Topic: They got a PS3 -- it is really heavy.

[Pugnate]

linky

[iPPi]

While I think the PS3 is gonna fail, I can't deny the fact that the system itself, in theory, is impressive.  Maybe when the price drops, some good titles are out, and when the kinks of all the system are fixed, it might be worth picking up.

[TheOtherBelmont]

Some of those things they mentioned about it sound good, I'm probably going to end up getting one of these even though they are the most expensive console out of the 3.  I probably won't get one in November but probably very shortly after, maybe with my tax return in January or something.

[Quemaqua]

I'm more or less with jb.  I think the thing is pretty darn cool, but I just can't see it doing anything but failing at this point.  Still, there are a number of games that have definitely grabbed my attention.  When the price drops (and it will have to drop an awful lot), I could see myself getting more curious.

Also, what the fuck are these people talking about it having the load times of a PSP and that being okay?  Granted, I haven't played a lot of the more recent PSP games, but on launch titles a lot of the load times suck royally.

[Cobra951]

Load times from UMD discs do suck royally.  PS2 load times also suck royally.  I would hope that they address this stuff with the PS3.  Maybe there's no incentive to, if people flock to it anyway.

[Pugnate]

Everything logically points to the obvious conclusion, that the PS3 will fail. Yet as unprecedented as the price is for a console, I think after considering how much we pay to build a PC, I have a feeling the PS3 will rule them all.

[Xessive]

Hmm, if you were to get a PS3 which colour would you go for?

As tempting as the black is, I think the silver one is pretty appealing too.

[TheOtherBelmont]

Hmm, if you were to get a PS3 which colour would you go for?

As tempting as the black is, I think the silver one is pretty appealing too.

Definetely black.

[Xessive]

Definetely black.

Yeah, I'm leaning toward blacka s well, but the one drawback is that it's a glossy black. As cool as the gloss looks, it loses its luster much quicker, and any fingerprint/mark/scratch is emphasized. Still, black is my favourite, and if I do get a PS3 I'll have to consider what the rest of my entertainment centre looks like. I might go with the silver just because it fits better thematically.

[Quemaqua]

I'm always into black, but I don't like gloss anything.  In fact, I hate gloss.  And I hate plastic.  Eh.

Anyway, what I wanted to mention here was an interesting little bit in one of the last issues of Game Informer.  They had a little PS3 comparison thing that showed what other consoles would cost at their original release prices today if you accounted for inflation.  It was really quite interesting.  PS3 was definitely a bit above the others, but in some cases not as much as you'd think.  I don't have it sitting in front of me so I can't quote you anything, but it was a pretty cool comparison.

[Cobra951]

By the same argument, TVs should cost many thousands of dollars, compared to their prices in the 50s and 60s.  Inflation doesn't matter very much.  As technology evolves, the price points hold, because costs go down as inflation edges up.  And in any case, we have not had 100% inflation since the release of the PS2 or Xbox, which is what would be required to validate the price point of the PS3 on the inflation argument.

[Quemaqua]

I don't think that's being entirely fair.  I'm no math whiz, but I do remember paying some pretty ludicrous prices for games and such back in the day.  And again, I'm not saying the PS3 is cheap, since it's still squarely on the top with few exceptions, but I think general prices for consoles were fairly high before, then took a dip that we enjoyed for a while, and now seem to be heading back up a bit -- the Wii being the obvious exception.  I can't remember exact numbers, but the SNES was pretty damned expensive when it was first introduced.  I think I paid $150 for mine, but that was a bandwagon I didn't jump on for a number of years after its release.  And a lot of games were like $50 or more or even then.  I understand that technology has dropped in price to a degree since then, but I don't know if that's enough to offset the argument.  I still think that the price differential isn't as huge as people are thinking it is.

And this isn't in the PS3's favor or anything.  I still think it's too expensive.

[Pugnate]

Yea a lot of the games back in the day cost an arm and a leg. I think the lot of you are too bitter about these things. The way I see it, buy one console and enjoy it. The N64 cost a lot, and the cartridges back then were like $80... that is crazy if you take in inflation. Suddenly gaming went mainstream and things got cheaper with the heavy competition and the introduction of cheaper storage formats. Now has come a time when the big companies want to seperate themselves from each other, and are pushing the envelope. The Wii is cheap and is counting on innovation. The 360 wants console gamers to experience the stuff us PC gamers get every day. To us it is tried and tested, to the console kiddies it is revolutionary. Meanwhile the PS2 was probably the weakest in terms of hardware last console war, and despite winning the war, it was really really showing its age towards the end of the battle. Now with hardware so advanced, five years from now it won't look like an old lady with sagging boobs... which is pretty much what the PS2 is compared to the Xbox in terms of visuals.

Personally I'd go for the PS3 being a PC GAMER that I am. The Xbox 360 to me is nice, but not for a PC gamer. While I'd say the Wii is like that cheap date that is rumored to do that one sexual favor really really well.... but that's about it, and it is still a rumor. Plus to me the Wii is slightly overpriced in terms of cost of production. I also can't imagine it being a great long term investment as developers get the hang of the PS3 and the 360. If you consider how the Wii is below par now, and the 360 and PS3 are ahead of the game by some distance already, imagine how things will look in four years.

I'll say on thing though, graphics obviously aren't all that. I've been playing a lot of Mario Power Tennis on the GC with my friends, and it has been some of the most fun gaming ever.

Anyway that leaves the PS3, and it is certainly looking like the best. But $600 is a lot no matter what way you look at it. Even the games are apparently going to be 10% more expensive. You could always mod it, but it is easier to risk a $200 machine with a mod than a $600 one.

[Quemaqua]

I'm not quite as far over as Pug, but I'm somewhere closer to that camp than some.  I still think the machine is more than people are going to be willing to pay, but I'm not sure that the Wii's risks are going to pan out as well as they hope, either.  I think the 360 took the most appropriate middle ground... but that in itself is something of a risk considering the middling success of the first one.  Time will tell.  But personally, I'm most interested in the Wii from the standpoint of a journalist getting excited about things he's going to cover.  The PS3 looks like it has some jaw-dropping potential, but I can't afford it no matter what happens.  Period.  It's just plain out of the question.  And I already have a 360, which like Pug mentioned, as a PC gamer you don't need quite as much.  That's actually a good thing for me -- it means I won't have to buy as many games for it.  I know that's a dumb way of looking at it, since if I hadn't purchased one then I could theoretically get a PS3, but the PS3 is something I'd wait for a while on anyway, even if I had the money.

[scottws]

The price of the PS3 has killed any interest I had in it initially.  Like honestly, I could flat out care less about the thing.  I've basically written it off.

You guys mention inflation... well the first console I bought was the N64.  I got it much later than launch for like $199 (I remember games being $50 USD).  Then I bought a PS2 for $279.  And a Gamecube for $199.  Inflation or not, $600 is way more than the previous prices I've seen.  Now Pug says there was a dip in prices there, but as I said, the N64 was the first console I bought, so I didn't see the ridiculous priced SNES or whatever.

It's just simply a fact:  $600 is way too much.

[TheOtherBelmont]

I'm curious as to why people usually refer to the $600 system when they talk about how expensive it is, the $500 one is not that much worse than the $600 system in terms of specs.  All I care about is games, I don't give a shit about a bigger harddrive or super HDTV support, so I'm going to be getting the $500 one, Sony has yet to let me down with their last two systems I bought from them on launch, and they have a lot of kickass developers behind them, yeah $500 is a lot but its going to be a great investment in the long run, just as my PS2 was when I spent $300 on it in 2000.  Yeah Sony's higher ups have been saying and doing some pretty stupid shit recently, but I don't care, as long as the system works, plays well, and has a bunch of sweet games, I'm happy. They could have a gorilla that shits itself and speaks gibberish as their CEO, but if it delivers on the terms I mentioned, thats all that matters to me.  I would actually like to get a Wii as well, but Nintendo still has me wary from their Gamecube and N64 days which weren't bad, but there weren't as many games coming out for them, several gems with both systems but not enough to keep me happy.

[Pugnate]

I'm curious as to why people usually refer to the $600 system when they talk about how expensive it is, the $500 one is not that much worse than the $600 system in terms of specs.

Yea good point. 

yeah $500 is a lot but its going to be a great investment in the long run

That's the way I look at it. It has a lot going for it, while the Wii will fail if the controller does. Time will tell.

I would actually like to get a Wii as well, but Nintendo still has me wary from their Gamecube and N64 days which weren't bad, but there weren't as many games coming out for them, several gems with both systems but not enough to keep me happy.

What is funny is I bought a Gamecube at the end of its life, and I still don't have more than 10 must have games to chose from. That frankly isn't many.

I mean it is fine at this stage, but if I had bought a GC 4 years ago, I would have been really ticked.

[Cobra951]

The price of the PS3 has killed any interest I had in it initially.  Like honestly, I could flat out care less about the thing.  I've basically written it off.

You guys mention inflation... well the first console I bought was the N64.  I got it much later than launch for like $199 (I remember games being $50 USD).  Then I bought a PS2 for $279.  And a Gamecube for $199.  Inflation or not, $600 is way more than the previous prices I've seen.  Now Pug says there was a dip in prices there, but as I said, the N64 was the first console I bought, so I didn't see the ridiculous priced SNES or whatever.

It's just simply a fact:  $600 is way too much.

This is where I sit, exactly.  I never paid $80 for a game, BTW.  My limit on cart games has always been $70--$50 for disc games, with some notable exceptions.  I passed on Turok (N64) initially because of the $80 price tag, and I really wanted that game.

There's no bitterness, only a hard-and-fast limit.  No console is worth more than $300 to me.  $500 and up is ludicrous.  That's PC territory.

[scottws]

I can't believe how much you guys are justifying the high price tags of consoles these days.  It's like you're writing a blank check, saying "I don't care how much it costs as long as it has good games."  What happens when the PS4 is $1000 then?

While I don't think it would happen, I would love to see the PS3 fail dramatically.  Not because I'm pissed about the high price tag.  Like I said, I could care less about the thing at this point.  I'd like it to fail because Sony basically only survives at this point because of the Playstation.  If that thing bombed, they'd be done for and we'd be free of all their bullshit, proprietary, encrypted, DRM'ed formats and basically stifling innovation by not letting their customers use their devices to their full capability.  The failure of the PS3 would also be a nice statement of "Take Blu-ray and shove it right up your fucking ass."

[Quemaqua]

I agree with all that.  I've always disliked Sony.  I refuse to buy their products when it comes to anything else because I think they're shoddy and cheap in comparison with their competitor's products.  That said, I still don't think the price thing is nearly as extreme as you and Cobra are making it out to be.  Again, when you look at some of the older consoles, those things were really fucking expensive.  And again, while this stuff has gotten cheaper, it's also become a whole different beast.  I still don't see $500 as *that* unreasonable.  It's a little expensive compared to releases in the past, but it isn't like a skyrocketing kind of thing.  There are other consoles that were much worse (and most of those *did* flop).  So again, I'm sort of on both sides of the table.  I never liked Sony, but I thought the PS1 and 2 were both excellent systems with a lot of good games.  I think $500 is prohibitively expensive for me personally, but I don't think it's nearly as bad as a lot of you seem to think it is.

EDIT - Oh, hey, here's an actual graph!  I should have looked for this earlier.  It's similar to what GI had in their issue, but includes an extra console or two.

History of Console Prices

Apparently the guy used the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator to come up with the 2nd graph.

So my take is that yes, the PS3 *is* expensive enough to fail, but as a hardcore gamer it isn't wholly out of the realm of reasonability.  I wouldn't buy it at launch, but if I had the available funds and the games were good, it would be something I would consider down the road when the price dropped a bit.

[scottws]

Interesting graph, but it makes complete sense also.  How many people really had one of the old Ataris?  Really not as many as you would think.  How many people had a CD-I or 3D0 or Neo Geo?  I know of a single person that had any of those (he had a 3D0).

Now how many people had a Genesis?  A SNES?  A Xbox?  A PS2?  Tons.  Price matters.  Of course it isn't the only factor, but it is a big one.

[Cobra951]

The 3DO failed miserably.  It was way too expensive, for one thing.  The original Atari VCS was the first of its kind (an open game system programmable through cartridges) and the competition, which it did initially have, dropped off before the concept took off a couple of years after introduction.  Revolutionary, and owned the market.  Of course, it could command a $200 price tag in the late 70s, with $40 games.

It's a very different situation now.  There's 3-way competition, and the concept is far from new.  There is a critical-mass price point, which i claim is $300.  That may slide up a bit in response to inflation, but not to $500.  If I'm wrong, we'll know soon enough.

Edit:  Looked at the graph. The Intellivision had some success, but nothing like Atari's.  It was an upscale product, which means bragging rights and lower sales volumes.  The Odyssey never gained popularity.  The Neo Geo was strictly a niche system.  We all know where the Saturn went.  In fact, everything between the VCS and the NES was way down in volume compared to those two milestones in the classic-gaming era.