You don't own a PS3. Why?

[joker454]

I'm not going to say much, since I am a PS3 owner and the title kind of excludes me therefore, but I will say, that I am somewhat disturbed by especially american mentality about anything being higher than $299 (or $399 if you may) is too much for a game console. We paid the todays equivilant of $900 when the PS3 launched and now that it's at an equivilant of $499 (without game) or bundled for slightly more, it's an absolute bargain in my eyes. I just don't get it, really.

Must be a thing everywhere in the rest of the world where they sell these goods at above the standard $299/$399 price point.

It's got nothing to with American mentality, remember people here bought tons of iPhones at $600 a pop on top of it's $100 or so monthly fee. People will buy something if they deem it has value to them. When it comes to games, the PS3 simply isn't a good value. Game attach rates are very high this generation, meaning that most games bought are multi platform games which are still worse on PS3. Why spend double on a console that plays lesser versions of the games people typically buy? If you absolutely must have MGS4 or blu-ray movies, then buy a PS3. Otherwise, when my brother in law asks me which console to get just for games, do you really think I'm gonna have him spend twice as much to play crappier versions of the same games?

Price wise, after immigrating to the USA I learned real quick that the rest of the world is just getting ripped off. Things are so damn cheap here, it's awesome. You are ok paying $900 for your PS3's, but don't be surprised when others think that's utter madness. I mean heck, I can buy a 50" flat panel tv for less than you guys buy your PS3's. Damn I love living in California

 

[-tkf-]

It's got nothing to with American mentality, remember people here bought tons of iPhones at $600 a pop on top of it's $100 or so monthly fee. People will buy something if they deem it has value to them. When it comes to games, the PS3 simply isn't a good value. Game attach rates are very high this generation, meaning that most games bought are multi platform games which are still worse on PS3. Why spend double on a console that plays lesser versions of the games people typically buy? If you absolutely must have MGS4 or blu-ray movies, then buy a PS3. Otherwise, when my brother in law asks me which console to get just for games, do you really think I'm gonna have him spend twice as much to play crappier versions of the same games?

Price wise, after immigrating to the USA I learned real quick that the rest of the world is just getting ripped off. Things are so damn cheap here, it's awesome. You are ok paying $900 for your PS3's, but don't be surprised when others think that's utter madness. I mean heck, I can buy a 50" flat panel tv for less than you guys buy your PS3's. Damn I love living in California

I think there was a good job done on making the PS3 expensive in the buyers eyes. When it launched the only price quoted was the "highest" price, the Cheap Sku was never used in examples. Sony helped by not launching a campaing on all the hidden value (or competitor costs) that the console included. I paid what amounts to 1000 dollars for mine and was smiling all the way home. And i still find the XBOX and especially the Wii to be to costly

In the case of the stupid expensive iPhone, it´s an apple product, they are by design meant to be expensive and the users/buyers are by design meant to defend the price because it´s "just better"*


*Posted from a macbook so dont flame me.

 

[2real4tv]

It's got nothing to with American mentality, remember people here bought tons of iPhones at $600 a pop on top of it's $100 or so monthly fee. People will buy something if they deem it has value to them. When it comes to games, the PS3 simply isn't a good value. Game attach rates are very high this generation, meaning that most games bought are multi platform games which are still worse on PS3. Why spend double on a console that plays lesser versions of the games people typically buy? If you absolutely must have MGS4 or blu-ray movies, then buy a PS3. Otherwise, when my brother in law asks me which console to get just for games, do you really think I'm gonna have him spend twice as much to play crappier versions of the same games?

Price wise, after immigrating to the USA I learned real quick that the rest of the world is just getting ripped off. Things are so damn cheap here, it's awesome. You are ok paying $900 for your PS3's, but don't be surprised when others think that's utter madness. I mean heck, I can buy a 50" flat panel tv for less than you guys buy your PS3's. Damn I love living in California

Care to elaborate I have both systems and I don't see your point. If your talking multiplat then I understand the 360 performs better but do most buyers know this or just us game geeks?

 

[MazingerDUDE]

Care to elaborate I have both systems and I don't see your point. If your talking multiplat then I understand the 360 performs better but do most buyers know this or just us game geeks?

In fact the most buyers would think the other way around since the PS3 is suppsoedly a more powerful system Let alone the average buyers, even the medias like IGN are often wrong on this subject. Hell, even people here at B3D wouldn't be much different if there were no Quaz to tell you the game's native running res and Grandmaster to do his frame rate counter video

 

[obonicus]

In fact the most buyers would think the other way around since the PS3 is suppsoedly a more powerful system Let alone the average buyers, even the medias like IGN are often wrong on this subject. Hell, even people here at B3D wouldn't be much different if there were no Quaz to tell you the game's native running res and Grandmaster to do his frame rate counter video

This is very true. Go to GAF, which actually is a step or two above say, IGN boards or gamefaqs. There a good share are convinced that the PS3 is superior and firmly believe that grandmaster's eurogamer articles are pure propaganda.

 

[DrJay24]

When it comes to games, the PS3 simply isn't a good value. Game attach rates are very high this generation, meaning that most games bought are multi platform games which are still worse on PS3. Why spend double on a console that plays lesser versions of the games people typically buy?

Well when you tell a story like most consumers are buying $199 360s then it might be true. What about those like myself that bought a system with a HD, added a Wi-Fi adapter and pay for Live? Suddenly it's not twice as much, it's pretty much the same.

 

[RobertR1]

This is very true. Go to GAF, which actually is a step or two above say, IGN boards or gamefaqs. There a good share are convinced that the PS3 is superior and firmly believe that grandmaster's eurogamer articles are pure propaganda.

They are also the same people who turn rabid when it comes to ANY PS3 exclusive. Either you unconditionally join the circle jerk or they'll run you out of town with an amazing out of ignorance and an impressive grasp of fiction. I doubt the mass market shares the SDF mentality or the sales would show.

 

[joker454]

Well when you tell a story like most consumers are buying $199 360s then it might be true. What about those like myself that bought a system with a HD, added a Wi-Fi adapter and pay for Live? Suddenly it's not twice as much, it's pretty much the same.

Individual needs always vary. For me the PS3 was the bargain of the decade. I wanted a high def movie player, and I was able to get one at the launch of the new format for $500, which is less than I paid for my first VCR, first CD player and first DVD player. So for me it was great! But I'm not going to extrapolate my wants/needs to the rest of the buying populace and then from there seem puzzled when everyone doesn't buy a PS3.

For the general populace that just wants to play games, they have $200 and $300 options that are not only cheaper, but overall work better for games compared to the $400 option. So to me there is no "I just don't get it', it's really a no brainer when people pass on the $400 option.

 

[obonicus]

They are also the same people who turn rabid when it comes to ANY PS3 exclusive. Either you unconditionally join the circle jerk or they'll run you out of town with an amazing out of ignorance and an impressive grasp of fiction. I doubt the mass market shares the SDF mentality or the sales would show.

To be fair, they do that to any exclusive. Hell, folks do it here too, for both HD systems, so let's not be so quick to throw stones in that regard.

 

[Acert93]

Perhaps, though I can see how the X360 could be labled as the bargain of the century, although, add-ons and service included, I really don't see much difference. Guess we've been paying these sorts of prices for years already here in Europe - it was just a matter of time until things catch up in the states. Now if prices went up from standard $299 to $900 (what we're paying over here at launch), then I could understand, but up to $499... it's really hard for me to understand, considering we've been paying nearly double, since... ever.

Even if you say $900 is a lot (hypothetically), over the 7 years it'll last me, it's really not all that bad. Compared to how costly gaming on the PC is... well...

Heya Phil,

I can understand the consternation to a degree as we are all influenced by our economic and social conditioning to a degree. You drive expensive sports cars, so that may expain the disconnect between you and the average American consumer's perspective on value and bargain. The average American totes around like $10,000 in credit card debt (!) Obviously Americans in general are not very good with money! As the current fiscal issues show people here do tend to over extend themselves and socially there are issues of entitlement that American society grapples with. A PS3 at launch was well over a full weeks paycheck for a lot of typical middle of the road families. That is a big ticket item. When the PS3 launched at $600 in 2006 that was almost two weeks salary at the time for me (as an example). Toss in a game, 7% sales tax and that breaks $700 (without even talking about an extra controller and game).

We are talking about a purchase approaching the cost of our current apartment's monthly rent. When 45% of your income goes to basic housing costs, how do you expect people to plop down the other half on a console? Where does food, transportation expenses, education, utilities, and other basic needs fit in? For perspective, as we are devoted to staying out of debt, my total entertainment budget is less than $10 a week. A pretty generous sum by my estimation, but for those with different economic circumstances that would be aweful constraining. But I would wager that a larger percent of console gamers of past generations don't see consoles, any consoles, as having much "value" at $600 (even if it can per-hour provide unparalleled bang-for-buck) because it is significantly above and beyond their "blow money" budget or would dig so deeply it would cut into their "social entertainment" money.

The math doesn't work for a lot of us, regardless of perceived value. Also, regardless of what the pirates of the world would like us to believe, entertainment is a luxury, not a necessity. So most of us do without and wait for the prices to drop.

Fiscal responsibility is an important virtue. e.g Last year our entire family moved cross country out of the rust belt to escape the economic collapse in our rural community to a stable job back in the Seattle area. If we had been freely spending on entertainment we would not have had the resources to make this substantial move.

Admittadly I was able to jump in before the $200 price point I had planned on due to the generosity of a friend and some birthday money. But plunking down $150 from my own pocket when all was said and done (and picking up Halo 3 and Forza Motorsport 2, two great games for $20) to get a console, year of Live, an extra controller, and 2 proven AAA games had a lot more value to me than speculative console launch purchasing at launch. I am GLAD I didn't get a 360 (PS3 or Wii) at launch because it would not have been within my means to walk out with $500 worth of Xbox stuff at launch. Saving for it and waiting until I had the spending money was an important factor--if I had my eyes set on the PS3 I would have been waiting much longer to get to that point.

I guess there are many stages of life. When I was younger I imported an N64 from Japan at launch and was wowing my friends with Mario 64. I was young and single and had the time and money to blow--and it was a great entertainment investment because it was a lot cheaper than partying! Now I have a family and a thesis that command most of my attention, both time and financial. Spare resources, time and money, are devoted to their needs and things that draw us together as a family. $400, $500, $600, whatever on "entertainment for dad" doesn't seem hardly fair when I would so much more enjoy if I had that money to do things with my family that each member could enjoy and cherish the experience together. That is just me--but everyone has different circumstances.

For those with ample leiser time and the finances to feed this hobby $600 is probably a really good investment relative to other expendatures (Golf, skiing, eating out, movie theaters, etc are all very expensive entertainment costs!) But for those of us who don't have that sort of disposable cash we are forced to wait. It really isn't even a choice as you have the responsibility to pay bills and have an emergy fund you don't blow on entertainment!

There is no right or wrong here, everyone has different circumstances and perspectives.
You posted that this "disturbs" you and you "really" don't get it. In many ways I am glad that you don't have to understand this sort of thought process. And from the perspective of those who have $500-$1000 entertainment cash laying around consoles are an excellent investment for the time you get out of it. But when we are looking at folks where $200 may be a couple months of entertainment cash $600 is a huge, huge jump.
As much as I enjoy gaming if the cost of entry was still $600 I wouldn't be able to "jump" in because I cannot justify that sort of purchase, regardless of the value proposition. The same holds true of the housing market here--there are some amazing deals to be had, GREAT value propositions, but if you max responsible loan is $160K, a $320K "steal" is still far outside your means, no matter how much you reall want it and the value it has.

Btw, I would suggest FM3 would be a great value proposition for you, if only for the opportunity to crush me on the coarse. It looks like there is a large number of us here at B3D hyped for the game, so feel free to join us any day 8) Team "PSthree" consisting of you, Ost, and Arwin would probably crush Team "Xbot" but I am sure we would have some intense, friendly rivalry--and that is what social gaming is all about. Well worth the $260 cost of entry (even less if you get one of those $160 Dell Arcade deals with free shipping).

Now that is a deal you cannot refuse

 

[patsu]

Care to elaborate I have both systems and I don't see your point. If your talking multiplat then I understand the 360 performs better but do most buyers know this or just us game geeks?

In fact the most buyers would think the other way around since the PS3 is suppsoedly a more powerful system Let alone the average buyers, even the medias like IGN are often wrong on this subject. Hell, even people here at B3D wouldn't be much different if there were no Quaz to tell you the game's native running res and Grandmaster to do his frame rate counter video

That is, if you define games to be resolution and frame rate only. I really like games like Flower, LittleBigPlanet, Everyday Shooter, MGS4, KZ2, Valkyria Chronicles, the PSEye games, etc. very much. I think they are more than worth it !

The PS3 strategy is more than hardware, although Sony has failed to articulate it. It embodies Sony's and its partners' sense of creativity, innovation and of course investment.

 

[obonicus]

Well when you tell a story like most consumers are buying $199 360s then it might be true. What about those like myself that bought a system with a HD, added a Wi-Fi adapter and pay for Live? Suddenly it's not twice as much, it's pretty much the same.

Let's not start this again. But actually, wasn't the average price for a 360 $299? It seems that the arcade isn't the most popular bundle, from that.

 

[Acert93]

Well when you tell a story like most consumers are buying $199 360s then it might be true. What about those like myself that bought a system with a HD, added a Wi-Fi adapter and pay for Live? Suddenly it's not twice as much, it's pretty much the same.

The pain! The pain!

Now wonder you don't join our online sessions I am sure even Robert could own you if you are using WiFi!

 

[patsu]

Actually, I have one on gigabit network and another on WiFi. It's not clear whether the laggy guy is worse off or better off (Depends on how the game handles lag ? and how the players adapt)

 

[joker454]

That is, if you define games to be resolution and frame rate only. I really like games like Flower, LittleBigPlanet, Everyday Shooter, MGS4, KZ2, Valkyria Chronicles, the PSEye games, etc. very much. I think they are more than worth it !

The PS3 strategy is more than hardware, although Sony has failed to articulate it. It embodies Sony's and its partners' sense of creativity, innovation and of course investment.

I skipped talking about exclusives because they both have them. Your Flower and Everyday Shooter is my Magic The Gathering, Monkey Island SE and Geometry Wars. Your Resistance is my Halo, your MGS is my Splinter Cell, etc. Little Big Planet is fairly unique, but so is Fable 2. There's no point talking about them because different people will like different exclusives. What might be an advantage to you is a disadvantage to someone else, so it's a wash. There is no PS3 advantage there generally speaking, so Sony hasn't failed there because there is no 'advantage' to articulate. If you adore a particular exclusive then your purchase has already been decided, but each box has plenty of exclusives to keep people happy, so its more about multi platform games which are better on the cheaper box.

But since you mention Flower, you actually bring up another PS3 disadvantage. Every single XBLive product has a demo, part of their unified experience. PSN products though are still a confusing mishmash of demo here, no demo there. I had wanted to try Flower when it came out but couldn't find a demo. Does it have one yet, or do they expect people to just buy products "on good faith" when I can test try everything on the competitive XBLive service?

It's just yet another case of the more expensive $400 product oddly lagging behind the $300 competition.

 

[obonicus]

I'm troubled that you compared Everyday Shooter and Flower to Magic the Gathering when Braid was available.

 

[joker454]

I'm troubled that you compared Everyday Shooter and Flower to Magic the Gathering when Braid was available.

No love for Magic I love that game, and now I can play it again with an old friend back in Seattle. I love Braid though, finished that one. There is so much more content on XBLive compared to PSN that sometimes it's easy to forget a particular title.

 

[2real4tv]

I skipped talking about exclusives because they both have them. Your Flower and Everyday Shooter is my Magic The Gathering, Monkey Island SE and Geometry Wars. Your Resistance is my Halo, your MGS is my Splinter Cell, etc. Little Big Planet is fairly unique, but so is Fable 2. There's no point talking about them because different people will like different exclusives. What might be an advantage to you is a disadvantage to someone else, so it's a wash. There is no PS3 advantage there generally speaking, so Sony hasn't failed there because there is no 'advantage' to articulate. If you adore a particular exclusive then your purchase has already been decided, but each box has plenty of exclusives to keep people happy, so its more about multi platform games which are better on the cheaper box.

But since you mention Flower, you actually bring up another PS3 disadvantage. Every single XBLive product has a demo, part of their unified experience. PSN products though are still a confusing mishmash of demo here, no demo there. I had wanted to try Flower when it came out but couldn't find a demo. Does it have one yet, or do they expect people to just buy products "on good faith" when I can test try everything on the competitive XBLive service?

It's just yet another case of the more expensive $400 product oddly lagging behind the $300 competition.

So because one console offers a service that the other console doesn't mean its is a negative. Couldn't it be vice versa? Very subjective imo, depends on what services fits you the most.

Thats not to say Live doesn't offer a more integrated online experience but for me they are so close it is negligible. At this point Iam trying to justify paying for another year of Live because of how far PSN has come.

 

[joker454]

So because one console offers a service that the other console doesn't mean its is a negative. Couldn't it be vice versa? Very subjective imo, depends on what services fits you the most.

I'm purely talking about games, since I'm going under the assumption that in general, when someone buys a game console they are buying it to play games. Given that, for someone wanting to play games, they can:

1) Buy the more expensive console that offers:
- worse versions of multi platform games
- far less downloadable content
- far less demos for downloable content

2) Buy the cheaper console that offers:
- the best versions of multi platform games
- the most downloadable content available
- demos for every piece of downloable content

I mean, kind of obvious why people pick the cheaper box no? Again I'm speaking generally though. Those that must play Halo or Uncharted will buy accordingly.

 

[patsu]

I skipped talking about exclusives because they both have them. Your Flower and Everyday Shooter is my Magic The Gathering, Monkey Island SE and Geometry Wars. Your Resistance is my Halo, your MGS is my Splinter Cell, etc. Little Big Planet is fairly unique, but so is Fable 2. There's no point talking about them because different people will like different exclusives. What might be an advantage to you is a disadvantage to someone else, so it's a wash. There is no PS3 advantage there generally speaking, so Sony hasn't failed there because there is no 'advantage' to articulate. If you adore a particular exclusive then your purchase has already been decided, but each box has plenty of exclusives to keep people happy, so its more about multi platform games which are better on the cheaper box.

There is every point in talking about them because every game is unique. They are not necessarily equal substitute. Otherwise, there would be no difference in developer talent and effort. As a developer yourself, I am surprised you trivialize your fellow workers' contribution.

As for personal preferences, it's there but it doesn't mean there is no difference in developer output. You can't appreciate the difference doesn't mean there is no point in differentiating.

But since you mention Flower, you actually bring up another PS3 disadvantage. Every single XBLive product has a demo, part of their unified experience. PSN products though are still a confusing mishmash of demo here, no demo there. I had wanted to try Flower when it came out but couldn't find a demo. Does it have one yet, or do they expect people to just buy products "on good faith" when I can test try everything on the competitive XBLive service?

Having Flower is a plus, with or without demo.

It's just yet another case of the more expensive $400 product oddly lagging behind the $300 competition.

If you're talking about spending money, look at XBL subscription fee first. You paid for the demoes. PSN is free. There are down times in XBL just like PSN. In short, it's $300 plus perpectual subscription, minus Blu-ray.