Today on Blogcritics
Home » PS3 Price A Liability?

PS3 Price A Liability?

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

With the final prices, or at least close to them, on the table for all three next-gen systems, there’s a lot of speculation about whether Sony’s PlayStation 3 can possibly compete against the other two rivals.

The PS3 will come in with the hefty price tag of about $600 for the 60 GB hard drive SKU. The Xbox 360 prices out at $400 for the “premium” SKU and it looks as if the Wii will come in the cheapest at under $250.

GameSHOUT recently conducted a poll of its readers to find out if they thought the PS3 was too expensive. It seems about 64 percent did and 36 percent didn’t. This isn’t all that surprising.

The PS3 isn’t necessarily going to be a kid’s toy, though. This machine is designed to be a full entertainment system, and by the looks of it, Sony’s going to capitalize on this. It wants to not necessarily impress young gamers, but the more “sophisticated” adults instead. While the move might leave the kiddy market open for the Wii, and no amount of gadgetry will pry an Xbox out of a Halo fan’s hands, the PS3 will appeal to those who want to get some serious bang for their bucks. And by all reports, that’s just what buyers will get.

The PS3 will not only be able to play some graphics heavy next-gen games, it will also offer Blu-ray technology, its own version of Live play and more. Frankly, when the system’s looked at in its entirety, it pretty much will do everything but the dishes. Sony’s set it up to be an “entertainment supercomputer,” and if the options are all considered, it’s actually kind of a deal.

The price on the PS3 might make it hard for some to attain, but those who might be tempted to count the console out because of it, should just wait and see. If Sony gets out of the gate at launch with a console that works and is actually in stores, it’s my guess it will have no trouble taking one large chunk out of the next-gen market. The launch titles might hurt Sony, but not for long is my prediction.

Powered by

About Igniq

  • theman

    it is alot of bang for the buck, but it is still alot of buck. also please dont refer to those without 600 bucks to blow (+ tax games and controllers)as kiddies. it may be an entertainment supercomputer, but there is one very large difference between computers and consoles, computers can be upgraded in every way.

    i love this hd era thing, everyone is saying “its the future” or “its so cool” while i say “its been here for years”, ever heard of computer games? heres a poll, who owns a computer? now who owns a hdtv?
    remember that the power king between xbox360 and ps3 is debatable.
    sony, why should i buy a bluray player? i have no BR disks and i highly doubt that BR or HDDVD disk will get popular for another 5 – 10 years. it does not impress me in the least that it has that. it uses this new high tech cpu structure, so in other words you (sony) want me to buy an unproven cpu that will cost more because it is new (higher production cost from industry). you arent including an hdmi port on the 500 dollar version? does that honestly cost you that much more to add that (i doubt you will change the entire vpu design)? how dare you not allow me fully upgrade a base ps3 unit to a premium one.
    when was the last time you came up with your own idea? even the massive amouts of power thing was spawned from the original xbox, and everyone knows where the halfbaked motion sensor came from. what is my guarrentee that the online service will be good? it is youre first try, it wont be without hiccups.

    go ahead consumers, spend $600 . i’ll be laughing when the burned out laser reports start coming in.

  • http://www.myspace.com/lumpystalker Montrosaur

    Like everyone else, I was shocked at the PS3 price announcement, but I really started looking at what was included here. For anyone who will wan’t a Blu-Ray player the PS3 is a real bargain (remember how expensive DVD players were when first launched?). As far as the Playstation 3 as a gaming console, that’s where it gets complicated. Not looking at the price for a moment; As a gamer I can see the awesome potential the system offers. There is so much more room to store info on a Blu-Ray disc for games such as AI programming coupled with incredible detailed graphics for instance. This will give developers unlimited potential, but at what cost to the consumer remains to be seen. I have faith in the Sony product, but it has been difficult to justify this hefty price tag for the average gamer. The only thing I have to say about that is “If people are going to spend almost $300 on something as simple as an I-Pod, then why not double that and get so much more?

  • sal m

    for as much of a fan as i am of the ps2, and would love to have the ps3, i will be putting that $600 towards a new, kick-ass television.

    i’ll get way more out of my 360 and the new tv than i would from the ps3 and my current, non-kick-ass television.

    unless of course i enjoy some unexpected financial windfall by then, and am able to buy both!

  • http://torricane.blogspot.com Mark Buckingham

    I was never an early adopter until the PS2. Three-hundred bucks for a DVD player and games as big in scope as SSX, Midnight Club, and Smuggler’s Run had at launch sold me on the deal.

    However, being asked for twice that amount for a technology I’m not convinced we really need yet (Blu-ray) plus no games in the works that really float my boat, you won’t see me lining up on launch night to get one of these. Far from it. Could be a year or more before I bother going near the PS3, and that’s coming from someone who really enjoys the PS2.

    The x360 doesn’t have anything that interests me, either (I can play all their ports and cheesy arcade games on my PC), so for me the only thing down the pike that’s interesting and affordable to working-class people is Nintendo’s Wii, an innovative system hindered only by a ridiculous name.

    It’s impossible to pick a winner at this point, but my frustration comes not from saying who has what going for whom and weighing the positives, but rather looking at the colossal blunders each company is making this time around. 360 sans HD-DVD support and no hard drive standard; Sony’s pricing is a little crazy and their console banks on features half of the world can’t afford or doesn’t care about; Nintendo’s gamble could take off or flounder, but you’re not going to win over any grownups by making them say to their buddies, “Wanna play with my Wii?”

    If nothing else, I’m really curious to see how this upcoming round of consoles turns out. I don’t necessarily want to be involved in it this time, though.

  • Jules

    I bought a Xbox360 at lauch and here were my cost in Canadian Dollars (yes I live in Canada).

    Xbox360 Premium $499.00
    Plug N Charge Kit
    for controller $ 39.00
    Wireless ethernet
    Adapter (WiFi) $129.00

    Total $667.00 (plus taxes)

    Now I plan to buy a PS3 premium system at lauch and the Canadian Price was announced at $659.00 (plus taxes)

    The PS3 Premium will have
    Wifi built-in
    a 60gig HD compared to a 20 gig in the
    Xbox360
    Wirless plug n play controller

    So now we can see that the PS3 actually cheaper than the Xbox360 when you compare similar systems.

    Also the PS3 has HDMI the Xbox360 does not
    The PS3 has “HD-DVD” (Blue-Ray) the Xbox360 is going to have the other format of HD-DVD and this add-on is rumoured to be $100.00 add-on.
    The PS3 will have a Free “Xbox-Live” type of service. I pay $60.00 a year for each of my 3 accounts (1 mine, the other two my kids).

    So now we can see that the Xbox360 is the more expensive of any of the next-gen systems. Don’t get me wrong I love my Xbox360 but with all this sobbing about the high price of the PS3, people have to compare apples to apples and get the right facts.

  • Dynamo of Eternia

    I think the price will not work out greatly in PS3’s favor.

    Sure, there is a lot included, but how many people are really going to use/need everything that is in there?

    Blu-ray movies may be nice and all, but they will be brand new. Plus, they have HD-DVD to compete with. When Sony put DVD technology into PS2, it truely was the next logical step to take. DVD had already been around for over 3 years and was clearly growing in popularity. It hadn’t replaced VHS yet by that point, but the writing was on the wall. And since DVD offered a larger storage capacity and had been around long enough to be reasonably affordable (both PS1 and PS2 were $300 at launch), it just made perfect sense.

    This time around Sony is more or less trying to force Blu-Ray on everyone. And it has HD-DVD to compete with (DVD didn’t really have any other brand new formats to deal with when it came out). Both are only just being launched this year, so it’s hard to say which will dominate the market.

    It does appear that Blu-Ray has a larger storage capacity than HD-DVD. But, if both can give a movie about the same resolution, then that really won’t matter to the average joe. And, stand alone HD-DVD players seem to be going for around $500 while Blu-Ray players will go for around $1,000. This could prove bad for the Blu-Ray format in the long run.

    Not only are the stand alone players for Blu-Ray more expensive than the HD-DVD ones, but they will be much more expensive than PS3, itself. It may prove to be good for PS3 sales, but could hurt the format in the long run. Why? – well, look at it like this. People who are huge movie-buffs and not video gamers would still be better off buying a PS3 than a stand alone Blu-Ray player in the interest of saving money and getting essentially the same technology. And with this being the case, what incentive do other hardware manufacturers like Panasonic, JVC, etc have in producing Blu-Ray players? Well, very little from what I can tell. And if that’s the case, and the industry as a whole does not embrace Blu-Ray, then it could easily go the way of Beta (and from all accounts I’ve heard, Beta was actually a superior format to VHS, but just didn’t catch on, so Blu-Ray being superior to HD-DVD doesn’t instantly mean success).

    I went off on a bit of a tangent there, but the point is this. There are two brand new movie formats coming out. Most average consumers who’ve finally gotten into DVDs are not going to want to spend $25 to $35 for a movie. So, for most people, the Blu-Ray movie ability will be a moot point, and not something that they need. Plus, with there being two brand new movie formats out there, I think the average consumer will want to wait to see which one wins before jumping on either bandwagon. So, even if they get a PS3, the new movies probably won’t be the biggest reason. And PS3 being a cheap Blu-Ray player can hurt the format from a movie stand point in the long run as I pointed out before. So, things could easily be a double edged sword.

    Now, as Jules pointed out, PS3 has the wireless Ethernet built in while Xbox 360 requires a separate purchase, bringing the price up. A reasonable point, but I don’t think most people feel the need the have wireless connections. Many are perfectly fine with having a wire hooked into their Xbox (you already have to have the power cord and A/V cables running from it anyway, one more wire isn’t going to make a difference). So, for many people, myself included, this is a moot point, and will be something that is greatly desired by a handful of people.

    Gaming wise, the Blu-Ray format may have a lot to offer, but we have to think about cost here as well. It will allow for nicer graphics and higher resolution, but those are things that people with HDTV’s will get the biggest advantage out of. Sure, people with regular TV’s will probably notice some difference as well, but not as much. And while HDTV’s are rising in popularity, there are still many, many people who do not have them and won’t any time soon.

    As far as programming games to be larger in size, scale, and length, and having AI type of programming involved, those things could be nice and may be pheasable on a storage capacity basis, but may not be cost effective. The game planner and programmers have to get paid. The longer and/or more complicated the game is, the more hours that are needed to put into making it, and the higher the production cost. This will either mean Sony making less of a profit or having to price the games much higher to even things out. That’s not extremely realistic at this point. So, odds are, most of the games that we will be getting won’t be a whole lot different than what’s already been made for PS2, with the exception of having better graphics.

    The bottom line is that you may be getting a lot of ‘bang for your buck’, but for a large percentage of consumers, they aren’t going to care about a good portion of that ‘bang.’

    Jules says we should compare apples to apples. And I agree, we should. The thing is that Xbox 360 is being more middle of the road. They are trying to offer a lot of options, but not force the latest tech on you and make you buy a lot of things that you don’t need. PS3 on the other hand is putting a lot of things into it that many will not care about.

    Essentially, from my point of view, buying Xbox 360 would be like buying a bag of 10 apples for $10. And buying PS3 would be like buying a bag that contains 10 apples and 10 pears for $16. Now, obvously with the PS3 scenario, you are getting more pieces of fruit for every dollar that you spend. However, if you don’t like or want pears (i.e. Blu-Ray movies and/or wireless eithernet), then it doesn’t make much sense to spend the extra cash.

    With Xbox 360, you can by the HD-DVD component and the wireless ethernet separately. Sure, technically this may ultimately cost more than a PS3. However, this is much more appealing for people who do not want or need those things. And maybe right now I don’t want or need and HD-DVD player, but a year or two down the road maybe I do want one. Well, then I can simply upgrade my 360 at my convenience. And, since stand alone players are $500 anyway for HD-DVD, the combined cost of a 360 and the adapter will not cut into their market like the PS3 could with the Blu-Ray players.
    Also, some people (and I would argue a lot of people) like the idea of buying these things as you go. Even if buying a 360 now and getting the other options later ends up costing you $700 or $800 in the long run, for many people spending $700 or $800 spread out over the course of a long period of time is much easier, appealing, and realistic than shelling out $600 all at once.

    And at least with the 360, if you get the cheaper version, you can upgrade it to get all of the features of the more expensive version. The same doesn’t seem like it will be true for PS3. Some aspects may be upgradable, but it sounds like a lot of them will not be. This is not too appealing, and I think when the launch hits, and people are standing in line trying to get one, and the people at the end of the line are stuck getting the cheaper versions, it will cause tons of contraversy, which will not work well in Sony’s favor.

    I do believe that the launch of PS3 will be huge and they will likely sell out the initial batches. All of the hype and the die-hard gamers out there will ensure that it sells a lot initially. But, the problem is simply how it will perform in the long run. Even once price drops start happening, it will still be much more expensive than the competition. This will detour the average consumer. PS2 was consistantly the same price as Xbox (up until it recently went even lower in price than Xbox), and only about $50 more than Gamecube (which had fewer games and no DVD player built in), so its not hard to see why it was successful. But this time the price is working against it, plus the games are on a whole new format, so it will likely be a much much longer amount of time before we start seeing any “Greastest Hits” titles or major game price drops in general. So, this will not be the system of choice for families/parents on a budget.

    It’s not that I’m trying to be a “fanboy” or just arbitrarily bash the PS3 in general. The system has its positives, and the Xbox 360 is not perfect either. But, its just that the number of options it has (many of which will only be useful to a small portion of the potential audience) just doesn’t quite justify the hefty price tag on it. Sony seems to be pushing this whole idea of looking at it as more than just a game system, but a game system is what most people are interested in. I really don’t even fully grasp why they are trying to promote so many non game related features anyway. If people buy the system and start using it for more non-game related purposes, then they are less likely to buy as many games as they otherwise would and Sony won’t make as much profit (since they are taking a loss on the system to start with). Sure, the sales of Blu-Ray movies will also help, but it will be a while before those take off (if they even ever take off) and won’t be enough to make up the balance.

    Sony could possibly lose its place at #1. My theory is that the system will do well enough to survive, but it won’t be #1. If it is #1, it probably will be by a much smaller margin than that of PS2 and it’s competition. And who knows, while I admit that it is highly unlikely, the system could just bottom out entirely, even if it does have a huge launch. When Sega Dreamcast came out in 1999, it had the biggest launch sales of any system up until that point in time, and within just a couple of years it was dead. I doubt that the same thing will happen to PS3, but I also wouldn’t completely rule it out as a possibility.

    PS3 has a lot working against it, unfortunately. And things may not turn out so well for it. Most people are interested in it for the video games. Sure the other features are nice, but for most they will likely be little more than fringe benefits, and not enough to justify spending $600.

    I think the most logical thing to do would have been to see which of the two formats (Blu-Ray or HD-DVD) end up winning in the stand alone player market, and then put that technology in the next generation of systems about 5 years from now. Using Blu-Ray now is not as logical of a step as the CD format was in the mid-90s when PS1 came out, or the DVD format was in 2000 when PS2 came out. Both were established formats on at least some level. Blu-Ray does not have that advantage. And if it does bottom out, it really raises the question of how the backwards compatibility will work on PS4.

  • Gizmo

    Hey, Dynamo,

    The incentive for other Blu-Ray manufactures to make Blu-Ray players is to compete with Sony. They can offer players that cheaper costs than Sony if they find ways to lessen manufacturing cost. Sony has already stated they will do the same thing. At initial release there will always be video aficionados that will be early adopters. There always is. And as the price comes down due to competition it will attract more and more consumers. And before you start taking about Beta. You better know a little bit of the Beta history. It wasn’t because it was superior that it failed (which is the only measurement you use to compare Blu-ray to beta). It was because it didn’t have the recording length, licensing, and stringent royalties that Beta failed. It was practical reasons to chose VHS. Sony knows full well that it can’t use “superiority” alone to push its format. That’s why they are touting disc space, content, and technical superiority. And consumers will play a bit more if they get more.

    Most of your post is based on, “The average consumer will just wait and see before jumping on the bandwagon…” Yeah, and? What did you tell us? You don’t know.

    I mean, take a look at this statement from you, “Most average consumers who’ve finally gotten into DVDs are not going to want to spend $25 to $35 for a movie.” How do you know? Do you think that Blu-Ray movies will *always* be that price. Don’t you think there will be an ebay/rental/used market out there? You’re acting like $25 to $35 we just mortgaged your house! I remember back in the 80’s when VHS movies like Star Wars was going for $89.99!!! The point is, prices come down!

    Regarding your apple to pears comparison…do you think that HDMI or 1080p is something that people just “don’t like” or “don’t want?” Hmmm?

    Next…

    You say, “I do believe that the launch of PS3 will be huge and they will likely sell out the initial batches. All of the hype and the die-hard gamers out there will ensure that it sells a lot initially. But, the problem is simply how it will perform in the long run. Even once price drops start happening, it will still be much more expensive than the competition.”

    When the price drops that will be ANOTHER REASON to BUY the PS3. It’s more affordable! The point is that you will be getting more for the buck to an even greater factor. It doesn’t matter if the Xbox 2 drops to $299 if the console of choice is $449.95! The hard-core gamers will still want and buy the more expensive console as long as they are getting more for their buck! That’s the problem with being the Xbox 2. It will have the stigma of being a year *old* console.

    And then you say, “Sony could possibly lose its place at #1. My theory is that the system will do well enough to survive, but it won’t be #1. If it is #1, it probably will be by a much smaller margin than that of PS2 and it’s competition.”

    Which is it? They “could” or “might” or “maybe.” Why not just say you’re sitting on the fence?

    Sony will lose a bit of market share (right now). But will catch up in two years. And with more 1080p TVs coming out each year. They will be prime for more sales. And with each price drop, they will pull in more fans to get a chance to own the best console money can buy! Sorry xbox 2. You lose again…

  • Dynamo of Eternia

    The bottom line of the points that I was making is that I could see this POTENTIALLY being a very negative thing for Sony, and I was simply pointing out logical reasons and potential scenarios. Sure, some of them were on the fence. Since the system has not come out yet, I cannot say for sure exactly how well it will do or how well it will perform. I don’t have a magical crystal ball telling me the future. I am just giving some general predictions.

    In reponse to some of your specific statements:

    “The incentive for other Blu-Ray manufactures to make Blu-Ray players is to compete with Sony. They can offer players that cheaper costs than Sony if they find ways to lessen manufacturing cost.”

    That is a good point. But this is dependent upon these other manufacturers finding a way to make the players at a cheaper cost, and as soon as possible. Both to give non-gamers a reason to buy that company’s player over a PS3, and also to choose Blu-Ray over HD-DVD. If they are unable to do so in a timely manner, this could hurt the format as a whole.

    “It wasn’t because it was superior that it failed”

    Well, I never said that Beta failed BECAUSE it was superior (that would be some really stupid reasoning). My point was that it failed despite the fact that it was superior. The rest of your points about Beta do make sense, though. I will grant you that.

    “Most of your post is based on, “The average consumer will just wait and see before jumping on the bandwagon…” Yeah, and? What did you tell us? You don’t know.”

    You’re right. I don’t know 100% for sure what exactly will happen. And neither do you. So what is YOUR point? I am speculating here, as anyone else is. The bottom line is that when all is said and done, I don’t think the PS3 will likely be in the #1 spot by the end of this generation of systems, and I don’t think that their success is guaranteed yet.

    “”Most average consumers who’ve finally gotten into DVDs are not going to want to spend $25 to $35 for a movie.” How do you know? Do you think that Blu-Ray movies will *always* be that price.”

    No, I don’t think that they will always be at that price. But I do think that it will take quite some time before things go down in price. When DVD first came out, the idea of a movie on DVD being less than $20 was unheard of. In many cases, they were more. It took several years to get the point that we are at now, with decent sales, prices, etc. Even when PS2 came out (3 and a half years after DVD first launched), while the price of DVD players had gone down, the movie prices were still around $20 on average, with the idea of $15 DVDs being almost unheard of. It took a couple more years to get to that point. So, if we average it out to about 5 years for DVD prices to be as flexible as VHS tapes eventually became, then it may take that long for these other formats to do the same.

    At the time that PS2 came out, DVD had been around for several years. It truely was a logical step at that point. It still wasn’t in everyone’s houses and had not yet replaced VHS at that point. That didn’t really happen until about 2003 or 2004 (and even them a few stores still carried some VHS tapes).

    Video games and their systems tend to have a turn over rate of every 5 years. People are used to that by now. However, VHS was pretty much the standard format of movies for about 20 years, and in general I doubt that most people will want to jump on another format just yet. DVD has only been around for 9 years, and has only been mainstream for a little more than half of that. A lot of people have probably rebought all of their old movies on DVD, and do not want to do so again right away.

    And now, you have TWO brand new formats to compete with. Making is less likely for people to just jump onto one, with the fear of that being the one that will fail. Take this, coupled with the fact that people in general are not used to movie formats having this kind of turn over time. On top of that, one of the biggest incentives for people to upgrade from VHS to DVD was the fact that VHS tapes deteriorate over time just because that is the nature of the tape. DVD does not have that same problem. The only incentive to upgrade from DVD to one of the 2 new formats is the higher resolution. Sure, that is nice, but not something that the average joe (who probably doesn’t even have an HDTV) is going to jump on right away and want to repurchase their whole collection over again on at these higher prices.

    It will likely take a while for the prices on these movies to come down since there are two competing formats. It really depends if one dominates. It could prove that neither format becomes any more popular than Laserdisc ever did. It just depends on how the cards fall.

    However, the bottom line is that the movie from DVD to these 2 new formats is not as big of a leap as VHS to DVD was. And since people in general are not that accustomed to upgrading/rebuying their movies as they are video games, it could be a while before anyone jumps on significantly.

    “You say, “I do believe that the launch of PS3 will be huge and they will likely sell out the initial batches. All of the hype and the die-hard gamers out there will ensure that it sells a lot initially. But, the problem is simply how it will perform in the long run. Even once price drops start happening, it will still be much more expensive than the competition.”

    When the price drops that will be ANOTHER REASON to BUY the PS3. It’s more affordable! The point is that you will be getting more for the buck to an even greater factor. It doesn’t matter if the Xbox 2 drops to $299 if the console of choice is $449.95! The hard-core gamers will still want and buy the more expensive console as long as they are getting more for their buck! That’s the problem with being the Xbox 2. It will have the stigma of being a year *old* console.”

    Many hardcore gamers may want PS3 and be willing to pay that price, but not necessarily the average ones, who do make up a large part of the market.

    The launch will likely be huge and sell out as that is what happened with both PS2 and Xbox 360. Because of the hardcore gamers, these things sold out in stores, and some were purchased off of ebay for prices that are much much higher than the actual retail price. Odds are PS3 will do the same, but it doesn’t mean that it will automatically last in the long run.

    Sure, SOME people (diehard gamers) might buy a $450 PS3 over a $300 Xbox 360 (which is the name of the system by the way, NOT Xbox 2 – at least get that right), but not necessarily the average joe consumer. As it stands, $300 or $400 is more than some people are willing to spend on a system. So, a few years from now, Xbox 360 might be at $300 or even $200 while PS3 is still going for a couple hundred more than that. And unless Blu-Ray REALLY takes off movie-wise, there won’t be that much of an incentive for them to spend the extra cash. I doubt that we will ever see a PS3 for anything less than $300 (if it even gets that low) prior to the next batch of systems coming out. And this will likely detour some people from buying it.

    And why would the Xbox 360 automatically get the stigma of being a year old system? PS2 is a year older than either of its competitors and that did not happen for it.

    “And then you say, “Sony could possibly lose its place at #1. My theory is that the system will do well enough to survive, but it won’t be #1. If it is #1, it probably will be by a much smaller margin than that of PS2 and it’s competition.”

    Which is it? They “could” or “might” or “maybe.” Why not just say you’re sitting on the fence?”

    The point here is that I don’t think Sony will have as much of a hold over the market in the long run as they do currently with PS2. How badly it will effect them is yet to be determined, obviously. I am only on the fence to the point of how bad of a loss it will be. If I were a gambling man, I would bet that by the end of this next generation of systems, they will no longer be #1. However, if somehow things turn out to prove me wrong, and they do manage to remain #1, I highly, highly doubt that their #1 spot will be as solid as it is right now. Odds are one of the competing systems will be right behind them.

    “Sony will lose a bit of market share (right now). But will catch up in two years. And with more 1080p TVs coming out each year. They will be prime for more sales. And with each price drop, they will pull in more fans to get a chance to own the best console money can buy! Sorry xbox 2. You lose again…”

    Well, once again, its Xbox 360, not Xbox 2. And I think that PS3 will lose its market share in the long run.

    Higher resolution TVs are nice and all, and I plan to get one eventually, but its not the end all be all of everything. Sure, people like nicer graphics and higher resolution. But the jump in graphics capabilities from the preivous (PS2/Xbox/GC) generation to this new one isn’t as huge as they were in past generations. The biggest thing is this higher resolution. And sure, its nice, but the average working class family isn’t necessarily going to want to empty their wallets on a bunch of expensive equipment just so that you can make out the stitching on some video game character’s pants a little bit better.

    For the record, I am a gamer overall. I have many different systems from over the years (dating back to Atari 2600), and I do own PS2, Xbox, Gamecube, and Xbox 360. I plan to get the Wii when it launches. And I’m sure that at some point in time I will be getting a PS3. I won’t get PS3 at launch mainly due to the cost, and the fact that none of the launch games are anything that pesonally interests me.

    I just don’t think everything PS3 is doing is the best idea. I’m not totally thrilled with Xbox 360 for that matter. I thought that making 2 different system models was a stupid move. But now PS3 has taken that idea and made it worse since it seems that you cannot upgrade the cheaper unit to ultimately have what the premium unit will have like you can with the 360. This will annoy many die-hard fans (particularly those waiting in line to get one at launch, and get stuck having to take what they can get).

    Both Xbox 360 and PS3 seem to be pushing their online stuff way too much, and this idea of it being more than just a game system. PS3 just seems to be taking it to more of an extreme, resulting in my viewing the Xbox 360 as the lesser of two evils.
    Both companies are putting so much into these systems (but again, PS3 more so) that they are becoming more like computers than game systems. This isn’t necessarily a good thing. Computers tend to be tempormental. You load up a program on it, and it won’t work because for some unknown reason it conflicts with another program on the computer. This will likely be the case with saving things to the hard drives on these systems (there have already been reports of this with the 360). Something saved on your HD may conflict with using a game that you have. And its only going to be a matter of time before we have to worry about downloading viruses off of the online services for these systems.

    The reason why I like game systems as opposed to computer gaming is because in general, you buy the system, you buy the game for the system, you pop it in, and it works. Plain and simple. With computers, you have to upgrade this, that, make sure there’s no conflicts, etc. And I just see these new systems as potentially having these same problems. PS3 is just pushing things a step further, which I don’t like.

    One thing that I will say is this. This just seems like the wrong time for all of these new game systems entirely. The only reason that these systems are even coming out now is because the general turn over rate of them is every 5 years, so this is the time frame for that to happen. But, with everything being in such a transitional period for disc formats (with Blu-Ray and HD-DVD), its something of a risk to either use or not use them at this point. It’s just too soon to know which is really the best to go with.
    It would just make more sense if the new systems were to wait and come out 2 or 3 years from now. The current systems (PS2, Xbox, GC) are not so obselete that we should HAVE to upgrade to something else at this point. And a few years from now, HDTV’s will be more common, these other technologies will be cheaper, and it will just be a better time to launch something like this.

    Maybe you agree, maybe you disagree. Either way its fine. I am simply expressing my opinons. I am not trying to be completely on the fence about everything. I am merely expressing what I think will likely happen, within a certain margin of error. But, it hasn’t happened yet, so no one knows for sure how things will turn out. Your speculations are no more or less valid than mine, yet you seem to act as if the case is otherwise. I think things could turn out less than great for PS3. Most of the E3 reviews I’ve read haven’t exactly been in their favor. But only time will tell how things truely unfold.