Topic: PS3 Estimated at $400

[ABlueflameA]

Hey, I just read an article that said Merril Lynch released its estimates for how much PS3 would cost, as well as how much Xbox360 would cost.

They said that PS3 would retail for about 400 dollars, and the system itself would cost approx 500 dollars to make.  It notes that the disc drive, the processor and graphics card each costing over 100 dollars to make.

Est. price for the 360 is $299.

All i gotta say about the price for PS3 is...ouch.

-Blueflame

Comments?  

[Spak-Spang]

Blue:  Merrill Lynch is a respectable source, so that rumor is much more believable than anything else we heard.  It still reminds me of the estimated price of PSP and the actual price.  Nobody believed the PSP would launch as inexpensive as it did.  

If Sony launches the PS3 at $400.00 I think Sony will have priced itself completely out of the market.  I don't care about how great the graphics look, or High Defination movies...if the cost is $400.00 most gamers and most families desiring a DVD player won't be able to afford the new system.  

If this is true I completely expect Sony to faulter like they are with the PSP in Japan.  Yeah, the PSP is a superior product to the DS and even offers alot of exciting and nifty additions the DS doesn't...however the cost for games and the product itself isn't worth the price according to the consumer.  This will be even worse for Sony when most people won't be able to tell a graphical difference between the Xbox 360 and PS3, except one system is $100 less.

Last, if Microsoft launches the Xbox 360 at $299 it will be a great success.  Not neccessarly this year, but next year when you have 3 systems out...probably priced at $199-250 (Nintendo), $299 (Xbox), and $399 (PS3):  Xbox seems like the best middle road hardware purchase.  A great balance between price and hardware advancements.

This coming generation will be very interesting to watch unfold.  

[couchmonkey]

I definitely think Sony could hurt itself with pricing, but it's wise to remember, like Spak-Spang said, that the PSP launched much cheaper than analysts were predicting.  I've also come to realize that Sony can make a lot of mistakes without getting "knocked out".  I was expecting Sony to take it on the chin this generation after it lost exclusivity for Resident Evil, Crash Bandicoot, Oddworld, Tomb Raider, Ridge Racer, and a bunch of other games...yet it still easily beat Nintendo and Microsoft.

$400 is a lot, but Sony has the better part of a year to make that decision, and Microsoft will be testing the waters for it.  If Xbox 360 isn't doing that well, or if Microsoft cuts its price before PS3 launches, Sony has time to be flexible with its pricing.  Sony also still has the chance to offer one of the first High Definition disc players on the market, which may be worth even more than $400 to hardcore film geeks.

The worst news for Sony is that it may lose tons of cash on the systems even at $400.  That would suck for everyone because I think Sony and Microsoft's willingness to kamikaze their hardware into people's homes hurts both them and Nintendo

[Spak-Spang]

 CouchMonkey:  I really think this kamikaze approach to hardware is completely bad for the entire industry.  Right now Microsoft and Sony are willing to take huge losses just to penetrate the market and have their system be the most popular...but you can't just take those huge losses every year without eventually making that money back.  

They will either have to raise game costs, charge for online gaming, or raise the royality fee for 3rd party developers...or worse varing degrees of all three.  

I believe we are getting to a point where the gaming industry is going to be hurt by these shorter hardware generations, increased costs in gaming and more.  I don't believe it will cause a crash.  But I do believe it will not alot of smaller players from the equation and really prevent the more creative and original concepts from being made.  Any high risk game will be considered a liability.  

This is why I personally praise Nintendo to be designing hardware to be easier to program for, and less focused on power, especially this HD debacle.  Nintendo is making the right choice about HD, but many won't see it...but they will later I believe when gaming for Nintendo is cheaper and the graphics are similarly impressive.

[Ages]

While it's true that $400 is an astounding amount of money for a game system, keep in mind that every Playstation launched at $400 in Japan.  Obviously, that will not deter the Japanese market, however, it will stop the American market in its tracks.

[Ian Sane]

$400 would be very expensive.  Sony would be taking a huge gamble with that.  The Playstation brand is strong but is it THAT strong?  Would people be willing to spend that kind of dough on it?  The PSP has better graphics than the DS, has the Playstation name, and launched with a bigger a better launch lineup than the entire DS library at the time.  Yet the DS is the current market leader and is holding that position well.  The PSP could have creamed the DS but it didn't because it was too damn expensive.  The PS3 could have a similar problem especially if the Xbox 360 is the normal $300 price.

If Sony got screwed by the price it would be very interesting because we would likely have a situation where a different company would be number one in the US than in Japan.  I'd say MS would clearly take the US market.  The Japan market probably would still be Sony's unless they really overpriced it there too.  If Sony lost the leadership position in Japan I guess Nintendo would take the top spot before MS but it's hard to say since we don't know enough about the Rev.

[KDR_11k]

I wonder what if Nintendo filed an antitrust lawsuit against Sony for "dumping"?

[BlackNMild2k1]

Just remember that Sony isn't in the best of financial situations right now.  For them to take a HUGE loss on PS3 for about the first year(or two) would put them in some serious trouble, especially if games take longer than expected to make, cost as much as expected to make and are priced at what they are expected to be priced at.

[Toruresu]

$400?! That's just crazy. My guess is they will at least match the X360 price in the US, otherwise it would be suicide. I'm afraid that Nintendo's system will be the cheapest, and people in the US won't buy it, because its "inferior" to the others in their minds.

[Spak-Spang]

I doubt that the cost will influence what people think about hardware superiority this year.  It worked so well this generation because Xbox made it a piority to appear superior, and the gamecube looked like a toy...so image really hurt.  

However, next generation will be different, and I think people everywhere around the world are more cost conscience now.  People may decide that it is better to buy the affordable system with the affordable software they may or may not be as powerful.

[Ian Sane]

"I'm afraid that Nintendo's system will be the cheapest, and people in the US won't buy it, because its "inferior" to the others in their minds."

I think that depends on certain factors.  The Cube looked inferior because it didn't have DVD playback and only cost $100 less.  Most people assumed it was only cheaper because it didn't have a DVD player and the gap wasn't big enough to make a difference (in 2001 a DVD player for only an extra $100 was a big deal).  So if Sony's charging $400 and Nintendo's charging $300 and has skimped on hardware for that (HD being an example though it's not as big of a deal as DVD playback was) then they'll look inferior.  But if there's like a $150-200 difference the lower price will be a bigger deal.  That combined with some really killer games and a console that doesn't look like a toy can make a big difference.

Plus the Cube's "cheaper so it's worse" image didn't really become a big deal until MS pulled ahead of Nintendo during Christmas 2002 and Nintendo panicked and started bundling in a free game and then the GB player and then cut the price to $100.  That came across as desperate like they couldn't give the things away.

[Invincible Donkey Kong]

"Our ideal [for the PS3] is for consumers to think to themselves, 'OK, I'll work more hours and buy it.' We want people to feel that they want it, no matter what." - Ken Kutaragi

That's nice of you, Kutaragi-san.

I'd say this gamble is just as big as Nintendo's, except Sony isn't doing anything new.  All they are doing is losing money on making their hardware the best, and hoping people fall for it.  Sadly, it may work, but they will still incur significant losses.

Iwata-san said before they Nintendo is aiming to get all third party games that on other systems to the Revolution, and if that is possible, along with a price tag of up to 200 dollars less than the Playstation 3, Nintendo shouldn't have too much trouble closing the gap.

[nickmitch]

Would 3rd parties comply with increased royality fees? Sony does have the most market share, but still that could just hurt Sony more. That would then force an increase in game cost and the casuals would definately go to the 360. There are just too many people who pretty much buy sports titles and if they're at a cheaper price for a cheaper system then that'd be it for Sony.
The only question is if Nintendo could pick up some of Sony's lost market share.

[Flames_of_chaos]

Man, if the PS3 cost 400 when it comes out then I wont be looking forward to it also another keyfactor is that Rev has 512MB flash memory built in  and Xbox 360 comes with a 20GB HDD while PS3 comes with no storage solution and this means if PS3 does costs 400 then potential buyers would have to spend 50 - 200(?) more dollars for a memory stick,SD card or a HDD with linux installed ouch.  


If so this would mean that Rev will be my primary console and Xbox 360 could potentially be my secondary console.

[stevey]

Nintendo, sony, and ms are taking huge gambles. nintendo with it's ceap game, small & ceap  system, ms with it's expensive game expensive & big system, and sony with the most expensive & biggest system so it be very hard to tell what will happen. It all depens how people will put up with paying more for the same thing intell they boy~cot it like they going to do with gasoline.

[Spak-Spang]

TVman:  3rd parties will put up with increased fees IF they are making games for the number one system.  You said Xbox would just get the exclusives...I am not quite sure Microsoft won't pull the same stunt and increase fees for their system.  They are going to have to make money back from their hardware loses as well...and If MS gets a sold lead to where they feel they are a strong second, or even first place licensing fees will go up quicker than you can say: "I should have bought NIntendo."  

Nintendo however, is in a different boat.  If they make a profit on their games, hardware, and aggressively price fees they will do great.  As well Nintendo can use the download service fees with 3rd parties to also help make money with the revolution.  

It all helps Nintendo be at a better position at the end of the day than MS or Sony.

[Spak-Spang]

stevey:  If you actually think that buy alling does anything to lower price of goods then your dreaming.  Supply and Demand is what dictates prices.  Businesses RARELY just increase the price for no reason...specially when another company can come in and undercut them and grab a piece of the pie.

buy alling works if you get a large enough group together that you actually effect the demand of the product.  How often does that happen?

Now look at the gasoline.  I am sure there are several nationwide buy alls but do you see the price changing.  No because Supply hasn't increased and demand is still high.

If the government would actually allow us to build new refinerys around the country and possible drill for oil in new location in the US then we would have a supply that will increase to meet the demands and prices will drop down again.

[Flames_of_chaos]

Spak another reason why gas prices are rising is because the American dollar is also weakening thanks to the bad state of the economy.

[Epitaph]

Now unless I remember this incorrectly I recall hearing that sony was going to do something similar as to what they are dooing with the psp as they will not do price drops on there consols keeping it at a constant price to make up the cost. Now if this is true then I have a fealing sony will have a very hard pushing the ps3.  

[nickmitch]

Hey, politics are taboo in these forums. Besides, it doesn't matter where we drill for oil because there will always be people complaining about it.

Anyhoo, if both Sony and MS put out games at $60 then MS will gain market share. If it's just Sony then MS will gain more and if it's just MS then who knows.

[Spak-Spang]

TVman:  Sorry about the politics.  

Yeah, I fully expect to see game prices rise...because before the age of CD gaming America didn't blink at $60.00 game...as long as it was an epic.  The old carts were expensive and we understood that.  Sony gained marketshare because the Playstation provided cheaper games...but I think the industry is ready for a price increase and they have been waiting for a new hardware generation to impliment it...because it is easier to sign people onboard to the new techology reason, and not the neccessity of development costs.

Here is where Nintendo comes in.   If there system is less powerful but still manages a way to keep game prices $10.00 cheaper or more....I see that having a huge effect on the marketplace and help position Nintendo into gaining a large chunk of marketshare.  

I know people think I am crazy and figure Nintendo would also follow suit with the price increase, and they could...but I have a gut feeling Nintendo is trying to avoid that and in fact possibly make games even cheaper.

I believe this because of many reports Nintendo is trying to take gaming in a different direction and create smaller games along side the epic games.  

[Ymeegod]

$400 isn't to much IMO for the inital year anyhow.   Budget graphics card are $200 nowadays which used to be the price of a top-of-a-line card.  

And two, it's not the price of the PSP that's hurting sony--it's the software.  Just look at the last three months and what the released--utter crap.  Vrs the DS which is getting two-three titles per month that are decent.  Kinda a total flop side of the console wars.

[Spak-Spang]

Ymeegod:  I think the price is definately a factor for the PSP.  People bought the DS even when the games were few and far between.  The PSP wasn't bought when their weren't alot of games.  People were willing to buy a cheaper DS for the potential of games to come, but they weren't willing to invest more money for PSP who arguably had more potential for the future.

Also, when you start to talk about computer games you start getting into a completely different market than console gamers.  Computer gamers are truly niche games...but the fans are devoted.  They love to tech out their computers and are willing to pay that much money.

Casual gamers aren't techies.  Console gamers do not have to be techies.

$400.00 dollars for a video game system is alot.  It completely knocks it away from the casual gamer, or the impulse buyer.  You have to be wanting to buy a PS3 to spend that money.  $400 becomes an investment not just a game system.

[ABlueflameA]

I agree with Spak-Spang, $400 dollars is still a lot of money, especially as computer prices keep getting lower and lower.  One could probably even buy a budget computer with monitor for around that price.  Casual gamers, with possible exeption to the few rich ones, IMO aren't going to drop that much cash for something they won't put a lot of time into.  Also, as Microsoft and Sony are attempting to put all kinds of extra features into their systems, the added complexity will turn a lot of people away.  The simplicity (hopefully?) of the Revolution should draw crowds of people who are either:
1.) On restricted/real-world budgets
2.) Scared away from the complexity of the other systems.

In addition, b/c you can play NES, SNES and N64 games on Revolution, games which, for the most part, are much more simple (and cheaper), will only serve to reinforce those 2 points.

I see the Xbox 360, (assuming that PS3 retails for 400 and Xbox 360 for 300) being sort of the middle-man in the  next iteration of the console wars.  With probably? inbetween graphical quality and inbetween price of Revolution and PS3.  The fact that Revolution launches so much later than the 360 could even negate the graphical difference between the two.

In my opinion, there are just too many things to go wrong with the PS3 and the Xbox 360 due to all of the crap that their respective companies are/are going to cram in their respective consoles.  I'll take a simple system that plays games and dvds with a revolutionary controller, thank you very much.  

[Spak-Spang]

Blue:  Those are my setiments exactly.

I sold all my old Nintendo games for budgeting reasons...most people do.  And to have one single system that I can go back and collect all my favorite games cheaply is the greatest thing in gaming history to happen to me.  As I stated I will probably spend more money on collecting the classics than new games.  (And I will be buying the new stuff too.)

Nintendo is creating the first system you will hold on to until it breaks, and potentially by another because it is too valuable for gaming to not have a Revolution.

[nickmitch]

Excellent wording there, Spak-Spang.

[Spak-Spang]

Thanks.

[stevey]

At 400 bone I see that the ps3 will be just like the psp and people just use it as a blue ray player.

[nickmitch]

Gamespot's rumor control for the week had this:

Quote
This week, a flurry of stories emerged purporting that the PS3 will cost a proverbial arm and leg. "PS3 is going to be expensive" crowed Ps3station.com, echoing Gizmodo's "PS3 to be REALLY 'SPENSIVE" piece. The popular Gizmodo cited a July 6 article on the Web site for UK gadget-and-girls mag T3 (think Stuff with cell phones) titled "PS3: Most expensive games console ever?" T3, in turn quoted an interview with Sony Computer Entertainment Ken Kutaragi in Japanese business magazine Toyo Keizai in which he said his goal for the PS3 is "for consumers to think to themselves 'I will work more hours to buy one'. We want people to feel that they want it, irrespective of anything else." If the quote sounds familiar, it's because it was lifted verbatim from a June 28 GameSpot story which directly translated a quote from the original, Japanese-language article--an article which speculated the PS3 will sell for $399. While higher than the PlayStation 2's $299 initial sticker price, a $399 PS3 would not be the most expensive console in game history. That distinction belongs to the 3DO Interactive Multiplayer, which went on sale in 1993 for a whopping $699 a pop. Given the short-lived 3DO non-phenomenon and stiff competition from Microsoft, the chances of a sky-high-priced PS3 are slim.

Most noteworthy:

Quote
Ken Kutaragi. . .said [that]. . . the PS3 is "for consumers to think to themselves 'I will work more hours to buy one'. We want people to feel that they want it, irrespective of anything else."

Somewhere I see a fatal flaw in that logic. . .but where? Hmmmm. . .

[Spak-Spang]

TVMAN:  The fatal Flaw is Sony believes that the Playstation has become something that is NEEDED in society.  You only really need one of these three media devices to live and stay connected to the world:  TV, RADIO, Computer with internet.  And if you don't want to stay connected you don't need anything.

Why does Kutaragi actually think someone needs an overpriced high tech DVD player?

[nickmitch]

I was being sarcastic.

And the "Work more hours to buy one" crap. To me it's like this: I'll buy a PS3 when it conviences me, much like with the PSP, ie; when I when one in a church raffle.

[darknight06]

Kutaragi:  Yeah, we should sell it for $400...  what do you mean it won't sell at that price people NEED the PS3 to survive in this new era...  but people know how to budget their own money for important things, you know like bills, PS3, cable...

Will somebody please send this dude to a mental hospital!

[BlackNMild2k1]

Quote
Originally posted by: darknight06
Kutaragi:  Yeah, we should sell it for $400...  what do you mean it won't sell at that price people NEED the PS3 to survive in this new era...  but people know how to budget their own money for important things, you know like a 2nd summer home, PS3, lamborghini, private airplane...

Will somebody please send this dude to a mental hospital!

fixed

[Ymeegod]

... man are you guys just not gettting it?  Initally the price will be set at $400 and yeah there's plenty of people who are more than willing to dish that out and those casual gamers will just wait for the price drop that will follow--it's not that hard to understand.  

And budget graphicscards are like $200 (I'm talking about something that'll play a decent FPS for today's games as well as 6 months from now).  Then there's blu-ray--again I'm going get one of these anyhow so might as well go for a combo as long as the playback is good quality anyhow.

Yeah alot of you are screaming "I don't own an HDTV" so why do I care about Blu-ray.  Simple--storage, 100GB of space vrs 4.9(9GB)DVD's--you can have complete freaking seasons on a single disc.  Something to think about anyhow.

And the PSP isn't selling because there's a drought in the software department!!  Hense, look at Nintendogs or whatever it's called--it's selling hardware--since it's release along with multiple new colors DS is selling again (a few months back it was in a slump).  All the PSP needs is the right software for that extra kick but saddly it's not happening anytime soon *cough* Coded Arms failure *cough*.

Sidenote, I (like many others) was taking the wait and see approach for the handheld wars but as of E3 2005, sony just dropped the ball--I'll be getting the DS sooner or later.  At first it looked like sony would have put up a better fight (psp launch was a good success with a strong lineup), but it didn't last too long and now it looks as if sony's already looking ahead to the PS3 and forgetting all about the PSP.

[KDR_11k]

The PS3 will launch at 400 when MS had enough time to hit 200-250 by that time. If the PS3 launch lineup is a similar desaster as the PS2 and PSP ones MS can deliver a mighty blow to their plans. Add to that the Revolution having all the hype with the hardcore (read: early adopter types) who will be the most influential factor in the word of mouth system and Sony might take a big hit. Of course, Sony has nowhere to go but down so taking a hit is the most likely outcome.

[stevey]

"I'll buy a PS3 when it conviences me, much like with the PSP, ie; when I when one in a church raffle. "

What church is give away psp!?!? I trying getting mine from a fast food place.

[Ian Sane]

"Initally the price will be set at $400 and yeah there's plenty of people who are more than willing to dish that out and those casual gamers will just wait for the price drop that will follow--it's not that hard to understand."

That's what the said about the PSP and they didn't even sellout at launch.  And at launch they had a really full lineup so a lack of games wasn't the reason.

I think Sony is really overestimating how much people like them.  The last time I saw a console-maker act so cocky was the N64 launch.  Nintendo had a "they'll buy it because it's Nintendo" attitude and it blew up in their face.  Of course they had some bigger issues than price but the arrogance was the same.

[Spak-Spang]

Ymeegod:  Price is important not just to make a profit but to set up an initial userbase.  If Sony expects to drop the price 6 months or a year later...then 3rd parties are going to have to look at which games to put the exclusives.  Next generation if Xbox has more consoles sold no amount of money Sony throws at them can help the situation.  (Because MS will be throwing the same amount of money.)  

Now Nintendo comes into the picture and not only has a cheaper price which will gobble up the market...you can release your classics on the franchise too...and use the classic to promote the new version...and with a new controller that may completely revolutionize gaming.  

Sony and its price point are going to be hurt.

And Blue-Ray DVD Movies are not sold to invest in yet.  There is still going to be a format war for the next generation movies, and we don't know if Blue-Ray will work.  I won't be stuck having to buy Sony's fixed priced movies because I bought a format that isn't supported very well.  

The jump to a new home movie system is a slow jump.  Many people are happy and don't see a need to switch.  The format that makes the switch the least intrusive will win.

[nickmitch]

Well that'll all depend on how much blu-rays will cost. But the switch will be slow. It seems that Sony is trying to monopolize the home movie industry, but what do I know?


Don't answer that.

[Draygaia]

Seeing as how the trailer made by team ninja at e3 filled up 2 gigs on one xbox 360 disc that $400 might be attractive after all.  I don't know how great their compression but even with 3 times compression its not even close to blu-ray and if you're talking about a trailer then thats a pretty damn short game especially if the the trailer is supposed to be during gameplay.  I'm beginning to think they should have gone with HD-DVD.

[BlackNMild2k1]

according to some article (i didn't post it in the HDDVD or Bluray thread cause of time issues) I saw a week or so ago, Toshiba says that MS is using HDDVD and just hasn't announced it yet.

I'll look for the article but forgive me if I don't find it.

edit found it, but it wasn't an official announcement, I posted it in the appropriate thread HERE

but here is a direct link also :
Kotaku.com - gossip

[IceCold]

[IceCold]

(should have looked at other thread first)  

[Grant10k]

Quote
Originally posted by: TVman
Well that'll all depend on how much blu-rays will cost. But the switch will be slow. It seems that Sony is trying to monopolize the home movie industry, but what do I know?


Don't answer that.

I won't. Sony has been trying to create a monopoly for years. MiniDisc, Betamax Hi-MD, 5 diffrent versions of the memory stick...the list goes on and on....

[nickmitch]

Let's not forget 'walkman.' There was a time when portable TV ='d walkman, even it it wasn't made by Sony. And before, home console gaming ='d Nintendo;ie, "Where is the Nintendo?" "Let's play some Nintendo!" Now, it's more playstation. Sony is a bunch of geniuses at that. They just make an easily recognizeable name brand.

[Spak-Spang]

TVman:  Sony isn't magical or geniuses at making a more recognizeable name brand.  Sony pretty much invented the Walkman and seemed to have a good quality product at a good price.  Everyone else seemed like knockoffs.

Nintendo was the same way with video games.  After 2 successful systems (NES, SNES) and the only successful handheld (Gameboy) Nintendo became a name for video games.  

Sony was able to steal that only after 2 full system generations of successful systems.  However, that name recongition isn't nearly as strong as it was for Nintendo because Microsoft is already stealling it back.

Besides most people still know if you say NIntendo you mean video games.  There are people that actually don't know that a Playstation is a video game system.

[nickmitch]

People like Ken Kutargi, for example.

[ib2kool4u912]

ZING!

[Ymeegod]

Cheaper doesn't mean jack sh!t. The DC was cheaper by the time the PS2 was released and that didn't do jack--same with the Gamecube---a more powerful system at $100 cheaper yet it sold DEAD last. I don't why everyone is getting exictited by nintendo's new system since there's zero facts released other than play standard GC discs and download past NES/SNES/N64 games. There's a few things that should have been made clear but nintendo doesn't own the rights for all the games released on those systems so junking your snes might not be the smartest move unless you're just sticking with classic nintendo's developed games. There's alot of money in these retro games--take the classic releases on the GBA ($20 a pop) which was nintendo's biggest cash cow of 2004. I'm almost sure nintendo plans on milking it for a few more dollars but at this point it's just my theory. Right now all sony really has to do is get the PS3 up and running by 360's launch with actual playable demos--yeah killzone 2 was a video but imagine if that was actual gameplay--I wouldn't think twice about dropping a mere $400 bones.  

[Zach]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ymeegod
I don't why everyone is getting exictited by nintendo's new system since there's zero facts released other than play standard GC discs and download past NES/SNES/N64 games.

That's just it, There is so much that Nintendo is still hiding from us that there has to be something really cool that they have up their sleeves, waiting for the right moment to reveal it so that it does not get copied like so much other stuff they have done in the past.  Hopefully, whatever it is lives up to all of the hype that is being generated.

[Ymeegod]

That's kinda the rub--hype isn't going sell unless you're the market leader which clearly nintendo isn't.  

Even info that nintendo does leak out is usually misled.  Take for example the GBA 2--last year nintendo stated how the DS wasn't the sequel to the GBA and that a new GBA was coming next year--everyone assumed that Big N was coming with GBA2 but instead they're releasing the GBA micro .  Still no word on GBA2.

So far nintendo went from the GC lasting until 2008, to being the first to launch next generation in 2005, now to god only knows.  

[Ymeegod]

Forgot to add:

Someone stated how the launch of the PSP was unsuccessful because it didn't sold out?

A.) nintendo's DS didn't sellout during it's launch neither and that was 500k.
B.) Sony sold 620K during it's first week more
C.) Sony launch during spring which plays a major role had it made the holiday season it would have clearly sold out.

Sony was clearly gaining ground and fast but without the software the PSP numbers have declined much faster than the DS (going by the initial launch dates to now).

[IceCold]

Oh come on Ymee, some of your points are really flawed. Despite what you think, price is a HUGE factor.

Only Sony is myopic enough to believe that the PSP launch price (as well as its future horrendous game droughts) would be overshadowed by the PlayStation brandname.


"didn't do jack--same with the Gamecube---a more powerful system at $100 cheaper yet it sold DEAD last"

Many, many reasons for that. Because it was cheaper, it was perceived by the ignorant public that it was a lot less powerful than the PS2 or Xbox. Nintendo did close to NOTHING to prove that wrong, so there was always that stigma. On the opposite side, MS went all out to assure the public that the 'Box was the most powerful out there, and they succeeded in just that. Next, the PS2 came out a long, long time before the GCN. It had the benefit of developers jumping on the bandwagon for a fair bit of time to develop many games before the Gamecube was even out. They did have a drought, but it really didn't matter at that point. Then the "killer apps" came and it was over. From then on, the 'Station's userbase, software library, and 3rd partry support grew and grew and grew. Had they been released at the same time and if Nintendo had done some things differently (they couldn't afford to have the drought that Sony did), the Cube would be on even footing with the PS2.

"yeah killzone 2 was a video but imagine if that was actual gameplay--I wouldn't think twice about dropping a mere $400 bones. "

I'm really sorry, but in this planet we call Earth, some of us don't have $460 US to hand out to play a single game that, even if the graphics turn out to be like that, it's gameplay is in doubt to say the least. You wouldn't think twice? Wow, you should really thank your lucky stars; not many people can afford that luxury. A "mere" 400 bucks eh?

"everyone assumed that Big N was coming with GBA2 but instead they're releasing the GBA micro . Still no word on GBA2."

I don't WANT a GBA2; the DS is perfectly fine. And what a stupid, moronic, asinine decision that would have been to release the GBA2 so close to the DS's launch. Why on earth did you think Nintendo would do that. It's still a handheld, and it needs as much work on it as the DS does. Obviously Nintendo wouldn't have been able to handle it, seeing how pre-occupied they are with the DS. And what would the people who bought the DS for $200 say?

Also, those sales numbers are wrong, if I can remember correctly, the DS most definitely DID sell out its first shipment. The "usual people" bought the PSP at launch, but then after that the sales plummeted, due in large part to price. And you say that the PSP was gaining ground fast?? Launch games like that only take a system so far...it didn't have ANY major titles coming and at a price so high, it was inevitable that the sales would go down. Only a few people pay that kind of money for a handheld system. Clearly, a price so high can only take you so far; don't tell me that the PSP isn't suffering by having a price that is ridiculous.

So yea, price is IMMENSELY important to the overall success of a system, but other factors can help overcome it (as shown in the PS2 case)    

[Ymeegod]

Nintendo was supposed to ship 500K units--anyone working at the retail stores will tell you that nintendo didn't meet it's quota.  My bestbuy only recieved 6 units when it was supposed to have 12 just to cover the pre-orders.   Of course two weeks later another shipment was in but 2 of lose were canceled by then.  

And if you don't have $460 then wait?  How hard is that to figure out?  Wait one year or two and the price will drop to $200 or so.   I didn't spend $300 on the orginal PS2 but once it dropped to $200 I grabbed it up along with a bunch of $20 greatest hits.  I should have waited on the GC (spent $240 with a two year warranty), since it dropped rather quickly.  

[IceCold]

"Nintendo was supposed to ship 500K units--anyone working at the retail stores will tell you that nintendo didn't meet it's quota. My bestbuy only recieved 6 units when it was supposed to have 12 just to cover the pre-orders"

Well, that doesn't mean that it didn't sell.........

It just means that there was a huge demand and Nintendo couldn't keep up (12 preorders and only received 6)

Quote
nintendo's DS didn't sellout during it's launch neither and that was 500k.

You had made it sound in the other post that Nintendo didn't SELL the 500k  

[Zach]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ymeegod
That's kinda the rub--hype isn't going sell unless you're the market leader which clearly nintendo isn't.  

Even info that nintendo does leak out is usually misled.  Take for example the GBA 2--last year nintendo stated how the DS wasn't the sequel to the GBA and that a new GBA was coming next year--everyone assumed that Big N was coming with GBA2 but instead they're releasing the GBA micro .  Still no word on GBA2.

So far nintendo went from the GC lasting until 2008, to being the first to launch next generation in 2005, now to god only knows.

I think you missed my point Ymeegod, you said that you didn't understand why people were so excited when there was so little information released on the rev.  I think that just the fact that we know so little is the reason we are so excited, because:
1) that means that there is something neat that they are hiding from us
2) It is a lot of fun to speculate what that may be.

I never said in my post that I though Nintendo was trying to use hype to try to sell the rev, but all of this secrecy is causing a lot of hype among the nintendo fans at least, and that cant hurt.

Also, you can't blame Nintendo for the GC not lasting untill 2008 like they originally said.  With MS and Sony releasing their systems so soon, it would be suicide for Nintendo to wait that long to release the rev.  

Edit: Gramatical (sp?) errors

[nickmitch]

Ninentdo releasing GBA2 would be bad for 2 reasons:
1) Nintendo has to split its focus between closing off the cube, keeping up DS sales, online DS, and the Rev. Anymore to focus on would be too much.
2) People would start to ignore the DS or not buy thr GBA2 because of the DS.
Even there's still the whole 3rd pillar argument.

Nintendo has made many mistakes but I think that it's up to us as fans to beleive in them and trust that they know what they are doing.

[Spak-Spang]

Actually Nintendo saying the Gamecube should last till 2008 should probably tell you that this new generation of systems is coming too soon.

Really we could have easily lasted another 2-3 years with this current generation hardware and not lost any creativity or playability in games.

I really hate high defination skins and flesh textures for the new consoles.  Characters all look like DOOM 3 which I feel has some horrible, horrible character design and models.  Everything looks plastic...and has little imagination in it.

If the next generation systems would have waited till 2008 I can't even imagine not only the graphics difference, but what we might be able to with controllers and stuff.

[vudu]

There's a news article over at gamespot.com that's in total agreement with what Spak-Spang said.  Analyst sees growth, but not from next-gen consoles

Quote
"Unlike most industry observers, we do not believe that the industry has reached the end of a 'console cycle' that is winding down with slow or even negative growth. Rather, we believe that the current consoles (at least the PS2 and the GameCube) will continue to be the systems of choice for several more years, and expect a transition to the next-generation consoles to occur gradually. As a result, we expect sales of interactive entertainment software to continue to grow at approximately 10 percent per year through 2010."

It also touches on long (and ungodly expensive) devolvement times for next gen systems.

[Zach]

I agree completely, this next generation is completely early, but nintendo is in no position to change that, Sony and Microsoft want to rush ahead, and Nintendo can either go with them or be left in the dust.

[nickmitch]

If the next-gen would've waited the PS3 probably wouldn't be so damn expensive, but knowing Sony. . .

[Galford]

The reason this next generation is coming to an end so quickly is Sony.  Sony was talking about the PS3 back in 1999, I'm not kidding about that.  MS is launching early because it wants to get the jump on Sony.

I know what I said sounds weird, go look at the last six years and what Sony said and you will see what I mean.

[Ian Sane]

This next gen is hardly early at all.  The normal space between consoles is five years.  The Cube launched in 2001 and the Rev is launching in 2006.  If it's less than five years it will only be off by a few months.  The PS2 launched in 2000 and the PS3 will launch in 2006.  That's six years.  Sony is actually waiting longer than usual this time.  The PS2 will be Sony's flagship console longer than the PS1 was.  The only one jumping the gun is MS who launched the Xbox in 2001 but are launching the X360 a year earlier than usual in 2005.

[KDR_11k]

I really hate high defination skins and flesh textures for the new consoles. Characters all look like DOOM 3 which I feel has some horrible, horrible character design and models. Everything looks plastic...and has little imagination in it.

No, that's the result of bad specmaps and applying next gen technology to current gen hardware. Normalmaps are a major change and require a workflow different from what game or movie artists are used to.

MS is pushing this gen ahead, they want to see the XBox die early. They said they'd turn in a profit by 2007, which is the same year they're going to EOL the Xbox 1. They won't EOL it earlier because MS's way of EOLing something would sour customer relations and it would push people to the PS3 instead of the X360. By 2007 the initial rush for the X360 will be over as will the fierce battle around the PS3 launch. By then the one dominating will probably keep the position.

[couchmonkey]

Yeah, the only thing that's really early about this generation is Microsoft.  I think it was expecting Sony to launch the PS3 at the end of this year, so it wanted to catch up.  Then when it turned out Sony was content to wait an extra year to launch PS3, I guess MS thought it would take advantage of a possible head-start rather than waiting.

Of course, I agree that this generation could have gone on longer than previous ones, there really isn't as much room for technical improvement as there used to be.  I wish all three companies would give us an extra year or two on the current gen.

If Sony does come out at $400, will people buy it?  Of course some will, but it may wind up depending on features.  Price didn't make a difference this generation, but that may have been because PS2 and Xbox were seen as offering free DVD players (okay, Xbox didn't offer the DVD playback for free, but it was pretty cheap).  If Sony can convince people they need Blu-Ray, then it could get away with that pricing...assuming that pricing is correct in the first place.  Again, see PSP...everyone was predicting $300-$400 for that sucker.

[spadesman]

I am a lurker and wanted to try to steer this thread back on course. I worked at Best Buy for over 4 years from 1997-2002 in the Games dept. I sold countless PS1's, PS2's, GB Color, GBA, PS2's, GC's and Xbox's. I met people from many backgrounds and various levels of income. I share this because I think I understand the mindset of the average consumer.

The prices of the next-gen systems, I think, are going to be a huge problem. What people are forgetting about it the cost just to buy the unit. Remember, not everyone uses the internet, so sales tax has to be thrown into the equation, as most states have a local and state sales tax in the US.

$399.99 +$33 sales tax (@ 8.25%) = 432.99 just to walk out the door with the unit. I remember many times trying to sell a customer who wouldn't even buy a game because their kid only had $300 saved and the parents were covering sales tax on the PS2. Countless times you would sell a game but no memory card even after telling the customer the game was fairly useless without it. Now, in retail, the pressure to attach warranties and accessories in fierce. I predict will you will see many mainline stores doing forced bundles. At Best Buy, I knew for a fact many stores would lie about their stock based on what the customer was going to buy. If all you wanted was a system, "Sorry, out of stock." (I did not do this and this is one of the reason I left.) But if you were going to buy some accessories and maybe the warranty, they would just happen to be some in the back. If the demand for the PS3 is anything like the PS2, I see this happening all over the place. Remember, from my past experience, BB didn't make but maybe a dollar on the release of the PS2 so the only way to profit was off of accessories.

Now that we have the unit at $433, now what happens if they decide to buy a game? We have now jumped close to $500 for a system and one game @ $60. Controllers? Well if the PS2 launch is any indication, they will come out at $35. Some will have to correct me, but I don't think the PS3 needs a memory card so I will leave that out.

So if just to walk out the door for a game system and a game you have to spend about $500, that to me with scare anything all except the truly hardcore gamers. I also see forced bundles popping up everywhere. I just can't imagine BB or any other major retailer allowing someone to buy a $400 product with no margins on it.  

[vudu]

Quote
BB didn't make but maybe a dollar on the release of the PS2 so the only way to profit was off of accessories.

Are margins on new consoles really that low?  

[nickmitch]

I thought that he was exagerating on the dollar thing, but was emphasizing on how low sales were because of BB only selling PS2's only to people who were willing to buy more stuff.

[Spak-Spang]

Spadesman:  I think you just proved the cost point exactly.

Lets also not forget if Blue-Ray movies are released they will cost more than normal DVDs which have gotten incredibly cheap.  Will you buy a movie for 25-30 dollars or 20 dollars or LESS!!!  

Looking at how Sony is treating the PSP they don't even really care about gaming anymore...they want to make money from their movies.  Sony could easily make this same mistake with the PS3.  Since Sony created a system that isn't dedicated to one product they must balance their releases and expensives to produce movies and games.  Movies are cheaper to produce and will provide a larger profit.  No wonder the PSP is focused on that.  The same will be true with the PS3.  

But back on subject.  The simple equation for next generation is this.


Xbox: $300 + $60 game + $50 (online service)= $410 to get into the system.  (You may get a year of online gaming free with purchase so maybe just $360.)

Sony:  $350+ $60 game + $15 (memory card) $410 to get a system.  Potentially less if the harddrive is included.  Potentially more because I under-estimated the price.)

Nintendo: $275 + $60 game = $335.00 Potentially less because games may be cheaper and hardware may be much cheaper as well.  

Given those prices I see Nintendo being the only system affordable to the mass market.  Xbox will be an expensive too for the gamer and have good penitration in the market, but the PS3 will have a much harder time, specially with the Xbox already on the market.

[nickmitch]

A 360 for $360? how drole.
But I expect Nintendo at $300. It's where they need to be and $50 for a game.

[Ian Sane]

Let's figure out how much it will cost Canadians to buy a PS3.

The conversion comes to 484.105.  You know they'll round up so let's say $485.  Canada has a federal sales tax of 7% and every province but Alberta (I think) has a provincial sales tax of about 7%.  So with tax it will cost $552.90.  OUCH.  Keep in mind that in Canada we don't think in terms of how much something costs in US funds.  $1 to us is $1, not 85 cents US so the price for us will be higher.  Counting accessories like a memory card and a game (which might be $60) and you can quite easily go over $700.  That's getting pretty damn expensive.

In comparison the Rev would probably be around $380 assuming a $275 US price plus tax.

[spadesman]

Quote
Originally posted by: vudu

Quote
BB didn't make but maybe a dollar on the release of the PS2 so the only way to profit was off of accessories.

Are margins on new consoles really that low?

I might have misspoken. I was thinking about the employee discount price rather than actual cost. At BB, employee discount was cost + 5%. I remember employee discount on most systems being something like 50 cents off, usually no more then a dollar. I am going to call a former co-worker and see if he remembered the exact pricing. If that was the case though, BB would only be making about $14-15/per PS2 @ $300, or less then 5% margin per console. I am fairly certain that retail stores don't really profit on the hardware, but software and accessories. Adding the cost to deliver the goods to the stores, and you are looking at very razor thin margins if anything. I will correct my original post if I am wrong on the number. Thanks for the question.

[TMW]

Um...really, I can't see Nintendo selling the Rev for any more than $200.  Price is a very big issue, and if anybody can pull it off and still make a profit, it would be Ninty.  

[nickmitch]

But you need to remeber how price effected image this gen. Besides it may sell more consoles and produce an even greater profit, but it'll definately make for a better image.

[Galford]

Ah, I remember almost buying a PS2 near launch and finding out that it would cost me 350.00 + tax b/c the store I was at only sold PS3 bundles.  Needless to say I didn't buy it.

I still stand by my original comments.  Sony has always looked at the Playstation as just another electronic gadget.  If you read EGM back in the mid 90's, there were a couple of articles about Sony's plans for the PSX.  Sony original plans were PS2 by 98/99 and PS3 post 2001.  Those plans never panned out, but it shows Sony's mindset about videogames.

I just can't shake the feeling that the PS2 will die an early death b/c Sony finished the PS3 and are now moving on.  Granted it is five years after the PS2, but still...

[kirby_killer_dedede]

I still don't get why people call the PS1 the PSX.  They're too horribly different things.  One was the greatest success ever and the other...wasn't.

[IceCold]

"Counting accessories like a memory card and a game (which might be $60) and you can quite easily go over $700. That's getting pretty damn expensive. In comparison the Rev would probably be around $380 assuming a $275 US price plus tax. "

And that's even with the incredibly strong Canadian dollar; I believe the exchange rate is 1.23. Going back a while(not that far), it has been more than 1.64, but I'll use 1.50 as a comparison. Using that, it could quite easily go over $850 w/ a game and a controller (The PS3 has a hard drive I believe). The Rev, in comparison, would be (using the $275 price point) about $550..

Now these are imaginary numbers, but they could have been very realistic if the exchange rate hadn't changed. That's a sh!tload of money, whichever way you slice it...

Personally, I think the PS3 is going to be $359.99 US, the 360 will be $299.99 US, and the Rev will be $249.99 US

[Ian Sane]

"I still don't get why people call the PS1 the PSX."

PSX is the real abbreviation for the Playstation.  It was widely used until Sony revealed the PSOne model.  Back before the PS2 came out people used the abbreviation PSX because with no PS2 it would have made no sense to call it the PS1.  Sony calling their multimedia thingy the PSX just f*cked everything up.  I wonder if they were deliberately trying to kill off the original PSX abbreviation to strengthen the modern PS1 brand name.

[KDR_11k]

It was the project name, the X was added after the deal with Nintendo broke. It's called PSX for the same reason all sites have DOL and NTR sections nowadys.

Everyone wants TLAs nowadays, two letters apparently aren't enough and that's why many sites add an N to DS and GC or an X to PS.

[ShyGuy]

I think KDR is posting is some kind of code... what is DOL and NTR

[MarioAllStar]

They were the codenames for the Nintendo systems before they were released.

NTR=Nitro -> DS
DOL=Dolphin -> Cube

If you look at the model numbers for Nintendo's products you will see that they correspond with their system's codename. The NTR-001 is the DS system. NTR-004 is the stylus. The games have model numbers like this too. (Well, sort of. The discs have a model number of DOL-006, but there is also a unique game-based product code. For example, DL-DOL-GZLE-USA is the U.S. version of Wind Waker.)  

[TMW]

Dolphin and Nitro.

I think.  

[TMW]

EDIT!!

gah!  Double post'd!

[kennyb27]

I don't know if this was put in another topic, but Sony's president recently said the following:  

Quote
We're looking at a life cycle of 10 years with the PlayStation 3. We're currently shifting from standard TVs to HD TVs. But in the next couple of years, most flat-panel TVs will be full HD. We're releasing the PS3 with full HD features from the start so that consumers won't have to buy another version of the console in the future. For the same reason, we're using Blu-ray as the PS3's disc format.

I'm aware that with all these technologies, the PS3 can't be offered at a price that's targeted towards households.

I'm not going to reveal its price today. I'm going to only say that it'll be expensive.

Now, I don't quite understand this statement.  I mean the obvious question is who exactly are they targeting?  And as Cnet.com says, it is slightly (only slightly of course) that he says it will "only be expensive."  I mean what do they plan on selling this thing for?

[Spak-Spang]

I really like the idea that Sony is trying to extend the life expectancy of the game systems...however, no game system will last 10 years...unless all three  companies get together and decide to delay a new system.

I can see Nintendo agreeing to that because Nintendo seems to make a more friendly enviroment for developers and publishers, a longer life cycle would achieve that.

Microsoft though, I really don't see them willing to sit for 10 years when they could easily launch a new system in 6 years that would completely blow away the competition.  

I see next generation MAYBE lasting 6 years...but nothing longer than that.

[nickmitch]

I can see it lasting 10 years but MS would definately make an upgrade available and Nintendo might too.

[Spak-Spang]

If any upgrade is available it will probably be a new system...I don't see the companies trying an add on device or upgrade...they never sell well.

That is the thing.  Someone will do something to try to jump ahead of the pack be it release a new system earlier than expected or something.  

You know Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo will all be developing and researching a new system from day one after this next generation is out the door to prevent from being blindsided.

[Ian Sane]

If any company seriously wants a console to last ten years this is probably the only way to do it.  It has to have REALLY impressive hardware so that means it has to be pretty pricey.  Nintendo couldn't do this because they always try to balance cost and hardware so there's always some omission that requires a new console to come along in five years.

But this is a big risk.  Okay so the PS3 can last 10 years.  Great.  By then the Rev and X360 will probably be dated as hell.  But Sony has to sell consoles NOW in order to last 10 years.  We dont know the Rev hardware yet but the X360 doesn't look dated right now and now is what matters.  The price could make a huge difference.  Traditionally with electronics things are really expensive for early adopters but get better as time goes on.  Nintendo and Microsoft's early adopter price might be around Sony's middleground price.  In comparison to Sony the competition is skipping the early adopter price entirely.  That could greatly affect sales.

The Rev could be $250 at launch.  In comparison it might take the PS3 a couple of years to reach that price at which point the Rev should be even cheaper.  Same with MS though it might take the PS3 less time to match the price.  Even then though MS can just lower their price.

[couchmonkey]

Personally, I don't think it matters how powerful they make PS3...Having seen several games and demos for Xbox 360 and PS3, I think as long as the actual games live up to that, we've basically reached the point where any new systems are going to be like new computer animated movies.  They'll cram 50% more details and some nifty new effect in, and a few people who really know what's going on will be impressed, but most people will not see the difference.

In other words, PS"4" and Xbox "720" are not going to be able to top the next-gen systems by a large enough margin to justify spending hundreds of dollars on them - unless they don't live up to expectations.  I think even PS3 and Xbox 360 are having a hard time justifying their existance with the graphics they're offering.

Because of that Sony may be thinking it's time to extend system lifespans.  I'm cool with that, but are Microsoft and Nintendo?  Nintendo probably would be, it wanted this generation to go longer than it did.  Microsoft will no doubt release another system in five to six years in the hopes of knocking Sony out.  I don't believe graphics alone will do that, but maybe some other emerging technology will force Sony to upgrade or replace the PS3.  What if Blu Ray fails miserably and HD DVD or some other new medium proves to be really popular, for example?

I fully agree with Ian on one thing: Sony can't make it too expensive. Publishers and developers won't care how good the system is going to look in five years if it doesn't have any users now.  I still think PS3 will be priced low enough to do well but it's sounding more and more like it really will be a lot more expensive than Xbox 360.

[kirby_killer_dedede]

lol, matt can actually be funny!

go look at his print ad for ps3...haha...

EDIT: ..."The PS3 is not aimed at households" is not a comment I'd be making if I wanted to sell it at a low price, guys...at this point I honestly see a $500 price tag at launch.  Plus Spring isn't exactly an ideal launch time...I see a strong launch lineup, weak launch.