 20GB version, according to Phil Harrison, and like kupoartist said, is enough for those that plan to use the console mostly to play games and watch movies; those planning to use Sony download services or to use the PS3 for recording and storing media should probably get the 60GB version.

Anyhow, differences between the two consoles don't end here, as Spank noted. It seems the cheaper version won't have HDMI output (what if you happen to have a nice HD TV in the future?), but even more important, it won't have a memory card reader (the 60GB version can read memory stick, SD, and compact flash cards) or Wi-Fi support (the 20GB version only has an Ethernet port; with Wi-Fi support you can share your PC connection with the PS3 without using cables). These limits could be annoying in the long run, especially because the console cannot be upgraded (a terrible idea that goes against the loyal customers that will buy the 20GB console at launch).

Also the importance of HDD size shouldn't be underestimated; I have seen many PS3 developers talking about the possibility to install files on the HDD for better loading times and game performance (HDD speed is always superior to the one of a removable optical drive).

We made some simple but interesting consideration about the difference in prices between different countries in the news section. When it comes to gaming, living in Europe is hell. Unfortunately we couldn't find info about the U.K. price from any official source, but some calculated the U.K. version could cost even more, around 430£. If it wasn't that replacing a defective console would be a nightmare, European gamers who prefer to have a region 1 Blue-Ray player could import a 60GB version from the U.S., and spend less than buying it from their local store, import taxes and shipping included...

[merylsilverburg]

Originally Posted by Harry

Either Blue-Ray or HD-DVD will replace DVDs in the future; the PS3 basically offers a quality Blue-Ray player at a relatively low price, considering this is a gaming machine.

The 20GB version, according to Phil Harrison, and like kupoartist said, is enough for those that plan to use the console mostly to play games and watch movies; those planning to use Sony download services or to use the PS3 for recording and storing media should probably get the 60GB version.

Anyhow, differences between the two consoles don't end here, as Spank noted. It seems the cheaper version won't have HDMI output (what if you happen to have a nice HD TV in the future?), but even more important, it won't have a memory card reader (the 60GB version can read memory stick, SD, and compact flash cards) or Wi-Fi support (the 20GB version only has an Ethernet port; with Wi-Fi support you can share your PC connection with the PS3 without using cables). These limits could be annoying in the long run, especially because the console cannot be upgraded (a terrible idea that goes against the loyal customers that will buy the 20GB console at launch).

Also the importance of HDD size shouldn't be underestimated; I have seen many PS3 developers talking about the possibility to install files on the HDD for better loading times and game performance (HDD speed is always superior to the one of a removable optical drive).

Thanks Harry. Okay, so I guess it's better to get the 60GB version in the long run taking everything into consideration.

[Carlito]

Yeah, indeed - the differences between the two versions is too unfair, and SCEI knows this (removing the HDMI output from the 20GB version is ridiculous); the difference in prices between countries is also irritating.

[Carlito]

A follow-up to Harry's post - a representative of SCEI said that the HDD is actually the only part of the 20GB that can be upgraded; so if you purchase the version with a 20GB HDD you can replace the HDD with a bigger version when you need it.

[Faile]

You have to marvel at Sony's cleverness here though. They know that the Playstation will sell well regardless of the initial price and they also have a market (and dare I say culture) that they've built over the last decade and are poised to reap the reward of all the young people that were fans of the playstation ten years ago now being older, holding down jobs and being willing to shell out on the new console. Sony is just moving to reap the reward of its marketing. The PSP was hugely overpriced compared to the DS and yet sold very well on its release. Sadly it's just the way the wind is blowing.

[Carlito]

You made a very intelligent point - the "culture" they have built over the years is something that even market analysts seem to ignore; the PS3 will do more than well, regardless of its launch price.

[TtTackler]

Well, my friend and I are going to split the cost of the 'core' version since we will be sharing a dorm in college next semester. And the only thing the both of us are interested is playing MGS4. And even if we can't get one at launch day, it'll be alright since MGS4 is slated for a '07 release..

[merylsilverburg]

Originally Posted by Carlito

A follow-up to Harry's post - a representative of SCEI said that the HDD is actually the only part of the 20GB that can be upgraded; so if you purchase the version with a 20GB HDD you can replace the HDD with a bigger version when you need it.

Is this the only available upgrade for the 20GB version? I wonder how much it will cost then. By marketing this way, it seems Sony is just sending out a clear message: Buy the 60GB with all the accessories and save yourself the trouble which inevitably leads to more $$$.

Originally Posted by Faile

They know that the Playstation will sell well regardless of the initial price

Speaking of the price, I found out that the 60GB version in Japan doesn't have an initial price...instead, they're allowing the retailers to determine how much they want to sell it for. Wow, so that means if they're going to put it up for 80000 yen (around $700) the Japanese are just going to blindly pick it up?

[Carlito]

Originally Posted by merylsilverburg

Is this the only available upgrade for the 20GB version? I wonder how much it will cost then. By marketing this way, it seems Sony is just sending out a clear message: Buy the 60GB with all the accessories and save yourself the trouble which inevitably leads to more $$$.

Speaking of the price, I found out that the 60GB version in Japan doesn't have an initial price...instead, they're allowing the retailers to determine how much they want to sell it for. Wow, so that means if they're going to put it up for 80000 yen (around $700) the Japanese are just going to blindly pick it up?

Yes, it seems the HDD is the only upgradeable part of the console; the PS3 has a detachable 2.5" HDD slot. Hard disks could come in different sizes, in addition to the 60GB included in the other version of the console.

I agree with you: Sony is forcing most consumers to buy the 60GB version. The problem is they probably hadn't the courage to launch a single version retailing at $600.

[merylsilverburg]

Originally Posted by Carlito

I agree with you: Sony is forcing most consumers to buy the 60GB version. The problem is they probably hadn't the courage to launch a single version retailing at $600.

I don't see why they lack the courage. As Faile mentioned, Sony has a sort of a following/culture that will support them to the very end regardless of the price. By acting this way, Sony is revealing themselves to be insecure and manipulative, which bugs me even more.

[Harry]

Originally Posted by merylsilverburg

Sony is revealing themselves to be insecure and manipulative, which bugs me even more.

You are so right; even the lack of the vibration function in the new controller is, in my opinion, a big loss, at least from a marketing point of view. I think that in 90% of videogames, vibration was nothing more than a little addition that didn't improve the gameplay; but in some of the finest PlayStation games it was relatively important. I think about Survival Horrors, where vibration can be used to create suspense and let you "feel" the blow when attacking some enemies (I really enjoyed the feeling I got when hitting giant bugs in Silent Hill using a pickaxe), but in general about games that made a more thorough use of the Dual Shock. It seems Kojima was incredibly pissed off by the announcement, as he was planning to do a great use of vibration in MGS4. In fact, can you imagine fighting those robots/Metal Gears without "sensing" the vibration produced by their heavy steps on the ground?

In general, Sony seems more scared of Microsoft than they probably want to admit, even though I do not understand why. If Microsoft wasn't around, they would have never released different versions of the same console. Sure, Microsoft secured rights on the GTA series (which is a great loss for Sony), but Sony still has much more support from third party developers. Not to mention that a lot of gamers, in particular outside North America, perceive the Xbox 360 as an updated version of the Xbox, a sort of Xbox 1.5. In most countries in Europe, for example, the Xbox is still perceived as a second choice, after all other PlayStation platforms.

[dan da man]

Originally Posted by Harry

the Xbox 360 as an updated version of the Xbox, a sort of Xbox 1.5.

Ermmm, sorry, no it's not, what makes you think it is not "the second one" and is just a half next gen console?

[Harry]

Hehehe I never said it was me saying the Xbox 360 isn't a new console. I just said that many gamers perceive it as a console not as powerful as its direct competitor (the PlayStation 3) and rushed out too soon. This is probably caused also by a less than stellar line-up, but things have already changed a bit this year with the release of the exciting Oblivion (despite its limits, one of the most spectacular games currently available on any console, in my opinion). But Microsoft needs much more than one game that could be ported to all other consoles and their Halo to make Xbox 360 sell worldwide. The Japanese launch of the Xbox 360 was one of the less successful ever in that country, and not because, as some reporters on the web are saying, "Japanese are nationalist and will never buy an American console" (this is really a ridiculous excuse someone paid by Microsoft must have made-up), but because the line-up of game at launch was simply awful. Microsoft should have waited a bit more, have some decent third party game developed for the system, and then launch the console in Japan.

Anyhow, we all know all system specs and polygon counts and other numbers won't make much of a difference, because they mean nothing. The PS3 should be more powerful than the Xbox 360, but in the end the software is what makes the difference. In the previous generation, the PS2 was considered much less powerful than the Xbox, but I think no other game on the Xbox could rival the level of detail and smoothness of Metal Gear Solid 2; nor I ever played a game on the Xbox as visually breathtaking as Shadow Of The Colossus.

I like Nintendo's way of marketing their new console - they apparently do not care about Sony and Microsoft. They want to sell a certain number of Wii units, and it seems it doesn't really matter if Sony or Microsoft will sell much more than them in comparison. After all, with the amazing sales of their handheld consoles and their first-party games, Nintendo has really nothing to fear.