Playstation 3: Hardware Info and Price

[MechanizedDeath]

Be prepared to kiss your save files goodbye. FWIW, the PS3 might not be able to read files in the same format as the PS2 memory card. I don't know if converting to other file formats will make it any better either, since I'm not convinced the games themselves will be able to read different formats. Afterall, isn't the RW of memory cards handled through software protocals sent to the IOP? If the IOP changes (I assume the southbridge replaces IOP), then I'm thinking it would require a change to the actual code in order to read PS1/2 save files from external devices.

There is a lot of assuming on my part, and we know what happens when we assume. But not having done game development before, I'm just going on what I currently know. One thing is for certain, the PS3 will have to be able to store save files somewhere on the HDD in the same file format used for the PS1/2. So there must be some way for old software to tell the PS3 southbridge to read and write save files. Blah, I'm rambling. PEACE.

 

[onanie]

Please understand that the presence of a $500 PS3 SKU doesn't suddenly make people consider the $300 360 pack more. People will continue to look at the $400 premium 360 pack, and realise that the PS3 can be had for just $100 more.

And you have to understand that just because Sony has decided to bundle a HDD, it doesn't mean that every person in the world instantly wants one.

There are still hundreds of millions of PS1 and PS2 owners who've never even owned a HDD, yet now you claim that no-one in their right mind could live without one. Give me a break.

MS drops the HDD cost by $40, problem solved. MS bundles a 64mb MC? Problem solved. MS drops the Core price by $50? Problem solved. The core can easily be set up as a very desireable package with a couple small tweaks.

MS has *obviously* strategically priced the Core package to be undesireable, this is intentional, it's apparent they want to move more premiums at this point in time. But don't expect it to be this way forever, MS created the core package for a reason, and they'll take advantage of that. You're fooling yourself if you think otherwise.

So "obviously", the core package is just a token entry cost for MS that is undesirable (which Sony felt no need to compete with).

Does your "very minor things that can easily change, namely lack of wireless controller, tiny 64mb memory card, and an overpriced 20gb hdd", by any chance, remind you of some other pack? I sure hope so

Never said previous gen PS owners needed a HDD to live - they were perfectly happy, I'm sure. Of course, it is currently mandated, but with the benefits of HDD easily demonstrable on the previous xbox (and even the current 360, perhaps), it is certainly a welcome feature.

 

[one]

Be prepared to kiss your save files goodbye. FWIW, the PS3 might not be able to read files in the same format as the PS2 memory card. I don't know if converting to other file formats will make it any better either, since I'm not convinced the games themselves will be able to read different formats. Afterall, isn't the RW of memory cards handled through software protocals sent to the IOP? If the IOP changes (I assume the southbridge replaces IOP), then I'm thinking it would require a change to the actual code in order to read PS1/2 save files from external devices.

There is a lot of assuming on my part, and we know what happens when we assume. But not having done game development before, I'm just going on what I currently know. One thing is for certain, the PS3 will have to be able to store save files somewhere on the HDD in the same file format used for the PS1/2. So there must be some way for old software to tell the PS3 southbridge to read and write save files. Blah, I'm rambling. PEACE.

There are PS/PS2 emulators for PC, why do you think PS/PS2 emulation on PS3 is complicated as you describe here unlike what PC emulators do?

As for save data, if PS3 can read them through USB connection to PS2 it's nice. Currently there are third party tools to move PS2 savedata to PC via USB.

 

[Guden Oden]

Afterall, isn't the RW of memory cards handled through software protocals sent to the IOP? If the IOP changes (I assume the southbridge replaces IOP), then I'm thinking it would require a change to the actual code in order to read PS1/2 save files from external devices.

No worries. Emulators have handled saving and loading to cartridge SRAM memories for pretty much a decade by now.

 

[Acert93]

http://eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=64797

I was a little taken with the tone of this Eurogamers article. Maybe the most interesting point I found in the article is below:

Finally, the price - greeted by polite applause. From an industry perspective, the price is fine. Sony will sell out the launch allocation at a high price. It worked for PS2 and PSP. But just as GTAIV appearing on PS3 and 360 simultaneously will weigh on the minds of casual gamers - most of whom probably fancy a go on Halo 3 as well - Sony's latest shameless tax on enthusiasm is likely to weigh on the minds of us lot. We buy every single console when it comes out. You're probably the same. But EUR 600 - even EUR 500 - is more than we're used to paying. The arguments need to be made in games, not with Blu-ray, Cell and RSX. Surely you can only cry "Emotion Engine" once?

Last gen you kind of had to choose: GTA or Halo. This time around, come fall 2007 if you have not bought a console and want both you can on one console. Add in a cheaper price and larger back library and that could make a compelling case to those who are on the fence.

The more this begins to pan out, the more competition, at least in the next year or two, there seems there will be. This is good for consumers, but also in some cases for developers where they can leverage Sony and MS against eachother for better royalties and exposure.

 

[one]

As for GTA, you have to consider there were people who waited for the superior Xbox and PC versions of GTA:VC.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

So "obviously", the core package is just a token entry cost for MS that is undesirable (which Sony felt no need to compete with).

What on Earth are you talking about?

All those 'impulse buyers' who are gamers, who bring home a net paycheck of $400-$500 a week are going to be able to purchase the Core, plus mem card, plus a game.

They simply won't be able to buy a PS3, period.

Do they know that they are 'getting screwed' by having to pay more later for a HDD (if they want to use Live!) and a wireless controller? Sure. But they had to buy an extra controller anyway because I'd say the vast majority of console gamers play with somebody else so they needed to purchase an extra controller anyway, and this way "their friend" gets stuck with the crappy wired controller and has to sit closer to the TV while they can lounge back on the couch with their wireless one... it is their system after all.

Sony would have loved to compete with MS at the $299 price level. But they simply can't because their main focus isn't to make money off the PS3, it's to make money off of Blu-Ray, which is why they included it in every console and forced every single consumer to pay the premium for.

This is absolutely no different at all than MS selling the Xbox Remote last generation for those people who wanted to play DVD Movies on the Xbox. Once again, MS has sold to the lowest common denominator.. those who want the ability to do more can pay for it. And once again, Sony has decided that everybody will pay that premium regardless of whether or not they actually want to use the functionality.

 

[one]

Sony would have loved to compete with MS at the $299 price level. But they simply can't because their main focus isn't to make money off the PS3, it's to make money off of Blu-Ray, which is why they included it in every console and forced every single consumer to pay the premium for.

Adding HDD while not losing billions of dollars like MS did with Xbox 1 is important too.

 

[Acert93]

As for GTA, you have to consider there were people who waited for the superior Xbox and PC versions of GTA:VC.

Without knowing which one will be best, it does seem in the past that a large majority of people bought it right off. Did even 1M people wait a year to buy the game later? We don't know how many Xbox/PC owners who bought GTA also have a PS2, but it would be hard to believe that any significant number waited a year to play one of the best games of its time.

Anyhow, this is not really about which is better, but the market impact of 1 console having the 2 best selling games last generation. They may not be very big in the East, but Halo and GTA are very important franchises in the US.

Come October 17th, 2007 you can either buy a 360 with Halo3 and GTA4, or you can buy PS3 with GTA4. Of course each platform has other VERY important games and there are back library and console price issues and name brand recognition that play into it, but I don't think we can minimize the effect of the two best sellers in the US now being on one platform at launch day.

Its not the end of the world in of itself, but it will play into some consumers buying decisions.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Adding HDD while not losing billions of dollars like MS did with Xbox 1 is important too.

No doubt.

You won't get an argument from me on that one.

But I will say.. we don't know how much money Sony is losing on each PS3 sold at their current prices. If we go by the 'merril lynch crowd', I believe MS is currently losing something like $150 on each 360 while Sony will lose $300 on each PS3.

 

[one]

Come October 17th, 2007 you can either buy a 360 with Halo3 and GTA4, or you can buy PS3 with GTA4. Of course each platform has other VERY important games and there are back library and console price issues and name brand recognition that play into it, but I don't think we can minimize the effect of the two best sellers in the US now being on one platform at launch day.

Agreed, right now it's a big win for Xbox 360, what I'm not sure is how much the simultaneous launch decreases potential PS3 buyers. There are some uncertainties here, they'll be cleared in the next 1 and a half year.

• The difference between the PS3 and Xbox 360 versions, including multiplayer options
• The relation to GTA:VCS for PSP and GTA:LCS for PS2 in this year
• The prices of Xbox 360 and PS3 as of Oct. 2007 - why not buy both if you want to play Halo 3?
• Other games to be available around the end of 2007

No doubt.

You won't get an argument from me on that one.

But I will say.. we don't know how much money Sony is losing on each PS3 sold at their current prices. If we go by the 'merril lynch crowd', I believe MS is currently losing something like $150 on each 360 while Sony will lose $300 on each PS3.

Cell, RSX, the wireless motion sensing controller, and Blu-ray are all expected to get cheap very fast in the 5-6 years console cycle. But HDD is not. Hence if you argue on the expensive PS3 price you should bring up HDD first, Blu-ray is secondary IMHO.

 

[zed]

All those 'impulse buyers' who are gamers, who bring home a net paycheck of $400-$500 a week are going to be able to purchase the Core, plus mem card, plus a game.

heres me thinking they'll be getting a wii

 

[Carl B]

The hard drive this go around is a bold move, but in a way it serves the same purpose as Blu-ray in that it's definitely something they're going to look to monetize via downloads and such, while at the same time trying to expand their reach and brand in the digital distribution space. If the customer spends on downloads as much or more over the life of the console as it costs Sony to include the HDD in the first place, then in a way it pays for itself. Obviously Sony will be hedging a little as well, and so I expect as long as the hard drive consists of a traditional 2.5" magnetic, there will always be a certain price premium built into the console to help pad that hit.

 

[ihamoitc2005]

Hard-drive

The hard drive this go around is a bold move, but in a way it serves the same purpose as Blu-ray in that it's definitely something they're going to look to monetize via downloads and such, while at the same time trying to expand their reach and brand in the digital distribution space. If the customer spends on downloads as much or more over the life of the console as it costs Sony to include the HDD in the first place, then in a way it pays for itself. Obviously Sony will be hedging a little as well, and so I expect as long as the hard drive consists of a traditional 2.5" magnetic, there will always be a certain price premium built into the console to help pad that hit.

I think maybe Sony can have also had no HD and instead faster Blu-Ray with RW.

 

[mckmas8808]

I think maybe Sony can have also had no HD and instead faster Blu-Ray with RW.

Why RW over a HDD?

 

[RobertR1]

Agreed, right now it's a big win for Xbox 360, what I'm not sure is how much the simultaneous launch decreases potential PS3 buyers. There are some uncertainties here, they'll be cleared in the next 1 and a half year.

• The difference between the PS3 and Xbox 360 versions, including multiplayer options
• The relation to GTA:VCS for PSP and GTA:LCS for PS2 in this year
• The prices of Xbox 360 and PS3 as of Oct. 2007 - why not buy both if you want to play Halo 3?
• Other games to be available around the end of 2007

Cell, RSX, the wireless motion sensing controller, and Blu-ray are all expected to get cheap very fast in the 5-6 years console cycle. But HDD is not. Hence if you argue on the expensive PS3 price you should bring up HDD first, Blu-ray is secondary IMHO.

In 5-6, the "Evil Empire" will have a new console out which will draw away a lot of people.

 

[patsu]

I think maybe Sony can have also had no HD and instead faster Blu-Ray with RW.

There is a subtle but important difference. If you only have BD, then you may not be able to run a large application if that BD is removed and/or replaced by another disk. A "permanently-there" HD allows PS3 to load and run default applications (even using some form of VM if the app is not demanding e.g., word processor).

Then of course the digital download stuff also works perpectually (i.e., you can remove the BD but the downloaded content is still accessible).

Remember: PS3 is no longer a game console.

 

[patsu]

In 5-6, the "Evil Empire" will have a new console out which will draw away a lot of people.

May be and may be not. We already know there will be different variations/configurations of PS3 beyond launch to keep it up-to-date. But they will all have HD, network-enabled and Linux platform. Sony seems to be "platformizing" PS3 (in the networked hardware world), the same way Microsoft is platformizing Windows (in the networked software world).

 

[RobertR1]

May be and may be not. We already know there will be different variations/configurations of PS3 beyond launch to keep it up-to-date. But they will all have HD, network-enabled and Linux platform. Sony seems to be "platformizing" PS3 (in the networked hardware world), the same way Microsoft is platformizing Windows (in the networked software world).

Upgraded versions of the same console over it's life cycle is a bad idea. The whole point of a console is homogenous hardware that you never have to worry about upgrading or maintaining (software updates) and be able to play all the games designed for it during it's life cycle.

The PlayStation name is associated to gaming and nothing else. Trying to change it all around in one fell swoop might shock a lot of people in a negative manner. Of the 100million people who bought a PS2, I'm sure a very small percentage of them (enthusiasts mainly) want all this. The rest of us just want to pop in a game and play without any hassle.

I'd be damn pissed if the PS3.4 played games better because it had a faster blu ray drive which could stream content faster or a higher spec'd GPU which could take the choppiness out of some of the titles. Also, Linux isn't for everybody. If they open it up, esp. net access then you run into all the security issues associated with that.

 

[Acert93]

30 year history of console retail pricing, both inflation and non-inflation.