The economy and video game industry.
It seems Sony get to taste the soup first:
http://www.joystiq.com/2009/01/05/report-sony-on-brink-of-upheaval-factory-division-closures/
Original article:
http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSTRE5040FI20090105
(keep in mind MS could get a serving too)
Originally posted by §P0oONY
I never claimed that the PS3 wasn't overpriced... So what are you going on about. There is no other means of playing PS3 games, and me as a gamer wants to be able to play PS3 games so I had no other option to get one. I couldn't give a flying **** about blu ray, I did not buy the PS3 for that as I have stated already. I have no intention of spending money on blue ray movies, unless they become dvd prices. I bought a dreamcast after I knew it was going down and did not regret it, if the PS3 goes down in the next couple of years so be it. I'm a gamer, I love games, I don't care about much else when it comes to consoles.Might I add that I got a PS3 last of the generation, and it was only when I won money. It's not like I bought the PS3 because I think it's the greatest console ever... It's not even the best of the generation.
Sony justify their price with their high component costs actually. It's up for the consumer to decide whether it's worth the price.
No no, now you are just changing your argument. You said that the PS3 being overpriced was just my opinion- I was telling you that you were wrong, and it was a fact (as the consumers have evidently decided). So coming in and then saying "I didn't say it wasn't overpriced" is goalpost shifting.
Likewise is trying to argue something I am not arguing- I already made it extremely clear that buying a PS3 to buy PS3 games was a perfectly valid thing to do. In fact it's the ONLY valid reason for getting one. And it does not stop it being overpriced.
And Smas- like I said, if you are going to deliberately choose the a more expensive Xbox model and compare it to the LEAST expensive PS3 model... that's poor. Your reasoning behind that is irrelevat- the point remains that my original statement about 360 + Blu-ray DVD player costing less than a PS3 (using the cheapest models available in ALL cases, which is the only fair way to do it) is absolutely true, and your implication that that was not true... was wrong. Meanwhile you using the defence 'but I said I bought it to play PS3 games' is again trying to drag the issue off the point. Actually what happeend is that you said you liked the upscaling as part of a post saying you werte happy with yuor PS3 purchase and I wanted, entirely reasonably, to clarify that you didn't need to buy a PS3, or even a Blu-Ray player, to enjoy that, which from there broadened into me pointing out that the PS3 is far too expensive for its feature list. Whether you bought it to play the games or not does not alter, one tiny bit, the fact that the PS3 is overpriced- which was the ultimate point. It was never a dig at you personally or your choice to play PS3 games, it was a criticism of the PS3 price point.
As for the Wii price- it was very cheap when it came out. Now it doesn't look so cheap as the Xbox price falls, but the reason the price is high is because demand is so high and Nintendo are still selling every one they can malke. It's annoying, but a duccessaful product does keep prices high. But it is indeed true that there is less value in buying a Wii now then there was at launch. But, the Wii can hardly be called expensive, and saying it only has 5 worthwhile games is gross misrepresentation.
Meanwhile, Bardock, the Wii price at Amazon is £179. Look again and you will see the price you have given is not from Amazon but a third party stockist, and hence not remotely like the actual general price of a Wii in this country. If Amazon actually had any left to sell it would be at £179- the same price it is in the shops, or at other online sites like play.com.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I can just picture all the children in the year 2200 opening up their history books, reading about all the delusional people in the year 2009 that believed that the PS3 was good value for money and how they all died in the great Consolcaust of the early 21st century.
I certainly think people will they they were bloody stupid, yes. The PS3 price is going to go down as one of video gaming's great debacles.
Originally posted by UshgarakAnd Smas- like I said, if you are going to deliberately choose the a more expensive Xbox model and compare it to the LEAST expensive PS3 model... that's poor. Your reasoning behind that is irrelevat- the point remains that my original statement about 360 + Blu-ray DVD player costing less than a PS3 (using the cheapest models available in ALL cases, which is the only fair way to do it) is absolutely true, and your implication that that was not true... was wrong. Meanwhile you using the defence 'but I said I bought it to play PS3 games' is again trying to drag the issue off the point. Actually what happeend is that you said you liked the upscaling as part of a post saying you werte happy with yuor PS3 purchase and I wanted, entirely reasonably, to clarify that you didn't need to buy a PS3, or even a Blu-Ray player, to enjoy that, which from there broadened into me pointing out that the PS3 is far too expensive for its feature list. Whether you bought it to play the games or not does not alter, one tiny bit, the fact that the PS3 is overpriced- which was the ultimate point. It was never a dig at you personally or your choice to play PS3 games, it was a criticism of the PS3 price point.
It's expansive. Your right, if I wanted to upscale my DVD's then yes I can get one of those for around 100 bucks. Same with a Blu Ray player. But not one of those can play PS3 games which I wanted. So there isn't any point in telling me I can get those separate things for for a cheaper price or that its overpriced.
I'm comparing two systems together that roughly have the same feature set. Both the Pro and PS3 have HDD's, while the arcade does not. So its not entirely fair comparing the arcade to the PS3 when it does have any features what so ever. If you want to DL any sort of demos, get arcade games or do anything with XBOX Live then you have to get the Pro. So no, you cannot get a 360 and Blu Ray for the same price as the PS3.
Originally posted by Smasandian
I'm comparing two systems together that roughly have the same feature set. Both the Pro and PS3 have HDD's, while the arcade does not. So its not entirely fair comparing the arcade to the PS3 when it does have any features what so ever. If you want to DL any sort of demos, get arcade games or do anything with XBOX Live then you have to get the Pro. So no, you cannot get a 360 and Blu Ray for the same price as the PS3.
Again, shifting the goalposts. Disgraceful stuff, this. I straight out said that you could buy a 360 and a bllu-ray player for the price of a PS3. That was just a plain statement. You saying it is not true because you want to alter the type of 360 you want to buy is... again, exceptionally poor.
I cannot believe people resort to such feeble tactics in arguing. My point that you can buy a 360 and a blu-ray player together these days for less than a PS3- WHICH IS TRUE, no matter how much you try and spout complete and utter total nonsense saying otherwise, is a very valid point to demonstrate the expense involved of a PS3. What YOU were comparing is completely irrelevant- the comparsion was MINE to make- I was the one who made it. What you want from the console is not something I care about when making that comparison, it does not affect the strength of the comparison and it is as fair to compare that 360 to another console as it is to compare the Wii to them- which is to say, entirely fair, and has been done from square one.
Honestly, this sort of approach to arguing is really quite contemptible. All you are doing is desperately triyng to change the argument because you tried to make out my post was nonsense- which it was not, it was absolutely 100% true. As you have been informed of this directly, any attempt to say otherwise is an out and out lie. You have done this in the final sentence I quote above- you have said something that is not true, and you know full well it is not true. No matter what you say, no matter what arguments you bring, you CAN get the two systems for the same price as a PS3. if you want to bury your head in the sand and pretend that's not so- fine! But absolutely everyone can easily see the truth of the matter.
And if all you can come up with to try and fight this argument which lays bare the extremely high cost of the PS3, is 'oh, that's not the sort of Xbox I would want...'- then that shows how completely foundationless your entire argument is.
If you agree the PS3 is expensive, then it is argument over. If you are trying to justify that expense, then you're just wrong. it;s great that you like PS3 games- but you are paying over the mark for them. They have no inherent technological superiority over the 360, so the extra money you have to pay to get it is a bad thing- period.
And it's not about 'not saying anything nice' about the PS3. But it is certainly wrong to misrepresent it and to try and deny true, factual statements, yes.
Telling me that I can get a two systems for the price of the PS3 is pointless. Why would I ****ing care? Why do you keep on making the point that the PS3 is expansive? That's obvious. Is it overprice? Probably. I don't care if it is. It provides a service that I'm happily enjoying. Could I get a 360 and a blu ray player for the price of a PS3. Yes, if you want the arcade version of the 360. Again, doesn't mean much because the arcade version is useless.
Regardless of what most ppl think, the PS3 is the best system of the 3. The Wii is selling well but thats to be expected seeing the ppl who is buying it. In my opinion I really cant see how ppl continue to support the 360 or Microsoft. I can't stand them, they're so worried about what Sony is doing they should concentrate on there own sh!t. How in the hell does a system get away with such a high fail rate? That 33% failure rate is bull, I believe its more around 80, probably more then that. Hearing ppl say they're on there 4th-7th console is crazy. (Why no recall?) They don't want to lose that year head start they got by releasing there system early. On top of that, Sony spent alot of money to develop the cell with IBM, and here comes Microsoft bribing IBM for the tech Sony was developing. Microsoft also has a history of swaying the media in there favor against the competition, i'm seeing that right now against the PS3. Believe what you will, everyone has a choice.
The cell processor has been a disaster. They can say potential all they want but in terms of graphics it's so far no better than the 360. The complexity of the cell seems to actually harm the system as it makes cross platform games generally inferior for the system because the devs don't want to waste time optimizing it for a stupidly complex tech.
MS got away with their failure problems becaused they manned up and increased their warranty to fix problems for 3 years, which is something that should be applauded. Every company makes mistakes and it was nice to see one actually try and do something about it.
Originally posted by Smasandian
Telling me that I can get a two systems for the price of the PS3 is pointless. Why would I ****ing care? Why do you keep on making the point that the PS3 is expansive? That's obvious. Is it overprice? Probably. I don't care if it is. It provides a service that I'm happily enjoying. Could I get a 360 and a blu ray player for the price of a PS3. Yes, if you want the arcade version of the 360. Again, doesn't mean much because the arcade version is useless.
Technically it's not useless. It's a game system. It's made to play games. Everything else is optional, something a lot of people tend to forget.
I guess that's correct but the reasoning behind the arcade version is for casual players to play XBOX Live arcade games.
It's funny considering to download them you need space and 256MB is not alot of space for the newer arcade games coming out.
But generally, if you play games alot, or even half, you have the Pro version.
I actually thought it was.
Every report I've read about the XBOX 360 arcade was that it was released to directly compete against the Wii with its price point and towards casual gamers. That's why it includes the 5 free titles.
But any serious gamer out there wouldn't even look at the arcade version when dling arcade titles, demo's, huge amount of saves, and if you want to download new content, or install games to the HDD.
The Arcade was released to replace the Core system; it's basically the same thing except with a memory card, wireless controller and the five games.
Sure, serious gamers wouldn't care (for the most part), but hasn't the success of the Wii, with it being marketed primarily at casual gamers, proven once and for all that serious gamers are the minority of people who play video games? It doesn't change the fact that those are optional features that aren't required to actually put a game in the drive and play. Downloadable content and installing games to the harddrive are nice and all, but they are secondary features and not needed in order to actually play a game.
Arcade was released to compete with the Wii, rumors going around that Microsoft may even try to focus on the casual crowd, I kinda fear this happening. Oh btw, I don't think the 3 year warranty should be applauded, there system needs to be completely fixed, and what if the system dies when the warranty is over?
Originally posted by Peach
The Arcade was released to replace the Core system; it's basically the same thing except with a memory card, wireless controller and the five games.Sure, serious gamers wouldn't care (for the most part), but hasn't the success of the Wii, with it being marketed primarily at casual gamers, proven once and for all that serious gamers are the minority of people who play video games? It doesn't change the fact that those are optional features that aren't required to actually put a game in the drive and play. Downloadable content and installing games to the harddrive are nice and all, but they are secondary features and not needed in order to actually play a game.
I know that.
I'm just saying that if I was going to compare two systems together, I would compare the Pro with the 80GB PlayStation because they are similar in features and who the SKU is meant for.
Originally posted by EvilTyrant
Arcade was released to compete with the Wii, rumors going around that Microsoft may even try to focus on the casual crowd, I kinda fear this happening. Oh btw, I don't think the 3 year warranty should be applauded, there system needs to be completely fixed, and what if the system dies when the warranty is over?
Then it's the same as every other electronic in the world if something happens past the warranty.
And it has been fixed, that problem is massively less common in systems made past August 2007. It, however, like every other problem that can occur in an electronic device, cannot be completely fixed.
Why is focusing on the casual crowd, when they are the vast majority of people who play games, a bad thing?