| User | Post |
Legion
Posts: 4521/5657 |
http://ps3grill.com/
The tastyness factor will obviously determine the outcome of this battle. |
Colin
Posts: 9040/11302 |
Wouldn't they just be using memory sticks to store data? :\ If so, then you probably could store a lot of game data onto one of those...
On the other hand, it'll only be a matter of time before games start getting ripped onto hard drives.  |
alte Hexe
Posts: 4393/5458 |
Wellllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
I'm going to say you are wrong on that one. If Sony makes it an integral part of their gaming system, or has small memory cards...you know...game saves might be getting bigger... |
knuck
Posts: 1372/1818 |
Not everyone is going to buy the hard drive. Actually I think that only those who wanna play online games will. |
alte Hexe
Posts: 4387/5458 |
410 for the system.
180 for the hard drive.
600 dollars all together. Assuming Sony is still Sony they are going to release a "package" that you have to buy that adds 100 dollars "worth" of crap that you don't need to the deal. |
knuck
Posts: 1369/1818 |
Originally posted by Ziff
It only gets worse!
Looks like you'll be in the market of 700 dollars US for a PS3.
It says $410 on that site... |
Xeolord
Posts: 2476/3418 |
Originally posted by Ziff
It only gets worse!
Looks like you'll be in the market of 700 dollars US for a PS3.
How can I save up for a car and 3 next generation systems ...  |
alte Hexe
Posts: 4380/5458 |
It only gets worse!
Looks like you'll be in the market of 700 dollars US for a PS3. |
Scatterheart
Posts: 234/342 |
But they said that consoles almost always go through that phase, but usually more than make up for it in the following years. Sony could get slumped even more if the X-Box 360 gets cheaper on the PS3's launch. Here's hoping.
[Toyo Keizai goes on to interview Sony Computer Entertainment president Ken Kutaragi, who avoided revealing the PS3's price but hinted that it would not be marked down excessively. "Whether consumers think a product is expensive or cheap all depends on the balance between its appeal and price," he said. "Our ideal [for the PS3] is for consumers to think to themselves, 'OK, I'll work more hours and buy it.' We want people to feel that they want it, no matter what."]
Suuuure, buddy. People probably won't buy the thing because the extra hours they put in at work to pay for the PS3 won't give 'em any time to play the games anyway!
And whatever he says... I doubt there'll be enough appeal to make as many people who bought a PS1/PS2 to buy the PS3 at the price. $800 - $900AU... I've never paid over $200AU for any of my consoles. I might buy the Revolution if it comes down to $400AU/$300US
...Wait - I think that's it's launch cost!!! |
alte Hexe
Posts: 4346/5458 |
Umm, well Panasonic and SNK with those lovely systems caused a market flood that really hurt the videogame market that year. And I'm talking literally, when the market was still infantile, millions of lost dollars due to gamer disenfranchisement. For these consoles, it interrupted the market long enough to allow Sony to slowly raise the profile of the Playstation. Either way, the video game market was teetering on the edge because the MANY companies that were throwing systems on the market made something that was no sustainable and caused a minor implosion.
In other news: Sony - the next-gen loser
100$ loss/system compared to MS' 76$ loss/ system...MS is looking to lose about 400 million on the X-Box360 in hardware sales. Sony is looking to lose a whopping ONE BILLION dollars on their new endevour. I think that this is one of those times where a big company got its britches a little too high up there. |
Colin
Posts: 8987/11302 |
...Panasonic?  SNK? Neither of those companies had any chance to get a foothold on the market, and pricing was pretty much the reason. :\ Sega's the only one of those three you could really make a case for, but it went downhill for them from the 32X on. |
alte Hexe
Posts: 4314/5458 |
Originally posted by NSNick
Originally posted by Dracoon
Nintendo had probably one of the biggest holds on the market ever, yet they blew it. No other company has ever done that, so don't go saying Nintendo's great and all that junk.
Atari.
Panasonic.
NEO-GEO.
Sega.
...lots of companies, actually. |
KawaiiImoto-e
Posts: 812/1068 |
Even if the contract with Atari and Nintendo would have been signed, they would had it hard on the market.
"The reason I habe this terrific job, is that the guy before me was fired after he lost so much in video games. Do you think there is any way I'm going to make that mistake?"
- a buyer for a toy company in 1984
|
Colin
Posts: 8960/11302 |
Atari could have handled distribution of the NES, you know. There was interest and talks were ongoing, but then things fell apart, Atari decided to press forward with the 7800, and we all know what happened in the end.
ET was just the clincher; Atari had made tons of mistakes leading up to it, such as making 12,000,000 copies of Pac-Man when there were 10,000,000 Atari 2600's on the market. The belief was that 2,000,000 more consoles would be sold as a result, and the end result was that they only sold 7,000,000 copies or so; Pac-Man SUCKED. Terrible port although later Pac-Man games were good and more faithful to the arcade version; still, if that gamble had paid off Atari might have been able to get through the E.T. incident. |
FireOcean
Posts: 55/86 |
Originally posted by NSNick
Originally posted by Dracoon
Nintendo had probably one of the biggest holds on the market ever, yet they blew it. No other company has ever done that, so don't go saying Nintendo's great and all that junk.
Atari.
NSNick = Win.
Yeah, Atari did have the "hold on the market"; that is, right about until they decided to make the game of ET. Then came the fabled "crash" of 1983. And who helped gaming pick itself back up?
Nintendo.
Seriously, Nintendo is only considered by many to be on its last legs because it ONLY makes games. As has been pointed out before, MS and Sony are both more than just gaming companies, but Nintendo doesn't have this facet. That being said, I'm rather disappointed that they haven't really been able to come up with a new series or two. |
Dei*
Posts: 128/412 |
Reveloution looks all shiny and stuff, some great games are coming out AND FINALLY SSB ONLINE. Damn it looks like I might have to be a fanboy again. |
NSNick
Posts: 2641/3875 |
Originally posted by Dracoon
Nintendo had probably one of the biggest holds on the market ever, yet they blew it. No other company has ever done that, so don't go saying Nintendo's great and all that junk.
Atari. |
Dracoon
Posts: 3257/3727 |
If they didn't do things well, Microsoft and Sony that is, they would've been beaten out by Nintendo, or someone that supposedly can never fail.
Nintendo had probably one of the biggest holds on the market ever, yet they blew it. No other company has ever done that, so don't go saying Nintendo's great and all that junk. Nintendo needs some good games, 3rd party support, and to think more openly. They can keep it just a game playing console, thats awesome, I'm glad they're adding internet access too, but they can go with both graphics and effiency easily. |
Ailure
Posts: 10239/11162 |
Sony is wellknown for how durable their products aren't. Microsoft is just... well I wouldn't call them too good. Their OS isn't very impressing anymore after I seen the alternatives. I would argue that many of their products are overpriced and... the only area I would praise Microsoft for is their console.
Nintendo trying to reach a new group of "gamers" seems intresting. I mean... The sims anyone? Hardcore gamers bash the hell out of it, but amongst non-gaming people it's a hit. Probably becuse how simple it is to get into, and how much freedom there is. But the lack of a "goal" makes most hardcore gamers to not like the game.
Rare is just a shade of it's former self, like with the now dead westwood it's hardly have any old devolopers left. After three years I realised how smart move it was from Nintendo to sell Rare. |
NSNick
Posts: 2624/3875 |
Originally posted by Dracoon
Sony and Microsoft are good corperations, they do everything really well which is why they're at what they are today (filthy rich). Sadly, if Microsoft were to somehow lose Bungie to Nintendo or Sony, I could see a lot of people leaving. I could also say the same about Sony and Square Enix.
Doesn't matter anyways, we all know any of us that wanna play games for the games will probably end up buying all three consoles.
I wouldn't say they do everything well. Sony's product quality can sometimes be iffy, for example. Also, I don't think Microsoft is going to lose Bungie anytime soon, seeing as they own them.
And yeah, I'll probably eventually end up with all 3 systems (again).  |
| This is a long thread. Click here to view it. |
