PS3 Price Point: Honest question

Hi, I’m a longtime lurker on the forum here and I was just curious: Why the sudden and violent negative reaction to the PS3 price?

Even the premium version comes to less than a months rent in all but the most ghetto of major city dwellings. This for what seems to be a pretty sweet piece of hardware that won’t be obsolete for ages. The post launch game lineup, particularly games associated with longtime PS franchises like MGS4 and FF13 all look great from everything put forward insofar so… why all of the hate? Why this vibe that Sony has murdered their next gen in it’s crib?

So far Nintendo has impressed with the control scheme (and ubisoft helped out with that quite a bit) and I had to clap when MS unveiled Fable 2… but… I missed the knockout punch when it was thrown. How did Sony come up short?

I combed related threads but I couldn’t find a definitive answer. Can anyone point me in the right direction for understanding why Sony ‘lost’ E3?

If you just look at the games alone, would you pay almost twice as much for Sony’s console vs Microsoft or Nintendo’s?

Too much technology earlier than it had to be at too high a price point. Then the arrogance of saying it could have been more expensive. For the first time in many years, I’m thinking Nintendo has a chance to gain market share.

Yeah, it’s a matter of value relative to what the rest of the market is offering. PS3 isn’t worth a $200 premium if I can get an alagous experience with the X360, or a different, possibly better experience with the Wii for even less.

How about this: It’s way too fucking high.

Basically, if it won’t be obsolete for ages, then I can wait a year or two without any worries. Give the technology time to mature and come down in price, and get some games I want to play (Of which were shown, only a few grabbed me as posibilities. Nothing was must have).

Launch packages are going to be over $1000. No HDMI in the cheap version puts the whole Blu-Ray feature at risk in those versions. (Yes, I know studios have said that they’ll put 1080i/720p over component for now but I’m still skeptical.)

  1. $500 is too much for some people to pay for a console just to begin with. I guess most “middle class” folks can scrounge up the money.

  2. It seems unfairly expensive considering the hardware costs are supposed to be subsidized by content licenses anyway. I don’t think Sony is giving away developer kits…

  3. If you can afford $500, you can probably afford $600 for a non-gimped model, so why did they come up with the gimped model anyway? What’s the point of championing Blu-Ray using this hardware if it turns out that people can’t play the content due to HDMI ICT (yeah, I know this isn’t a concern yet, but it probably will be soon.)

  4. Sigh, I’ll get it anyway because the kinds of games I want to play don’t seem to be coming out for Xbox or Nintendo.

Anytime somebody tells me they’re asking an “honest question” I always want to check for my wallet.

Well, they are. Every HD DVD in stores at the moment supports 720p/1080i over component. The problem is that all of the HD DVDs out there are catalog titles (i.e. at least a few months old) so it may be that they won’t allow it for new releases. We won’t know for sure how serious they are until we get some HD DVD/Blu-ray titles released day-and-date with the vanilla DVD editions.

Assuming nothing ridiculous happens with the Wii pricing, but even in what I’d call “worst case” scenario of $300 for a Wii, how can anyone but the most die-hard Sony fan honestly look at the combined libraries of the 360 and the Wii vs. the single library of the PS3 and say to themselve “PS3 for me!”? There are going to be those few people that would pay any cost for one system just to play their one favorite game, sure, but for the rest of us? How anyone can seriously consider getting a PS3 over getting both the 360 and the Wii, at about the same pricepoint, is just beyond me.

If anyone at either Nintendo or MS had the balls, they’d bundle 360s and Wiis.


Also- I get a viral vibe from the original post.


I think it comes down to two things:

  1. Sony is arrogant. Currently, they are the undisputed leader. People hate the leader, especially when they are arrogant.

  2. Everyone here loves gaming and hates to think of the what wallet sacrificing hit that the PS3 price tag means. People come from different economic backgrounds but just about everyone will take a hit. More expensive hardware means less money for games.

I think we should create a new QT3 acronym: IWTFH.

Listen, Leit, you need to tell your masters over at Sony to go Google just two words to understand what’s happening this week:

Sega Saturn.

Better yet: 3DO. What a worthless piece of shit that was.


I didn’t buy a Neo Geo, I bought a Super NES.

Looks like I won’t be buying a PS3, I’ll probably buy a Wii (as silly as it is named)

But like Whitt said, “It’s way too fucking high”

He’s a longtime lurker on this board, but he needs us to explain to him why everyone is ready to beat Sony like some kind of beatable thing that needs a good beating?

Did he miss the other 4,096 threads on the topic of PS3 pricing, and all the flailing and gnashing of teeth therein?


But dude, its only a month’s rent! What the fuck do you need a roof over your head when you have a PS3?