Comments (106)
« 1 2 »
kikizoo  +   1140d ago
If they give us (again !), best hardware and library, free live and games (psn+), no matter the price, every real gamer 'll buy it (and the real gamers without money should have to wait a little more, wich is not a big problem : unless they turn to be stupid frustrated fanboy, like some of xfans this gens)
CouldHaveYelledUiiW  +   1140d ago
3 easy payments of 19.99
Pre-Orders get 2 FREE Sham-Wows and a Shticky!
OmniSlashPT  +   1140d ago
299 = seems about right
399 = still acceptable
499 = kinda overdoing it, it must be worth it
599 = not even close
shackdaddy  +   1140d ago
I've learned from countless bad experiences to never buy anything at launch but $399 sold at a slight loss would be great, personally speaking.
CouldHaveYelledUiiW  +   1139d ago
"Well Said" Shackdaddy.
bozebo  +   1140d ago
Nobody knows yet if MS's next console is going to be targeting casuals. (this likely will be the case)

So it's impossible to speculate properly on the PS4's price point.
Jek_Porkins  +   1140d ago
Microsoft did a good job at marketing the current Xbox 360 to families and casuals. Casual gamers don't rush out and buy new hardware at launch, it's always hardcore gamers. I'd expect a ton of games aimed at core gamers for the launch, and slowly over the first few years we'll see the introduction of more casual and family options. Microsoft will support the Xbox 360 for at least a couple of years and they wont want to directly compete with themselves.

Microsoft and most game companies do the same thing, launch for core, switch it up later in the generation. Microsoft did that with the original Xbox and the 360, even Sony does it.
gtr_loh  +   1140d ago
As basic economics tell us, Sony would probably keep the prices within the vicinity of Nintendo's and Microsoft's next-gen pricing assuming that they have similar technology. The Wii U's price is reflective of the technology it utilizes (which isn't all that great) therefore it's only a mere $299.99 (I believe Nintendo's also losing money for each Wii U sold without a game). Sony has obviously learned it's lesson of having the highest price of consoles when it was released back in '07 for $599.99. My guess is Sony would probably price the PS4 to either match their expenses or maybe a few dollars loss (factoring in other expenses as well, not just hardware) so this would probably mean a higher price point than the Wii U since we can assume that the PS4 will utilize "next-gen" technology.
Ck1x  +   1139d ago
If you wanna say it will have more advanced architecture than WiiU, then say that. Because saying that it will have next-gen technology is just rediculous! That's like saying it will be capable of things that even PCs can't do... Which won't be the case at all. As I've stated before on this topic, I do expect PS4 &720 to put out better graphics than that of the WiiU. But with high-end GPU's currently using high thermal outputs to achieve such graphics. How do people actually believe that both Sony and Microsoft can cram something that puts out 2-3Tflops of power into such a confined space for a console?
Raoh  +   1140d ago
I don't know what the deal was this gen with pricing.

People wanted the ps3 and 360 to be evenly priced yet.

PS3 had an hdmi port the 360 did not.
PS3 had Blu Ray, 360 had neither blu ray nor hd dvd.
PS3 supported linux os, 360 did not support any os.
PS3 had browser supporting media, 360 had none.
PS3 had built in wifi, 360 had none.
PS3 had full BC, 360 had emulation, sorry non hdd 360's.
PS3 had bluetooth, 360 did not.
PS3 had hd audio, 360 did not.
PS3 had upgradeable drives, 360 had proprietary ones.
PS3 let play online free, 360 charged you.
PS3 had rechargeable controllers, 360 had AA batteries and charged for a charger.
PS3 had the pseye camera with mini motion games, 360 had a vision cam.

Yet people complained that they were not evenly priced.

For shame people.
MikeMyers  +   1134d ago
The original Xbox had a hard drive, a built in ethernet adapter, support for 4 controllers built in, able to do true digital sound. Yet it cost the consumer the same price as a PS2. So don't blame consumers who didn't want the price inflated due to Sony's commitment to want bluray to become the new format because they had other divisions like TV's to sell.

In the end it was the exclusives that paid off for bluray, however the bulk of the PS3 library didn't really benefit consumers from the added cost because the majority of the games and the majority of software sales stem from 3rd party games. So anyone who grew up and supported the Playstation over the years got CD support from the PSOne and DVD support from the PS2 but those systems came out at a reasonable $299. It was the PS3 that changed all that so don't blame consumers for balking at the price tag.

Sony lost some of their built up userbase they allocated from the PSOne and PS2 era by out-pricing themselves. They are not about to make the same mistake with the PS4.
#37.1 (Edited 1134d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
Raoh  +   1134d ago
Core model had no hdmi and no hard drive.
Pro Model had no hdmi and 20gb hard drive.

2007 (HDMI was added end of 2007 into 2008)
Arcade Model had hdmi on board 256mb flash.

Arcade Model had hdmi on board 512mb flash.
Pro model had 60gb hard drive and hdmi

Comparing PS2 to a 360? Makes sense, I bought a 360 early on, regrettably, but after reading the specs compared to the ps3, one was an xbox 1.5 the playstation 3 was a tru leap forward from ps2 to ps3.
MikeMyers  +   1134d ago
You sound like the marketing guru's from Sony who also called it the Xbox 1.5.

I wasn't comparing the Xbox 360 to the PS2, I was comparing the pricing model of the original Xbox to that of the PS2. They cost the same to the consumer but the Xbox had a significant edge when it came to the technical differences and the options included.

So now we flip forward to the current generation where the Xbox 360 came out before the PS3 much like how the PS2 came out before the original Xbox. Difference is the PS3 cost the consumer quite a bit more money to get all those extra options. Some the consumer didn't want to pay for.

Don't get me wrong, I still think the PS3 offers greater value but I didn't buy one in the beginning. I wasn't about to pay $500-600 for a game console that also played bluray movies. So yes, the consumer had the right to question the high price. Especially those who just wanted a game console.

As for the specs between the PS3 and the Xbox 360 the games do not really show a drastic difference no matter how you want to spin it. This isn't like a leap from the Wii to the Xbox 360. Nor is it anything close to the leap of what PC gaming showed in comparison. So to call it a Xbox 1.5 is a misconception. Most games on the PS3 run at 30fps in 720p, just like its counterpart on the Xbox 360. Bluray is also not the driving force in what games can do. In fact I don't know of any PC game that utilizes bluray. The biggest drawback on the Xbox 360 isn't bluray or cell technology, it's the lack of a standardized hard drive.

Isn't it ironic how Sony was also on the board of the bluray association? They used the Plasytation brand as leverage to make sure it could win the next format. While doing so they also lost a portion of the existing userbase from previous generations. So don't be saying for shame people. For shame is dominating the console sector for two generations in a row and trying to use bluray as the driving force to sell TV's and expecting consumers to pay a large premium in the process. Thankfully the Wii and your so called Xbox 1.5 forced Sony's hand to drop the price rather quickly. In the end consumers got a much better marketplace for choice.
#37.1.2 (Edited 1134d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
Kamikaze135  +   1140d ago
I can already see the $499.99 USD price tag.
DFresh  +   1140d ago
I won't spend no more then $500 base price for a console.
Jek_Porkins  +   1140d ago
Personally it's $399 or less or I wait for a price drop, no matter what the console is or who makes it. Luckily I've been able to buy pretty much every console over the last 20 years because of this plan. Missed out on PS3 obviously, but I was day one on PS1/PS2.
Bolts  +   1140d ago
The problem with the PS3 isn't the price. I paid $600 for mine and it would have been worth it if it can deliver on Sony's promises.

It did not. 1080p gaming was a fraud, the system is underpowered and the "Power of the Cell" was a huge disappointment. This console was advertised as the most powerfully gaming console ever...and yet it constantly freezes in Skyrim. In fact I can't think of a single multiplat game where the PS3 cleary demonstrate it's superiority over the 360.

Then there's the ridiculous "It only does everything" marketing fail. Should I even elaborate how fast Sony backpedaled from that? Now it only does games and Netflix, anything else and they'll sue your ass off LOL.

In short I don't care how much the PS4 cost. But whatever the price is, Sony have better deliver on their promises.
IWentBrokeForGaming  +   1139d ago
With damn near EVERYONE demanding the best tech, I just wonder how much they are willing to pay for the insane specs they truely want in their consoles... MOST people want the best but b!tch and moan when it comes to PAYING for it!

PS3 is STILL an impressive console that is STILL being tapped for more power... what other console is proving it harness's that?
DEATHxTHExKIDx  +   1139d ago
Im Probably gonna go with 720 first then PS4 a few months after its release.
JenniferSimpson22   1139d ago | Spam
« 1 2 »

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login