Playstation 3: Hardware Info and Price

[patsu]

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.

Bad idea or not, it's apparently in Sony's plan now (Many people think "high" introductory price is a bad idea too, look where we are now ? ). Sony probably has to evolve its strategies to deal with the situation too. Even as a computer, the Playstation is still relatively closed and well-supported because like Apple Computers, the technology and component suppliers remain tightly in control. This is not the same as totally open PC platforms. BTW, why is it ok to have a new console that is totally incompatible with my old games every 5 years again ? I may buy PS3 on its 3rd year, that means it's life is only 2 years ?

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.

Marketing may change the perception over time. Why can't you just pop in a PS3 game and play without hassle ? The developers will just write to the base PS3 specs (largest installed base) until Sony phases it out. Apple Computer phases out old models too but there is no hoo-hahs. In fact, old PS3 games may run on PS4 without much effort.

With Sony's latest talks, I'm just questioning the discrete and abrupt change every 5-6 years (dictated by MS based on your comment). The Cell architecture is well-defined. RSX is based on OpenGL. If the hardware end is managed well by Sony, game developers will still have relatively tight assumptions about their target platform. No ? Xbox developers already need to handle HDD/no HDD today.

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.

Sorry can't help you there. And you wouldn't be p*ssed when your launch game is choppy in the first place ? And you wouldn't be p*ssed when MS forced a totally new system every 5-6 years ? Why ?

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.

Some of your friends' cellphone already run on Linux today; same for your wireless router at home, TiVo, etc. ... In fact, some cellphones run on Windows too. So ? *scratch head*

I might be playing with the topic, but there is some truth to it

 

[zed]

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

interesting my first console atari2600 costs more than $600 nowadays (which i can easily believe, cause i remember it was a lot of cash way back then)
also for the benifit of some of the younger readers on this forum, the 2600 was huge at the time.
also i saw another relative piece of news todays
ESA Stats: Average U.S. Gamer 33 Years Old
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=9342
$600 to much, no i dont think so

 

[Platon]

interesting my first console atari2600 costs more than $600 nowadays (which i can easily believe, cause i remember it was a lot of cash way back then)
also for the benifit of some of the younger readers on this forum, the 2600 was huge at the time.
also i saw another relative piece of news todays
ESA Stats: Average U.S. Gamer 33 Years Old
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=9342
$600 to much, no i dont think so

During the 70s those things were sure expensive, for two reasons, electronics at that time were all expesive, and compared to today it was not as common. Today electronics are generaly much cheaper and we are used to that. You shouldn't be comparing how much the PS3 costs compared to what those electonics costed in the 70s, but rather what the PS2 cost, as that is what most people will be comparing it to...

 

[pipo]

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

Nope. I can go to a store and buy a GameCube and PS2 without a memory pack. And you know what, people actually do that too. I wouldn't, but that doesn't change the fact that people with a *smaller budget* do. Sony needed the HD. Simple as that.

Also, we can inflate all we want, but people are going to compare prices. The PS3 will sell out and do fine, but the price is not going to be of any help to that. Plain and simple it will make some people think twice.

 

[RobertR1]

Bad idea or not, it's apparently in Sony's plan now (Many people think "high" introductory price is a bad idea too, look where we are now ? ). Sony probably has to evolve its strategies to deal with the situation too. Even as a computer, the Playstation is still relatively closed and well-supported because like Apple Computers, the technology and component suppliers remain tightly in control. This is not the same as totally open PC platforms. BTW, why is it ok to have a new console that is totally incompatible with my old games every 5 years again ? I may buy PS3 on its 3rd year, that means it's life is only 2 years ?

Sony says they will be backwards compatiable with all PS1 and PS2 games so it's safe to assume this trend will continue and much credit to them on that end. Playstation is well supported because they have the market share and sold 100million units. Simple as that. If 5years from now, Company C has Sony's market share and Sony has only 20% you'd see this "support" shift.

Marketing may change the perception over time. Why can't you just pop in a PS3 game and play without hassle ? The developers will just write to the base PS3 specs (largest installed base) until Sony phases it out. Apple Computer phases out old models too but there is no hoo-hahs. In fact, old PS3 games may run on PS4 without much effort.

Yes marketing does but I believe this is too much of a jump they're trying to make. If they achieve half of what they planned out (full entertainment devices that can do everything) I'd be surprised. If your PS3 is cluttered with all sorts of apps and programs running, then your gaming experience could suffer and as a company I certainly would not want the nightmare of have to act as customer support for all such issues. The KISS mentality is better in this case.

With Sony's latest talks, I'm just questioning the discrete and abrupt change every 5-6 years (dictated by MS based on your comment). The Cell architecture is well-defined. RSX is based on OpenGL. If the hardware end is managed well by Sony, game developers will still have relatively tight assumptions about their target platform. No ? Xbox developers already need to handle HDD/no HDD today.

If the industry stays on pace, 5-6 years is a lifetime and I dont' believe either console has that sort of longevity in it. That's my belief atleast. The next one to release the "major" console will get the most attention. Latest and greatest has a lot of appeal to and pull, since you wanted to discuss marketing. It practically forces the competitions hand. Think of Ati/Nvidia. If nvidia release a new card or tech, Ati is pretty much put on the spot to counter quickly and vice versa. With such fierce competition in the console world, this applies also. It's been proven over time that company's that lag behind once the get the lead can get left behind for good.

Sorry can't help you there. And you wouldn't be p*ssed when your launch game is choppy in the first place ? And you wouldn't be p*ssed when MS forced a totally new system every 5-6 years ? Why ?

Why would I be pissed? A piece of $399 hardware lasting me for 5-6years is plenty. I don't expect miracles for that price. I would be pissed if they kept upping the specs for the same core hardware and the game which runs choppy on my machine runs well on the "refresh" model to due the spec changes. It's not a PC that I can remove components as I see fit so don't make it upgradable. With a core and premium packages you know what you're getting right away but with upgraded components you have no idea whether you should buy now or wait for a higher spec model down the road that might run your favorite game just that much better. As a company the last thing i want is to put purchase doubt in my customers mind.

Some of your friends' cellphone already run on Linux today; same for your wireless router at home, TiVo, etc. ... In fact, some cellphone runs on Windows too. So ? *scratch head*

Sony is trying to push for some miracle all in one device. The more modules you add the more you complicate it. If this whole thing stays closed then they'll need to support it. I'd had to run that helpdesk with Timmy and Jimmy calling me left and right. Just like the 2005PS3 lost features when the 2006 PS3 came about, I'm sure some of these dreams will fade in time. If the PS3 becomes anything more than a gaming console to the masses, I'd be very surprised. Let's wait and see.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

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

Great link. I'd say taken in isolations these statistics should cause Sony to worry. Of the more modern consoles around PS3's higher price, NeoGeo, CD-i, 3DO, none went on to take the world by storm. Saturn was similarly priced and died. Of course, that's not at all a fair consideration or scientific evaluation, but other than 'people have paid lots for consoles before' there's not much more info to be had from this. And I think on then whole the more expensive consoles have done less well when there's been cheaper alternatives, excepting perhaps PS2.

 

[patsu]

Sony says they will be backwards compatiable with all PS1 and PS2 games so it's safe to assume this trend will continue and much credit to them on that end. Playstation is well supported because they have the market share and sold 100million units. Simple as that. If 5years from now, Company C has Sony's market share and Sony has only 20% you'd see this "support" shift.

... but this has nothing to do with Sony's plan to turn PS3 into a Cell computer. Following the computer model, old program will continue to run on new hardware with minimal Sony involvement.

Yes marketing does but I believe this is too much of a jump they're trying to make. If they achieve half of what they planned out (full entertainment devices that can do everything) I'd be surprised. If your PS3 is cluttered with all sorts of apps and programs running, then your gaming experience could suffer and as a company I certainly would not want the nightmare of have to act as customer support for all such issues. The KISS mentality is better in this case.

Perhaps but this is not proven. Does Apple Computer gets a lot of support calls ? Why don't we wait and see ?

PS3 is the most sophisticated consumer device yet. With newer revision, don't you think the full entertainment device vision will be realized sooner ? If Sony doesn't do it, someone else would. Even Xbox 360 is introducing more and more features into what was once a simple standalone game console.

If the industry stays on pace, 5-6 years is a lifetime and I dont' believe either console has that sort of longevity in it. That's my belief atleast. The next one to release the "major" console will get the most attention. Latest and greatest has a lot of appeal to and pull, since you wanted to discuss marketing. It practically forces the competitions hand. Think of Ati/Nvidia. If nvidia release a new card or tech, Ati is pretty much put on the spot to counter quickly and vice versa. With such fierce competition in the console world, this applies also. It's been proven over time that company's that lag behind once the get the lead can get left behind for good.

If MS wants to force a computer economics (short lifecycle refresh) on Sony, why can't Sony do it to MS ? Sony mentioned that the PS3 design is modular and upgradable. With properly managed technology suppliers and a stable API, it is possible to evolve the PS3 Cell computer quickly too. But my real point is: In the end, all these are just speculations right ? Why bring future Xboxes and PS3s into the picture when the title says: "Playstation 3: Hardware Info and Price" ?

Why would I be pissed? A piece of $399 hardware lasting me for 5-6years is plenty. I don't expect miracles for that price. I would be pissed if they kept upping the specs for the same core hardware and the game which runs choppy on my machine runs well on the "refresh" model to due the spec changes. It's not a PC that I can remove components as I see fit so don't make it upgradable. With a core and premium packages you know what you're getting right away but with upgraded components you have no idea whether you should buy now or wait for a higher spec model down the road that might run your favorite game just that much better. As a company the last thing i want is to put purchase doubt in my customers mind.

If it's a closed computer system with similar architecture (like Macintoshes), it will not be difficult for developers to know which revision your console is, and then turn off certain features to make it run well. You still get what you paid for. It's just like buying a Mac.

Sony is trying to push for some miracle all in one device. The more modules you add the more you complicate it. If this whole thing stays closed then they'll need to support it. I'd had to run that helpdesk with Timmy and Jimmy calling me left and right. Just like the 2005PS3 lost features when the 2006 PS3 came about, I'm sure some of these dreams will fade in time. If the PS3 becomes anything more than a gaming console to the masses, I'd be very surprised. Let's wait and see.

Execution means everything here. Being a closed platform doesn't necessarily mean you'll get less calls. MS was swarmed by scratched disks and overheating problems. If Sony were to take this route, it will try to be a Mac rather than a PC.

I sent this note just to illustrate that we can speculate all we want and there'd be no right or wrong. I'm glad that we came to the same conclusion: Let's wait and see. Sorry mods. Won't do it again.

 

[Arwin]

Great link. I'd say taken in isolations these statistics should cause Sony to worry. Of the more modern consoles around PS3's higher price, NeoGeo, CD-i, 3DO, none went on to take the world by storm. Saturn was similarly priced and died. Of course, that's not at all a fair consideration or scientific evaluation, but other than 'people have paid lots for consoles before' there's not much more info to be had from this. And I think on then whole the more expensive consoles have done less well when there's been cheaper alternatives, excepting perhaps PS2.

The failure of CD-i, 3DO, and to a lesser extent the NeoGeo, can't really be blamed on price alone though. I remember the introduction of the first two, and I already decided I didn't want them even before I started thinking about if I could afford them - they just sucked, didn't have any good games, etc. With the Saturn, it was even tougher - the Playstation was clearly better and had better games.

I'm also not 100% sure about the inflation correction. First of all, if you compare the Playstation 2 price in Europe vs the PS3 price in Europe, these equal out pretty much exactly, taking a modest 2% cumulative inflation over 6 years.* Another thing you could take into account is how the dollar developed against the Yen over that period - I understand that from a U.S. perspective you're not interested in doing that, but you have to realise that thanks to the record deficit, the dollar has internationally lost in value a fair bit too. Comparing it to how it developed against the euro, short after the euro's release the euro was about 1.2 against the dollar, now it is 0.8. If I take that into account, pricing in the U.S. and E.U. have evolved the same way, with Europeans always paying a little bit more for their consoles as people in the U.S. have.

Also, the PS3 is more value for money than the PS2 was back then, and unlike 3DO and CD-i, the PS3 is a well established product, from a well supported and accepted lineage.

I personally wouldn't be surprised if all three consoles do better this generation than they did last generation, with the market continuing to expand.

 

[pipo]

I personally wouldn't be surprised if all three consoles do better this generation than they did last generation, with the market continuing to expand.

Going a bit off topic here, but are there any numbers available? What's the expectated growth?

 

[Sis]

Remember: PS3 is no longer a game console.

But that's just marketing speak. The PS3 is still a game console, it just happens to do a couple other things as well. The PS2 could play movies, and some people bought it for DVD playback. That doesn't mean it's no longer a game console.

A device still exhibits the main aspects of its primary function, regardless of convergence.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

But that's just marketing speak. The PS3 is still a game console, it just happens to do a couple other things as well. The PS2 could play movies, and some people bought it for DVD playback. That doesn't mean it's no longer a game console.

A device still exhibits the main aspects of its primary function, regardless of convergence.

I think the jury's still out on what PS3 is. If Sony show a comprehensive library of non-gaming applications and there is open development for it, it does become an entertainment computer and not just a games console. For the time being these alternative functions are few and peripheral, though there's no denying Sony's intentions for the platform/brand.

 

[Sis]

I think the jury's still out on what PS3 is. If Sony show a comprehensive library of non-gaming applications and there is open development for it, it does become an entertainment computer and not just a games console. For the time being these alternative functions are few and peripheral, though there's no denying Sony's intentions for the platform/brand.

But if it looks like a duck... The point being that Sony has to prove otherwise first, not the other way around. Until then, it's a gaming machine with added HD movie playback capabilities. Whether Sony delivers a platform, at launch or down the road, is irrelevant to what is true today.

 

[Carl B]

I think Sony's been fairly successful in pushing the PSP as a 'gaming and more' device, so beyond the fact that psychologically it might be easier for people to buy into that idea for a mobile device, I do think there's some precedent for people being able to grasp at a console being meant for more than just playing games. It'll be Sony's case to prove, but a guaranteed launch sell-out will put them in a better position to highlight the aspects they want highlighted.

 

[onanie]

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?

I'm not sure why you would have difficulty comprehending.

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.

"All those 'impulse buyers' who are gamers, who bring home a net paycheck of $400-$500 a week" still bought the premium pack (statistically speaking. Those that absolutely had to buy the core pack for any reason, represent a smaller proportion of the 360 buyers). It isn't as if they needed to buy one console a week. If anyone in the same situation is keen to buy a PS3, they simply save up for it similarly.

As i alluded to before, Sony doesn't need to compete with MS at $300. With regards to blu-ray, it is a necessary component for games (if only for a few, though if one is endowed with any foresight, then it will probably be for a significant proportion of games in the future).

 

[Nesh]

Great link. I'd say taken in isolations these statistics should cause Sony to worry. Of the more modern consoles around PS3's higher price, NeoGeo, CD-i, 3DO, none went on to take the world by storm. Saturn was similarly priced and died. Of course, that's not at all a fair consideration or scientific evaluation, but other than 'people have paid lots for consoles before' there's not much more info to be had from this. And I think on then whole the more expensive consoles have done less well when there's been cheaper alternatives, excepting perhaps PS2.

I think its different for Sony though. Unlike these Sony takes many strategic steps. Sony already broke many molds. Nobody believed a contender like Sony could do so well and even surpass by difference our all time favourites Sega and Nintendo.

We have seen many flat fallen efforts from companies, like Philips, Panasonic, Goldstar and the likes. Sony could have been one of them, These not only sold their products at a very high price, they were overpriced as well. They were naive efforts. Sony though managed the top spot for two years. They even maintained their market share. Very uncommon

Unlike them Sony maintains huge support for their console with titles that take advandage of the hardware, great marketing strategy and a huge marketshare. They didint start from zero, and they havent weakened their efforts to push it forward.

We also had examples of products that unexpectedly failed or didnt follow the same path as previous examples. DC had a strong line up, and has sold well. Paradoxically it died.

GC was cheaper and more powerful. It remained profitable with very few sales.

XBOX made losses, made more sales than GC in US and Europe and a name almost as powerfull as Sony's and Nintendo's

Sony even brought the PS2 in the market with the same problems the Saturn had. Parallel processing? Unfinished tools( worse state than even the Saturn's)? A launch line up that wasnt very strong?

The real thing Sony has to worry about is the possibility that they wont recover from the initial losses, either because they wrongly estimated their business strategy or because of exogenous unexpected/omitted factors.

The industry has become more interesting and less predictable today. It changed as well as the consumers. Past examples arent as powerful indicators as they used to be. Now firms bring more "guns on the table" they have learned what works and what doesnt in the industry. More factors play the decisive role today.

 

[sir doris]

I don't think you can use the 3D0 or CDi as any sort of indication how the PS3 will perform. Back when the 3DO and CDi were released consoles were still something aimed at children, both consoles may have been aimed at the more mature audience but the market wasn't there. Since the playstation adults are interested in gaming.

Also don't forget that the blu-ray drive *should* provide an extra way for people to show off there flat panels (blu-ray movies) without any additional cost.

 

[Nesh]

I don't think you can use the 3D0 or CDi as any sort of indication how the PS3 will perform. Back when the 3DO and CDi were released consoles were still something aimed at children, both consoles may have been aimed at the more mature audience but the market wasn't there. Since the playstation adults are interested in gaming.

Also don't forget that the blu-ray drive *should* provide an extra way for people to show off there flat panels (blu-ray movies) without any additional cost.

Is that directed to me?

 

[slider]

For you UK bods, have a look at this. It's about the UK price...

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=17105

The guy emphasises cost comparison to a regular Blu-ray player. I always knew I was gonna get the next PS3 (all being well!) and now that I've seen the £ price I'm not baulking that much at all. Especially now what I know I'm up against!

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

I'm not sure why you would have difficulty comprehending.

Because you make no sense?

"All those 'impulse buyers' who are gamers, who bring home a net paycheck of $400-$500 a week" still bought the premium pack (statistically speaking. Those that absolutely had to buy the core pack for any reason, represent a smaller proportion of the 360 buyers).

Link to show sales of core systems VS premium packs, please.

It isn't as if they needed to buy one console a week.

No, they just need to buy one console one week. Thus 'impulse buyers'

If anyone in the same situation is keen to buy a PS3, they simply save up for it similarly.

Bolded for emphasis. Impulse buyers don't save up for anything. They have enough money in their paycheck to cover the purchase price of the item. At $299, I'd say an overwhelming percentage of NA consumers can make the 360 an impulse buy. At $499, only a very small percentage of NA consumers can make the PS3 an impulse buy.

It's really rather simple.

As i alluded to before, Sony doesn't need to compete with MS at $300. With regards to blu-ray, it is a necessary component for games (if only for a few, though if one is endowed with any foresight, then it will probably be for a significant proportion of games in the future).

Sorry, but they certainly do. If they didn't have to compete at $300, why would they reduce the price at all? Why not continue to sell the PS3 for $499 and $599 for its entire lifespan? Because a very large percentage of the population won't buy it, that's why.

A larger percentage of the population will buy a console at $299 than they will at $499. History demonstrates this. As console prices decreasel, their sales increase. Whether it's GC, or Xbox or PS2.

And BR is not a 'necessary' component for games. Simply because the 360 and Wii don't have it, no previous console has ever had it, no current console has it, and yet there's hundreds of million of gamers right now happily playing video games.

 

[Nesh]

The matter isnt if Sony competes MS directly or not. The real issue here is if the consumer understands what things justify the price of the PS3. But it seems they dont.

If they do understand what they get from the PS3 as a whole product it will compete the 360 easily.

But Sony would have reduced the price if they could. They d do anything to be more competitive


edit:

And BR is not a 'necessary' component for games. Simply because the 360 and Wii don't have it, no previous console has ever had it, no current console has it, and yet there's hundreds of million of gamers right now happily playing video games.

I think there is a tiny weeny problem with this. Its like saying people dont feel like the Wii controller is necessary because no previous console has ever had it