Defending the PS3

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: QED

Originally posted by: CVSiN

360 is fully windows Intergrated with media center.. thats a far bigger perk than LINUX..

Can you run any app of your choosing on the xbox360, or only what Microsoft says you can run? If the xbox360 could dual-boot into Windows Media Center than that *might* make it worthwhile... but from what I understand it can only act as an extension for another Windows Media Center box...

Why would it matter if the 360 can only act as an extension? Big whoop. It works well as a media server device. The average consumer isn't going to use their game console for much beyond games. Being a media extension device to a living room is icing on the cake and fits for where it is and what it is hooked up to.

BTW, the 360 can accept music, pictures, and video files from Windows XP (WMV only) or MCE (WMV and MPEG) and will do the same with Vista.

 

[akubi]

Originally posted by: t3h l337 n3wb
PS3 sucks. Wii ftw.

what's the matter, your parents won't buy you a ps3?
go flip some more burgers, son.

 

[QED]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Why would it matter if the 360 can only act as an extension? Big whoop. It works well as a media server device. The average consumer isn't going to use their game console for much beyond games. Being a media extension device to a living room is icing on the cake and fits for where it is and what it is hooked up to.

I'm not going to disagree with you. Different strokes for different folks, I suppose.

However, for me, I wanted something that could do double duty-- serve both as an HTPC and play next-gen console games-- and do both well.

BTW, the 360 can accept music, pictures, and video files from Windows XP (WMV only) or MCE (WMV and MPEG) and will do the same with Vista.

Yeah, I knew that, and I was leaning towards getting a xbox360 until I found out I could do all of this and more on the PS3 without needing a seperate PC. If I knew I could burn a TS file onto DVD and play it on the xbox360 then I might have gone that way... but since the xbox360 and PS3 are roughly the same price (when you factor in necessary accessories) the PS3 just made more sense.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: QED

Originally posted by: Queasy

Why would it matter if the 360 can only act as an extension? Big whoop. It works well as a media server device. The average consumer isn't going to use their game console for much beyond games. Being a media extension device to a living room is icing on the cake and fits for where it is and what it is hooked up to.

I'm not going to disagree with you. Different strokes for different folks, I suppose.

However, for me, I wanted something that could do double duty-- serve both as an HTPC and play next-gen console games-- and do both well.

BTW, the 360 can accept music, pictures, and video files from Windows XP (WMV only) or MCE (WMV and MPEG) and will do the same with Vista.

Yeah, I knew that, and I was leaning towards getting a xbox360 until I found out I could do all of this and more on the PS3 without needing a seperate PC. If I knew I could burn a TS file onto DVD and play it on the xbox360 then I might have gone that way... but since the xbox360 and PS3 are roughly the same price (when you factor in necessary accessories) the PS3 just made more sense.

What 'necessary' accessories are you referring to? HD-DVD is not necessary unless you are referring to your own needs then of course I must yield.

 

[EngenZerO]

i own a ps3, wii, and 360... i love em all...

why so much hate... i just don't understand...

 

[Yreka]

I think the main thing against the PS3 right now is the price. None of my friends that I would call "Console Gamers", would even consider one until they have a model under $400.

They basically look at the XB360 initial cost, then they look at the PS3 and see basically the same thing, but costs considerably more. I think the "Sticker shock" of the price all at once scares them away. For the most part, they dont care about Linux, or Windows, or even HD formats (because of media cost). Now I think most of us know, the extra hardware in the PS3 about justifies the cost in comparison. And the XB360 ends up costing about the same or more, once you get the Wifi, add on HD-DVD, etc, but the ability to spread it out is the key.

I'm no marketing Guru, but it seems like what M$ did was really smart with the modularity. Given, they could stand to tone their accessory prices down a bit, but it does give people options. It can be very very difficult to justify going down to Best Buy and dropping $700 all at once for a Video Game System. Especially if you have a family + a wife to answer to. Now if you can go and drop $400 now, then $100 later, then maybe $200 somewhere down the road, it sofens the blow ( and makes it easier to hide from your wife ). Its not the money, I mean we are talking about people who easily have more income than your average teen or student. Its more about justification, remember these are people who's eyes gloss over when you talk about 20gb vs 60gb hard drives, built in wi-fi, etc.

Another thing to consider with these guys is market saturation. Most people who are even somewhat serious about gaming already have a 360. Keep in mind, almost all of my friends are past the "buy every console at launch" phase, most just dont have that kind of time for gaming. Now they see the PS3, and ask "Ok, what can this do my 360 can't? " The answer, right now at least is not much. Ooh it has blue-ray, well I can just grab this HD-DVD add on for a couple hundred ( remember at this point its $200 vs $700, the cost of the XB has already been absorbed), etc with networking, games, you get the idea.

Again, with the year head start they are already online collectively, and smashing each others faces every weekend. If one were to go out and buy a PS3, they would basically be playing it by themself. Sony would really need several "killer apps" and a price drop to pull them away from that.

Of course, this in no way represents everyone, and the points are very debatable. From where I sit, those are the roadblocks Sony needs to overcome to penetrate this market segment.
I have a feeling though, things will end up much like they did last time with both consoles being accepted. As time goes on, of course things will change. More games hit the shelves, and prices drop, the idea of having both will become more appealing

Its that reason alone, IMO that almost all of the people I know in the market for a new system right now would pull the trigger on a new 360 before a PS3.

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: Queasy
Why would it matter if the 360 can only act as an extension? Big whoop. It works well as a media server device. The average consumer isn't going to use their game console for much beyond games. Being a media extension device to a living room is icing on the cake and fits for where it is and what it is hooked up to.

BTW, the 360 can accept music, pictures, and video files from Windows XP (WMV only) or MCE (WMV and MPEG) and will do the same with Vista.

Unfortunately the 360 is freaking loud while the PS3 is dead silent. Which is a plus when it comes to being a media machine. Also, can the 360 copy music files from a USB device yet? When it first launched you could only stream from your PC or rip from a CD. Sadly, when you rip from a CD it doesn't tag anything correctly and just names everything "Track 1", "Track 2", etc... Also, I found that even when reading content from my PC the way it organized everything didn't make much sense... using Media Connect anyway. Maybe things are better using a MCE PC, but I found the 360's capabilites to be ultimately too crippled to bother with.

OTOH, the PS3 can copy files directly from USB mass storage devices and reads/maintains all the tags correctly. Much easier than the 360. When it comes to ripping the PS3 can rip into multiple formats with user selectable bitrates. The PS3, stock, lacks the same PC connectivity that the 360 has, but pretty much any of the PS3's shortcomings can be overcome by installing Linux. So at this point it looks like the PS3 will ultimately be the successor to my modded XBox with XBMC instead of the 360.

 

[QED]

Originally posted by: Yreka
I think the main thing against the PS3 right now is the price. None of my friends that I would call "Console Gamers", would even consider one until they have a model under $400.

They basically look at the XB360 initial cost, then they look at the PS3 and see basically the same thing, but costs considerably more. I think the "Sticker shock" of the price all at once scares them away. For the most part, they dont care about Linux, or Windows, or even HD formats (because of media cost). Now I think most of us know, the extra hardware in the PS3 about justifies the cost in comparison. And the XB360 ends up costing about the same or more, once you get the Wifi, add on HD-DVD, etc, but the ability to spread it out is the key.

I'm no marketing Guru, but it seems like what M$ did was really smart with the modularity. Given, they could stand to tone their accessory prices down a bit, but it does give people options. It can be very very difficult to justify going down to Best Buy and dropping $700 all at once for a Video Game System. Especially if you have a family + a wife to answer to. Now if you can go and drop $400 now, then $100 later, then maybe $200 somewhere down the road, it sofens the blow ( and makes it easier to hide from your wife ). Its not the money, I mean we are talking about people who easily have more income than your average teen or student. Its more about justification, remember these are people who's eyes gloss over when you talk about 20gb vs 60gb hard drives, built in wi-fi, etc.

Another thing to consider with these guys is market saturation. Most people who are even somewhat serious about gaming already have a 360. Keep in mind, almost all of my friends are past the "buy every console at launch" phase, most just dont have that kind of time for gaming. Now they see the PS3, and ask "Ok, what can this do my 360 can't? " The answer, right now at least is not much. Ooh it has blue-ray, well I can just grab this HD-DVD add on for a couple hundred ( remember at this point its $200 vs $700, the cost of the XB has already been absorbed), etc with networking, games, you get the idea.

Again, with the year head start they are already online collectively, and smashing each others faces every weekend. If one were to go out and buy a PS3, they would basically be playing it by themself. Sony would really need several "killer apps" and a price drop to pull them away from that.

Of course, this in no way represents everyone, and the points are very debatable. From where I sit, those are the roadblocks Sony needs to overcome to penetrate this market segment.
I have a feeling though, things will end up much like they did last time with both consoles being accepted. As time goes on, of course things will change. More games hit the shelves, and prices drop, the idea of having both will become more appealing

Its that reason alone, IMO that almost all of the people I know in the market for a new system right now would pull the trigger on a new 360 before a PS3.

Well said... and I agree with you on just about every point.

 

[arod]

Originally posted by: QED

Originally posted by: Queasy

Why would it matter if the 360 can only act as an extension? Big whoop. It works well as a media server device. The average consumer isn't going to use their game console for much beyond games. Being a media extension device to a living room is icing on the cake and fits for where it is and what it is hooked up to.

I'm not going to disagree with you. Different strokes for different folks, I suppose.

However, for me, I wanted something that could do double duty-- serve both as an HTPC and play next-gen console games-- and do both well.

BTW, the 360 can accept music, pictures, and video files from Windows XP (WMV only) or MCE (WMV and MPEG) and will do the same with Vista.

Yeah, I knew that, and I was leaning towards getting a xbox360 until I found out I could do all of this and more on the PS3 without needing a seperate PC. If I knew I could burn a TS file onto DVD and play it on the xbox360 then I might have gone that way... but since the xbox360 and PS3 are roughly the same price (when you factor in necessary accessories) the PS3 just made more sense.

It can handle ts files in media center (with hdtv pump in mce05 and not needed under vista or converting to dvr-ms which is what i do because media center plays very nice with dvr-ms files)... no need to even burn to a dvd just stream them from your media center.

and I will personally take the 360 extender over a ps3 any day of the week because with the 360 I have the ability to put 360's at every tv in my house and have one UI for all of my media/live/recorded TV. And can stream live tv to any tv in my house with a 360 (which you cant do at all with a ps3 yet.. live tv). and then there is the whole home automation sstuff which media center can now handle with all extenders (and vista) which is something else thats going to be very cool down the road.

Originally posted by: Thraxen
Unfortunately the 360 is freaking loud while the PS3 is dead silent. Which is a plus when it comes to being a media machine. Also, can the 360 copy music files from a USB device yet? When it first launched you could only stream from your PC or rip from a CD. Sadly, when you rip from a CD it doesn't tag anything correctly and just names everything "Track 1", "Track 2", etc... Also, I found that even when reading content from my PC the way it organized everything didn't make much sense... using Media Connect anyway. Maybe things are better using a MCE PC, but I found the 360's capabilites to be ultimately too crippled to bother with.
.

Ive found my 360 is virtually silent when in extender or playing back media... the only time I ever hear it is when playing a game. And why would you want to rip to the ps3? I want everyting in one area (and thats my media server) and all my devices read that to play. I dont want 5 different versions of my music collection. So the ripping feature is completly useless to me. Unless the ps3 could hold my bank of 4 tuners and a couple gigs of storage via my raid array.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: QED

Yeah, I knew that, and I was leaning towards getting a xbox360 until I found out I could do all of this and more on the PS3 without needing a seperate PC. If I knew I could burn a TS file onto DVD and play it on the xbox360 then I might have gone that way... but since the xbox360 and PS3 are roughly the same price (when you factor in necessary accessories) the PS3 just made more sense.

so how are you going to download and burn this content if you don't have a 'seperate' PC?

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: Yreka
I think the main thing against the PS3 right now is the price. None of my friends that I would call "Console Gamers", would even consider one until they have a model under $400.

They basically look at the XB360 initial cost, then they look at the PS3 and see basically the same thing, but costs considerably more. I think the "Sticker shock" of the price all at once scares them away. For the most part, they dont care about Linux, or Windows, or even HD formats (because of media cost). Now I think most of us know, the extra hardware in the PS3 about justifies the cost in comparison. And the XB360 ends up costing about the same or more, once you get the Wifi, add on HD-DVD, etc, but the ability to spread it out is the key.

I'm no marketing Guru, but it seems like what M$ did was really smart with the modularity. Given, they could stand to tone their accessory prices down a bit, but it does give people options. It can be very very difficult to justify going down to Best Buy and dropping $700 all at once for a Video Game System. Especially if you have a family + a wife to answer to. Now if you can go and drop $400 now, then $100 later, then maybe $200 somewhere down the road, it sofens the blow ( and makes it easier to hide from your wife ). Its not the money, I mean we are talking about people who easily have more income than your average teen or student. Its more about justification, remember these are people who's eyes gloss over when you talk about 20gb vs 60gb hard drives, built in wi-fi, etc.

Another thing to consider with these guys is market saturation. Most people who are even somewhat serious about gaming already have a 360. Keep in mind, almost all of my friends are past the "buy every console at launch" phase, most just dont have that kind of time for gaming. Now they see the PS3, and ask "Ok, what can this do my 360 can't? " The answer, right now at least is not much. Ooh it has blue-ray, well I can just grab this HD-DVD add on for a couple hundred ( remember at this point its $200 vs $700, the cost of the XB has already been absorbed), etc with networking, games, you get the idea.

Again, with the year head start they are already online collectively, and smashing each others faces every weekend. If one were to go out and buy a PS3, they would basically be playing it by themself. Sony would really need several "killer apps" and a price drop to pull them away from that.

Of course, this in no way represents everyone, and the points are very debatable. From where I sit, those are the roadblocks Sony needs to overcome to penetrate this market segment.
I have a feeling though, things will end up much like they did last time with both consoles being accepted. As time goes on, of course things will change. More games hit the shelves, and prices drop, the idea of having both will become more appealing

Its that reason alone, IMO that almost all of the people I know in the market for a new system right now would pull the trigger on a new 360 before a PS3.

:thumbsup:

The only thing x360 really has going for it right now its a year headstart and market penetration. The real test will be seeing whether the PS3 will make any headway in these aspects by the end of this year, or still be a year behind. It will be interesting to see.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Locut0s
I've got a PS3 and am willing to defend it along with the OP. Yes I also have a 360. Yes it's expensive, yes the 360 has better games out now, yes the Wii is a way better deal for the $ but Sony has the deep pockets to make the PS3 come out ahead, or at least neck and neck, in the end.

actually, N and MS both have more cash than sony does. sony is betting the farm on the PS3, so it's not that they have deep pockets, it's that if PS3 doesn't win, sony will have huge problems, so they'll be scraping every penny to make it work.

Funny how so many people love the PS2 but hate the PS3. Yes they WAY over hyped it and had problems launching the thing. Yes they have bugs that need to be worked out. Remember how everyone was complaining how hard it was to program for the PS2 and how that would be it's downfall?

PS2 games have always looked like ass compared to the other two platforms, the only reason it won last round is because japanese people bought it in droves for FF.

What about the PS3s backwards compatibility, despite the fact that it's backwards compatibility isn't 100% it's the most backwards compatible system out there.

most? the wii is 100% backwards compatible with the gc.

MS also clamed that the 360 would be backwards compatible, that has turned out to be a mess so far. And many if not most of the issues with compatibility will be ironed out in the long run. That is a HUGE library of games the PS3 can play right now, including some of the best games ever made as reviewed by many.

and a mountain of craptastic games that probably shouldn't have been released

It won't be long until the PS3 also has many next gen titles for it too, no company developing games for the next gen systems will skip the PS3.

except the best game developer on the planet, N. and if PS3 sales don't pick up quite a bit, there is a decent chance that PS3 will go the way of the gc in terms of 3rd party support. game devs aren't going to bother recoding everything for PS3 if no one buys the hardware.

Then there are the exclusives the OP mentioned along with many others down the road no doubt.

good exclusives didn't help the dreamcast. up until the day it was pulled it had more great exclusive titles than PS2. not to mention the games looked better.

As for Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD I think Sony also has the pockets to keep Blu-Ray in the game for the long run. At worst I think we will end up with a split next gen market with movies released for both formats as they are now.

i'm not sure why you think that spending tons of cash for little return is a good strategy for a company.

 

[akubi]

Originally posted by: Yreka
I think the main thing against the PS3 right now is the price. None of my friends that I would call "Console Gamers", would even consider one until they have a model under $400.

it's true, but the funny part is couple of hundred bucks isn't even money these days. back when NES mario+duck hunt bundle sold for like 200, it was a lot of money. now you got cell phone bills, cable, broadband, a night out, hundreds here and there.

kids without jobs are the only ones that should be complaining about the price. that's why the most vocal ps3 haters on the internet sound like immature preteens.

want to bitch about the games and features? fine. but the hardware is worth that much. it's not like sony's wrapped up a bowl of gumdrops in a plastic box and marked it up 600 bucks. try building one yourself, it's worth every penny. will the software make use of all this? only time will tell.

 

[zixxer]

Originally posted by: RMSistight
All the consoles graphically sucks compared to the 8800 GTX. Don't get me wrong. I love my Wii, but my video card is just vastly superior to any gaming machine right now. And don't give me that "oh it's too expensive, etc" BS. Just admit to the fact that the GTX IS graphically superior regardess of cost.

It's too bad gaming companies don't release games for PC. All these people tout about how FF or MGS looks great on the PS3 or another system and whatnot. Release those kinds of games on PC with the GTX and there is NO comparison.

I personally think it's a win-win situation for the game companies to release games on PC and consoles. If people don't have the money, they'll go for a game console to play the game. But if people have superior PC gaming machines (like me), they'll buy it for the PC.

And just to clear things up: I'm not rich nor am I spoiled. I work two jobs to support my PC gaming habit and put myself through college. There are always noobs out there that immediately fire back to me about how I'm rich or daddy is paying for everything. I pay for all my sh!t and proud of it.

Wtf lol it's pretty obvious you want us to help you 'justify' your ridiculously overpriced video card.


You're stupid. That video card is overpriced, I don't care HOW good the graphics are. I don't even care that your daddy bought it for you - still stupid.

 

[GeneValgene]

Originally posted by: Nutdotnet

Originally posted by: fs5
1) as long as the ps3 dominates japan sales it's going to have game publishers behind it. http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/only-in-ja...japanese-hardware-sales-too-223978.php
Hardware sales for Japan December 11th - 17th
- Wii - 108,237
- PlayStation 3 - 70,942
- Xbox 360 - 17,168

I like japanese game publishers (Square, Konami, Capcom, Sega, etc) therefore I would want the console they're probably going to develop for.

2) High def DVD player (Blu-ray!) Cheaper (and arguably better picture quality) than any stand alone blu-ray player. Same price as a 360 + HD-DVD. Let's not talk about the format war here.

3) Free online play, even though it pales in comparison to Xbox live by far it's still free.

4) Still has exclusives such as FF13, MGS, and GT.

Don't get me wrong, I think 360 is a great system. I'd get one if had the money for both but there's a lot of sony bashing here. Wasn't it cool just a few years ago to hate on M$? When did $ony bashing become cool?

I've read that MGS is not going to be an exlusive anymore....anyone else read this?

not sure...but what's for sure is that solid snake is coming to super smash brothers for the wii!!!! w00t!!

 

[fs5]

Originally posted by: ElFenix PS2 games have always looked like ass compared to the other two platforms, the only reason it won last round is because japanese people bought it in droves for FF.

Not so sure about that, (see FF12 screenshots).

and a mountain of craptastic games that probably shouldn't have been released

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/gaming/2007-01-01-gears-of-war_x.htm
5 out of the top 10 2006 software sales spots, crap games + quality games.

good exclusives didn't help the dreamcast. up until the day it was pulled it had more great exclusive titles than PS2. not to mention the games looked better.

as long as we're comparing random consoles for random reasons. dreamcast also had a year head start, better looking games and look where it end up versus the ps2.

i'm not sure why you think that spending tons of cash for little return is a good strategy for a company.

That's the console business model if you didn't know.

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
good exclusives didn't help the dreamcast. up until the day it was pulled it had more great exclusive titles than PS2. not to mention the games looked better.

Not even a comparable situation. Sega did themselves in with the successive failures of the Sega CD, 32X, and Saturn. Much of general public simply didn't care about Sega anymore by the time the DC was launched. Then you had the massive runaway success of the PSX which generated the hype for the PS2 and stole any of the DC's thunder. Add to that poor advertising and that, IMO, many of the DC games were overrated and you have a recipe for failure. That is nothing like the situation with the PS3.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: fs5

Originally posted by: ElFenix PS2 games have always looked like ass compared to the other two platforms, the only reason it won last round is because japanese people bought it in droves for FF.

Not so sure about that, (see FF12 screenshots).

and a mountain of craptastic games that probably shouldn't have been released

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/gaming/2007-01-01-gears-of-war_x.htm
5 out of the top 10 2006 software sales spots, crap games + quality games.

good exclusives didn't help the dreamcast. up until the day it was pulled it had more great exclusive titles than PS2. not to mention the games looked better.

as long as we're comparing random consoles for random reasons. dreamcast also had a year head start, better looking games and look where it end up versus the ps2.

i'm not sure why you think that spending tons of cash for little return is a good strategy for a company.

That's the console business model if you didn't know.

No... it's not. Spending a lot of cash for very little return is bad business. The console business model you're referring to is known as the razor and blades model or Gillette model, where they sell you the hardware cheap and make the money back on the software. They still expect a good overall return on their investment (except Microsoft last generation when they basically bought their way into the market). And even the razor and blades model was not typical until Sony came along. Older systems (and even current Nintendo systems) aim to make a profit off the system itself without any games.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: fs5

Originally posted by: ElFenix PS2 games have always looked like ass compared to the other two platforms, the only reason it won last round is because japanese people bought it in droves for FF.

Not so sure about that, (see FF12 screenshots).

FMV cutscenes don't count

and a mountain of craptastic games that probably shouldn't have been released

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/gaming/2007-01-01-gears-of-war_x.htm
5 out of the top 10 2006 software sales spots, crap games + quality games.

right, but the guy was talking about the sheer number of games that ps3 is backwards compatible with. context is king.

good exclusives didn't help the dreamcast. up until the day it was pulled it had more great exclusive titles than PS2. not to mention the games looked better.

as long as we're comparing random consoles for random reasons. dreamcast also had a year head start, better looking games and look where it end up versus the ps2.

if you bother reading the post you'd see it was in response to the great exclusives the guy i was responding to predicted coming for the PS3. so, no, it wasn't random.

i'm not sure why you think that spending tons of cash for little return is a good strategy for a company.

That's the console business model if you didn't know.

no, the console business model is spending cash for a return. if sony has to keep dipping into it's 'deep pockets' then it isn't getting enough of a return.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: fs5

Originally posted by: ElFenix PS2 games have always looked like ass compared to the other two platforms, the only reason it won last round is because japanese people bought it in droves for FF.

Not so sure about that, (see FF12 screenshots).

and a mountain of craptastic games that probably shouldn't have been released

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/gaming/2007-01-01-gears-of-war_x.htm
5 out of the top 10 2006 software sales spots, crap games + quality games.

good exclusives didn't help the dreamcast. up until the day it was pulled it had more great exclusive titles than PS2. not to mention the games looked better.

as long as we're comparing random consoles for random reasons. dreamcast also had a year head start, better looking games and look where it end up versus the ps2.

i'm not sure why you think that spending tons of cash for little return is a good strategy for a company.

That's the console business model if you didn't know.

No... it's not. Spending a lot of cash for very little return is bad business. The console business model you're referring to is known as the razor and blades model or Gillette model, where they sell you the hardware cheap and make the money back on the software. They still expect a good overall return on their investment (except Microsoft last generation when they basically bought their way into the market). And even the razor and blades model was not typical until Sony came along. Older systems (and even current Nintendo systems) aim to make a profit off the system itself without any games.

Its not bad business until it doesnt work in the case of microsoft and sony, they've shown that it works, thats why they use it. who are we to tell them how to market thier products?

 

[fs5]

Originally posted by: mugs
No... it's not. Spending a lot of cash for very little return is bad business. The console business model you're referring to is known as the razor and blades model or Gillette model, where they sell you the hardware cheap and make the money back on the software. They still expect a good overall return on their investment (except Microsoft last generation when they basically bought their way into the market). And even the razor and blades model was not typical until Sony came along. Older systems (and even current Nintendo systems) aim to make a profit off the system itself without any games.

It's been the model now for at least 2 generations. Lose money per console and then gain back in licensing / software. I believe GC, Xbox, ps1, ps2, 360, ps3, saturn, (who knows maybe N64 even) did this.

It's not the razor and blades model because I'm sure they're still making a profit on the razors where companies are losing money per hardware purchase.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: fs5
It's been the model now for at least 2 generations. Lose money per console and then gain back in licensing / software. I believe GC, Xbox, ps1, ps2, 360, ps3, saturn, (who knows maybe N64 even) did this.

It's not the razor and blades model because I'm sure they're still making a profit on the razors where companies are losing money per hardware purchase.

if you're making little return, you're not making it back up in license fees for software/VD, ert, BD sales. if you were making a good return you'd be making it back up in license fees. see, there is a word in there that you're overlooking.

 

[alocurto]

<---- Nintendo fan boy since 5 years old. Not changing now.

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: akubi

Originally posted by: Yreka
I think the main thing against the PS3 right now is the price. None of my friends that I would call "Console Gamers", would even consider one until they have a model under $400.

it's true, but the funny part is couple of hundred bucks isn't even money these days. back when NES mario+duck hunt bundle sold for like 200, it was a lot of money. now you got cell phone bills, cable, broadband, a night out, hundreds here and there.

kids without jobs are the only ones that should be complaining about the price. that's why the most vocal ps3 haters on the internet sound like immature preteens.

want to bitch about the games and features? fine. but the hardware is worth that much. it's not like sony's wrapped up a bowl of gumdrops in a plastic box and marked it up 600 bucks. try building one yourself, it's worth every penny. will the software make use of all this? only time will tell.

yes, the hardware is expensive, but did it really need to be? If sony wasn't so gung ho about blu-ray, there would be none left in the stores. Because at ~$400, it makes a pretty damn good HTPC.

I think sony may be a bit ahead of it's time with what they're trying to do with the ps3. In fact, I think they should have created a different name since it wants to be so media centric. The focus on gaming seems lost.

 

[fs5]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: fs5
It's been the model now for at least 2 generations. Lose money per console and then gain back in licensing / software. I believe GC, Xbox, ps1, ps2, 360, ps3, saturn, (who knows maybe N64 even) did this.

It's not the razor and blades model because I'm sure they're still making a profit on the razors where companies are losing money per hardware purchase.

if you're making little return, you're not making it back up in license fees for software/VD, ert, BD sales. if you were making a good return you'd be making it back up in license fees. see, there is a word in there that you're overlooking.

what? the model is:
Lose money per console in the beginning to gain market share
Gain money back in software/licensing
Gain money back per console in the future.

It's the model for both MS, Sony, but not Nintendo this round.