ps3 $399

[Paul2]

but a game console last an average of 5 years.  The time difference between ps2 and ps3 is 6 years.  If ps3 is going to last another 6 years before ps4 comes out, that mean it will last up to 2012.  In those next 6 years, blu ray and hdtv will be the norm.  Not to mention HDTV prices going to fall to the point where most consumers can get one.

Also, PS3 games will be in 1080p.  Hopefully all games should be in 1080p.  So, a consumer can get a PS3 now and play it on their NTSC TV, which the game downconvert to 480i either via analog or digital video connection.  Well NTSC is analog, so in this case analog video connection.  Then wait for a few years where HDTV is very cheap that an average consumer can upgrade to HDTV and this time connect the video connection in HDMI and play in either 720p/1080i, or even 1080p hdtv display.

You gotta think for the future and the longivity of the console.  So, a blu ray add-on is a smart move to lure buyers.  i was concerned on how sony manage to add a blu ray at around the same time stand a lone blu ray players come out.

DVD player comes out at 1997 in america, and ps2 comes out in 2000, after the first 3 years, the add-on for dvd playback should cost consirably less than blu ray which hasn\'t comes out yet.  and if sony is willing to sell ps3 with blu ray support for $400.  That, i think is quite cheap.  It may not have the video quality of stand a lone blu ray player.  But who knows what video performance will ps3\'s blu ray gives, but ps3 have two hdmi outputs.  and maybe by going digital video, the quality should be great.  i see a pattern here with sony console.

psOne - analog video and analog audio output.

ps2- analog video and audio with optical digital audio output.

ps3- support both analog audio/video and digital audio and video output.


I also see another patter here:

PsOne - most games runs at around 320 x 240 resolution.  About VCD quality.

PS2 - most games run at 640 x 480 resolution.  About DVD video quality.

Ps3 - 1080p.  That\'s ultimate HD quality there.  And adding blu ray seem to hold the pattern wells since blu ray can encode and support up to 1080p.

Also, PS3 games will be in 1080p

What good is 1080P when .01% of HDTV support it at the moment. Also Bear in Mind 1080P if the developers choose to support it, those resolutions are not a standard, also we have yet to see the performance penalty in PS3 when out putting at those resolutions.

If ps3 is going to last another 6 years

Doubt that, we are moving at a much faster pace then when the psx2 came out, competition is fiercer etc... XBOX360 5 years tops.
However this is speculation and nothing more than my opinon.

You gotta think for the future and the longivity of the console. So, a blu ray add-on is a smart move to lure buyers.

Huh, I am a bit confused here. When you speak of future and longevity, you seem to be fouced on watching movies in a format that is yet to be determined to win an ugly war. How are they future proofing there system with a format that might turn obsolete.  Like I said earlier better Sony invests in hardware that will have a longer life span then attempting to use there popular to market and instill there Blu-ray by charging the customer an Extra $100 for it.

Also I think most of us know the real reason why Sony has opted to include the Blu-ray in PS3. They want to win the New HD-media War and by adding Blu-ray to ps3 which in my opinion is a very smart strategic move, which will help put a blow into the HD-DVD camp. Fact is I do not mid Blu-ray, matter of fact I\'m all for it, However Sony forcing people to pay extra so that they can load there Trojan house is not kosher with me. Who knows what the end result will be maybe Sony will get away with the risk being played here, but with XBOX retailing for $299 and you can bet a drop to  $250  when PS3 launch\'s for $400. Guys like me can easy fork out the $399 price, not a big deal, But looking at this from the Mainstream\'s point of view, things change. $400 is allot to the average Joe trying to pay for collage or rent, especially the young ones who have to beg mommy and daddy for the console.

Anyways I\'d rather just wait and see what SONY plans to do, as of now, it\'s too early to know anything indefinably.

I agree with NVIDIA256 we are moving at a much faster rate. I don\'t see 6 years. 5 years top myself. I would not be surprise if 4  years becomes the new norm. Seeing how technology is moving at a faster rate.

I don\'t see ps3 til 2012. I think ps4 would be late 2010. Times are changing and technology is moving at much faster rate than it did before. So these console are really going to start looking dated. If they are generations behind the current technology.

[Bobs_Hardware]

How is technology moving at a faster rate? This generation (PS2) will last about 6 years..

Sony might have fell on their own made trap.

next gen games will be $60 next gen + $35memory stick+ $40 wireless pad  + $400next gen ps3.

I agree with some $300 seems too much. And you get no pack in game.

 Especially when you have rent+car+insurance+ect.......to pay
 I have to save months in advance to buy these thing. Like I am saving for xbox 360 now.

consumers running out to buy a $400 console only insures these console makers that they can charge higher prices and consumer will still buy. Sad but true. The price of consoles will do nothing but continue to rise after ps3.

count me out on a $500 ps4

imo consoles will pinnacle out again technology follows that pattern of rapid growth and then it just hits a high point stays there for bit and then a breakthrough comes and bam another rapid climb

also i love how i see some people argue over price when i have seen them post about buying the newest 400-500 dollar video card for their pc...last i checked they may come with packed in game but they dont do crap without the $ for the nice pc rig to play it on - but thats ok so you can play a few games...but  a console thats on par and for most - more powerful then avg users pc 400 is too much?

[Living-In-Clip]

If consoles life spans shorten, then the price has to come down. General consumers cannot justify $300 - $400 upgrades every four years.

[CHIZZY]

*Waits in line with $400 in hand....

[GmanJoe]

Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
If consoles life spans shorten, then the price has to come down. General consumers cannot justify $300 - $400 upgrades every four years.

You guys are not the economics genius you all pretend to be. You think corporate giants like MS and Sony will want to replace their consoles every 3-4 years? Think of the cost to develop it. Think of the royalties that they\'ll lose if developers can\'t put out more than 3 games per console in that short amount of time.

Hello.

also i love how i see some people argue over price when i have seen them post about buying the newest 400-500 dollar video card for their pc...last i checked they may come with packed in game but they dont do crap without the $ for the nice pc rig to play it on

This is a very good point you bring up, however the mainstream does not spend $500 for a PC video card, only the hardcore do. Indeed it is hypocritical on the surface for people to complain about a $400 console when they spend much more for a video card that will never be fully or even 60% utilized before it becomes obsolete. None the less comparing the price scheme of Consoles to PC gear is apples to oranges(similar but not the same). In the console realm there has been a standard price point set for quite some time. $299 is what we expect to pay; I have no Problem dishing out $699 for PS3 as long as the Price warrants the "Gaming"Hardware inside.

Personally I wish Consoles would retail with $1000 worth of state of the art Hardware, retailing for $899. Could you imagine what a beast that would be, unfortunately in order to justify manufacturing cost and R&D(by having to build a huge installed user base) SONY and MS have to be able to sell there product to a much wider Audience, and the only way to accomplish this is to have a product that is affordable to a wider spectrum of people in the mainstream sector. Try and see it from the average Joe\'s point of view. He walks in a store sees XBOX360 for $250 and the PS3 for $399, meanwhile 360 with probably have better looking games due to developers having more time to work on them, plus HALO 3 being released when PS3 comes out. I mean right there is a blow for SONY. I agree that that those who waited for the PS3 will buy it no matter what M$ offers in price and content, but the average Joe is not that loyal.

SO what does this all mean, well I believe Sony feels that it\'s a justifiable risk upping there selling point by integrating another business venture they hope to dominate in (HD-MEDIA). This isn\'t about what is best for us consumers, instead Sony is taking advantage of it\'s loyal, mass market hold it has with it\'s Playstation and using it as a catalyst to prop up there BLu-ray in hopes to win a fierce Battle against the HD-DVD camp. M$ would probably do the same thing if there were in Sony’s shoes. This is what business is all about, SONY is taking a risk here, but if they succeed it will pay off big time in royalties.

My opinion is that ever since SONY had reached the pinnacle of there dominance in the game industry with PS2, there Arrogance has blinded and now help facilitate in them losing focus on the strategies which made them so successful. PS used to be a game machine, Now Ken K has said Numerous times that PS3 is not a game machine but a computer/home entertainment device and that gaming is not there only focus with PS3 now. The playing field has yet to start, but I predict that SONY is going to lose alot more Market share this time around due to #2 main reasons

#1 They are launching last(which gives M$ opportunity to steal user base, plus allows them to further drop the price on PS3 launch day) with a more expensive console.

#2 M$ is playing harder with a far better strategy this time round.

All I give really Give a damn about are the games, and If SONY delivers as they have done so in the past "quality content" which I expect will illustrate the power and potential of the HYped CELL, then $399 is a OK with me.  Then again I prefer to wait ti out a little,before I purchase both 360 and PS3.

I see where you are coming from  NVIDIA256. I would rather my ps3 be a $400-500 power house gaming machine. Than a entertainment console.

I buy consoles for the games. Not for their ability to play dvd\'s and be media storage whore.

These points are faithful and true

A.  The PS3 is not overpriced.

B.  The PS3 is NOT a game machine aka video game console.

C.  Sony never intended the Playstation to be only a game machine.  Multi-functioned computers (PS3) cost more than game machines ex: 360, Revolution



Sony is going in the multi-function direction,  which,  IMO,  brings more masses to its product.  Not that many people will buy a video game machine for their kids,  but they will buy an entertainment computer that can play games for their kids,and  play their Hi-Definition movies etc.

  The PS3 is a steal at 4 or even $500.  That is reason alone to buy it. I was searching the web for a HI-Def DVD player now I dont need to anymore I found one.  And it is very high end,  too.

Let\'s look.  Pay $100 more for a PS3 over the 360 and you get:

-  Hi-Definition movie playback  ($300 DVD Player)

-  A 1080P DVD player   (Add 50-100 to High Def DVD player)

-  A system that can act as a hub for network friendly devices  ($70 wireless G router)

-  Built in wireless internet connectivity  ($80 wireless G card)

-  The fastest graphics processor of the next gen machines

Thats worth $100 more to me

Originally posted by alliswell
These points are faithful and true

A.  The PS3 is not overpriced.

B.  The PS3 is NOT a game machine aka video game console.

C.  Sony never intended the Playstation to be only a game machine.  Multi-functioned computers (PS3) cost more than game machines ex: 360, Revolution



Sony is going in the multi-function direction,  which,  IMO,  brings more masses to its product.  Not that many people will buy a video game machine for their kids,  but they will buy an entertainment computer that can play games for their kids,and  play their Hi-Definition movies etc.

  The PS3 is a steal at 4 or even $500.  That is reason alone to buy it. I was searching the web for a HI-Def DVD player now I dont need to anymore I found one.  And it is very high end,  too.

Let\'s look.  Pay $100 more for a PS3 over the 360 and you get:

-  Hi-Definition movie playback  ($300 DVD Player)

-  A 1080P DVD player   (Add 50-100 to High Def DVD player)

-  A system that can act as a hub for network friendly devices  ($70 wireless G router)

-  Built in wireless internet connectivity  ($80 wireless G card)

-  The fastest graphics processor of the next gen machines

Thats worth $100 more to me

What if you want your ps3 just to play video games? Which is why most people buy consoles.
 How about scrap all the other bs and just make a high-end game console.
 And the fastest graphic processor is yet to even be determined.

[GmanJoe]

Originally posted by QuDDus
What if you want your ps3 just to play video games? Which is why most people buy consoles.
 How about scrap all the other bs and just make a high-end game console.
 And the fastest graphic processor is yet to even be determined.

The intention is to get people to do more than just play video games.