This article at gameplayer calls for a price drop on the PS3 by comparing pricing across a range of comparable products. In Australia, the "PS3 now $400 More Expensive than Cheapest Blu-ray Player"
THIS ARTICLE IS FLAME BAIT!!!! Fight, Fight, FIGHT, FIGHT!!!! lulz.
Idiots light fires under them. This article is Maths, plain and simple. Plus it makes no claim that the PS3 is not worth it, just says that it doesn't look good on a store shelf.
.____....____....____ |.......|...|................ .| |____|...|____....____| |...................|........ .| |............____|...____| = HEAVEN!!! ;-P 1 x xBox 360 = .___.......___......___....._ __..... ||.....||....||.....||...||.. ...||..||.....\\.... ||___||....||___||..||...... ||..||......\\.... ||......\\...||.....\\..||... . ||..||.......||.... ||.......||..||......||..||__ _||..||___//... ;-D ;-D ;-D I'd rather have 1 Box that does it all i.e the PS3!!! ;-P
1 Year of LIVE = GoW2 3 Years of LIVE = Blu-RAY Player How long does a non-Xbox360 console last? at least 4 years... 1+3 = ????
If you did that then you wouldn't be able to call yourself a sony fanboy then would you huh? But yes, just a piece of flamebait..
look how hard they try to be a world power yet no one notices them. almost as bad as canada
All I need is my ps3 , one system makes my house look roomy and nice . That xbox is to ugly looking and it makes my living room look like a kids room . $ 250 to play gears isn't worth with . I mean $400 to play gears isn't worth it . Since you can't do shii with the arcade
It was the Australian forces that won the last battle in WWI the one that forced the Germans to give up 2 weeks later. Yes there were US troops in this battle as well but they ran the other way, While the Australian troops stood fought and won the Western battle front. So I'd say to you to re-think what you have just written rather than go with the typical US BS of starting wars and then can't finish them.
TBH I still think the PS3 is alright value for money. Then again, I ain't no kid and I do work for a living I admit though, If I was a parent... I would be reluctant to by my kid one for xmas and would opt instead for the cheaper xbox360 for them.... as I'm evil like that... muwahahaaa. There is quite a bit of difference between the cheapest Blu-ray player and the one inside the PS3. So TBH the comparision is a pretty weak one at most. Just like the differences between the cheapest LCD TV and the most expensive (even if at the same screen size) means sod all, as the quality on screen is easy to spot and IMHO worth the extra cash. At the end of the day it depends on your individual circumstances and nothing else.
the chepest Blu-ray player is nothing on the PS3. But if general consumers knew that then the cheapest ones wouldn't exist, cause they wouldn't sell. Sony's own Blu-ray player was a lot cheaper too though. I think Sony could stand to shave some cash off.
1 x PS3 = 1 hell-of-a-machine + a Blu-ray Player - RROD
The point really is "NOW" Everyone can afford a Blu-Ray Player... Wasn't that eventually going to be the case ? Hopefully, non PS3 users can now enjoy TRUE HiDef movies... Its good for all of us.
to get an equally good bluray player you gotta shell out at least 300$, those lowprice bd player cant match the ps3 in the slightest. i hate those "news"
All I know is my PS3 can both play BLU-RAY Games and BLU-RAY Movies.
for the price of a harddrive equipped ps3,with blu ray built in(less clutter),due to online abilities the ps3 bluray evolves due to updates, plus free online not mention only place where you can play lbp,killzone and god of war 3 damn im happy i went with the ps3...
With PS3 you get free online, hdd, and wifi. And the potential for better exclusives is greater on PS3. On 360 the exclusive content is mostly DLC and on PS3 your getting new and more innovative games.
Damn straight. Also, you'd need to spend like $100+ on a hard drive for the xbox and another $100 on a wireless newtwork adapter (both things built into the ps3) And yeh, then ur left with a crappy blu ray player and a generic shooter game. hurrah!
Must be a very young hopefull kid who wrote this article! "We just believe that the fact that you can buy…an Xbox 360, a Blu-ray player and a blockbuster game (say a Gears of War 2 or a Fable 2)for the same price as one PS3 is hard to ignore for the millions of mums that are about to hit the shops looking for a game console." Well KID, if that's your conclusion, and your MUM is buying your console, I'm sorry but you're getting a Wii for Christmas! Thank you for making me laugh. Beware though, you may have to share it with her as she may enjoy Wiifit more than you. And if your MUM goes into a store shopping for a console and say: "give me the cheapest console you have, it's for my son for Christmas", I would also like to see what kind of clothes you're wearing! (Beware, you may also get a PS2 instead of a Wii, they are cheaper too)
Statement = GOLD!!!
yeahh, and in price of one multifunction printer you can buy one printer, one scanner and a pack of paper. Guess what? I've bought MFP since I have all I need in one place maintaining quality. PS3 is more like multimedia hardware: gaming machine, bluray player, dvd upscaler, divx player, audio player, web browser and with Linux(yeah, I know how it works) pretty much more. That's why I stick with it. It has everything I need without taking much space.
That is the point you realise. One lost sale for Sony for the exact reason you just stated. Out thunk ya did ze kid
woah. This sucks for Australians. I dunno for the rest of the world though.
Hmmm... The title of this article should be - "1 x PS3 > an X360 + a Blu-ray Player + GoW" The reality of this article is - An Xbox 360 + a Blu-ray Player + GoW 2 + the Australian climate = RROD gameplayer.com.au - why do you hate us gamers so much? Why do you try to put the above bundle on par with a PS3? Do your readers a favour and stop publishing these kinds of articles.
Well in Australia the ps3 is shipping with a Free blockbuster game (LBP, MS2, R2 or S/S) anyway. So the article may as well just say 1 x PS3 = 1 x cheap XB360 + 1 x cheap Separate BR player.. I know what i would prefer..
You pay for what you get. Whether one system is more powerful than the other aside, the included features, multi-functionality, and FREE online connectivity of PS3 paid for itself. What I would've paid for Wifi connector, XBox live, and a bigger HDD would've made buying a 360 way more expensive than PS3. Case in point. My buddy came over to play Metal Gear Solid 4. I made him create a new profile cause I didn't want to risk him saving over my game. He did and was shocked when I told him he could create a PSN account for free. I'm sure live is awesome, having achievements since day one and in-game chat is awesome, and cross game chat is great, but PSN is catching up and it's free all the while. If you can't afford one, then just hold on until they drop the price. Or get a 360. Both systems are great and you really can't go wrong with either.
I've never used the original Xbox or Xbox 360 to watch movies via disk, nor the PS2 and for that matter I wouldn't use the PS3 to watch movies. They are gaming devices so its only natural you play games on them and don't wear down the drive. I do however view HD movies from the Xbox 360 via Xbox Live. I don't need Blue Ray to view HD content. Xbox 360 had HD content before PS3 even existed. And my cable company provides me an HD cable converter so I have HD content in that form as well. However, I will admit that eventually I will consider buying a Blue Ray player when I am ready to. And when God of War 3 comes out, I will own a PS3. I don't intend to use the PS3 to watch movies, via the BRD. It just doesn't make sense to double the amount of use of the drive. I am the same with my computer. I only put game disks in the DVD rom to install them or my music CD's when I am transferring songs to my mp3 player. Thats all. Thanks for listening.
My, and many others, first DVD player was a PS2. In fact, one of the chief motivating factors was the ability to have a DVD player and watch the Matrix. I'm not saying watching movies is the ONLY factor. Not at all. But that in conjunction with Sony's inhouse games, their solid history of gaming, AND all the other features of the PS3 made my decision for me and I don't think I'm alone. If you don't have an HDTV and don't plan on getting one then blu-ray is a non-issue. That's cool. I can get that. But for everyone else that does have an HDtv and doesn't already have a blu-ray player, I think they'll give the PS3 a good amount of thought when choosing their next console. So yeah, people watch movies on their game console because nowadays these machines are not just game consoles. Both MS and Sony strive to be the center of your media hub. If you think that's not true then why is MS giving Netflix? Who watches movies on their console, right? Gamers do. And its no coincidence that the top selling movies on blu-ray are those typically purchased by the gaming demographic (e.g. Iron Man and soon the Dark knight).
Very good point. I obviously wasn't considering space either and I am sure some folk have to consider that when making multi-media purchases.
My nephew wanted a ps3 . I got his azz a wii . When I was a kid I didnt give a fk what system my parents got me . I'm a grown azz man now so I can afford a ps3 . If there parents could afford a ps3 thats what they'll get . I love these people comparing all the xbox games that they have . Yeah all BS games . ok ok you have gears and halo ..But I have never played it so I wonty make judgement
I agree with what you said... except: "And the potential for better exclusives" That doesn't make sense.. The only thing that allows for a greater potential is the devs themselves. No matter how good blu-ray is for games, it does not mean the games will always be better because of it. However, it does give the oppurtunity for a bigger,in the case of exclusives, and prettier games. & "PS3 your getting new and more innovative games." This is also stupid. The only thing that is going to make a impact on making new and more innovative games are, once again, the devs themselves.
You'll have to get a wifi adaptor to go with that 360 and pay for Xbox live. Is that the 360 with the harddrive?
its not really true. on 360 your game is constantly running and that can cause some stress to your lens especially if you tend to game alot. but thats not the case for ps3. alot of games on ps3 has install options and some even come with mandatory install. by having those impt game data on the hdd already reduce the amount of time the game require to read from the blu-ray disc. you can spend 10hrs on 360 and does the same to ps3 but 360 lens defnitely have more stress as its running for full 10hrs while ps3 is not. so it doesnt hurt even if you use the ps3 to watch BRD movies. more over talking about HD content. dont tell me you can stream 1080p full hd movies with full 5.1/7.1 uncompressed audio. so dont try to match streaming with physical media. thats just dumb.
that's what I was under the impression on, that 360's online movies were 720p, not 1080p, and you cannot stream an uncompressed audio source with Live from what I read also, so no, you don't have the same access to HD movies that BD owners do. As well, I'm not worried about wear and tear on my PS3's drive, I know it's built well, and has a low chance of scratching discs, which is not what I read about 360, and honestly, that WAS a selling point to me on getting my PS3, the reliability.
I'm rather sure Sony are aware of the cost of their console and it's rival units. I don't think "calls for a price drop" from any website would spur them to break their plan. As soon as financially viable I'm sure Sony will drop the price, but right now dropping the price would mean a bigger loss per unit, sales would increase an there for so would your looses. Making a profit at this state is more important than out selling the competition at any cost.
but that would go against the whole plan of this generation, where it is all been about copping a loss to ensure a big install base. Maybe they are just saying there will be nothing but will drop it anyway in a month.
But what are the other costs. Are these prices comparable to you overseas guys, I know Aussies get rorted more than anyone else.
Who's plan is that? Possibly MSs. But I have read countless interviews/articles concerning Sony where they state right now turning a profit is their aim. But your right, you can never tell, they will always deny a price drop right up until it happens.
because they've been operating at a large loss since launch. the shareholders don't like it when you invest in a company that has a payoff 5-10 years down the road, but up till then you have to lose money. Sony's worrying about number 1 right now, because, if they don't, they'll lose more money to shareholders. Not that they really have a choice. They didn't design a console that would turn a profit in a realistic time period this gen. Also, M$ has had one goal since the beginning with the 360, and that was to turn a profit. If you read this article: http://www.n4g.com/industry... it explains it. They not only designed the system to be easy to work with, but to be a lot cheaper to produce down the road. And lastly, To the people in the first comment. A Lamborghini is a great value for the car you're getting too. That doesn't mean every family is going to buy one to get them from point A to point B. It's not about what the best deal is. It's about what has what you need for the least money. That's intro micro-economics.
which is why 33% comes into mind. MS gambled with the cheap production costs and look what happened, terrible reliability issues. i'm not saying its not profitable but not good for brand recognition which is a major priority with sony.
and that my friend, is why many people DID opt to get a PS3 (while many will opt for less, like the Wii or Arcade 360)....Many of us bought a PS3 because it was the cheapest for all the features, it was for me and a few others I talked to, while others were fine with the 360. My point is I added up all the things *I* wanted out of a console this gen, and Sony offered it for about $100 less than Microsoft's equivelent, plus I got a PS2 more or less built in, and with more peace of mind about my purchase (that is NOT a flamebait comment, 360's have a higher failure rate, that is a fact, and that DID determine my choice, I didn't want to deal with worries about RROD and worrying that my games would get scratched up like some reports were saying). And that $100 less for the PS3 was just to start, the difference grew annually when you look at Live each year. For many of us, PS3 *IS* the value system.
Pointless article imo, PS3 is still the best value out of the options above. recent blu-ray test showed the ps3 as the best performing, and one of few that works with BD-live etc...I would still pay £425 for my ps3 today if I was faced with the choice, I know where my money is and its in a solid console that i'm more than happy with. That said, as others have said, your average consumer doesnt look at it like that. but Sony probably wont cut the price yet, as they are ahead of sales targets, up on last year and at least level with the ps2 sales at the same time in its life cycle, which all things said and done is an acomplishment.
But we are far from the norm. Unless you're a mother going into a shop to be a present for little johnny this Christmas, which is who the article is about and who Sony will lose out on.
Its seems however, If we actually consider the Article/Headline, Any Blu-Ray player Bought ,Ps3 or Not, Works in Sony's Favour. But as Real Gambler Said.... PS2 is Cheaper than all of em' Just a thought.
The PS3 will still be relevant and competitive in the long term; while the XBOX will go through its market cycle much more quickly. You'll see an XBOX 720 or something similar before you see a PS4. So leaving all the other technical details aside, the PS3 is a better investment because you won't need to upgrade nearly as soon. Count the savings in that. It's true consumers tend to judge on sticker price, but with the economic downturn I don't think XBOX sales are going to be fantastic either. I think it's the Wii, if anything, this Christmas. Then too, because of the price drop, MS will have to sell more SKUs to make a profit. Sony is playing it conservative, which is a good strategy with a future-proofed console - they can afford to wait. This Christmas season isn't going to make or break it any more than last year's.
Such Maths like this is for the poor who also diss-regard quality. Who cares about poor people? Sod them! They should not have an HDTV if they too poor for a PS3 for blu-ray and games, It's that simple! I dunno why poor people even attempt to save up and buy a generic no-brand, small & crappy pixilated HDTV and BluRay to 'try' and look good and end up being laughed at due to it looking more like lego land (due to no on-board hardware processing). And, anyone who has NOT got an HDTV (many that will probabaly come here and still flame here), then this article is useless anyway to you, go out and work and get some cash... go on... now!
u could have born in a poor family, at that time i wish i could hear u say this again! poor = not enough money to spend on entertainments, but they may be million times happier than u, they could have good heath good relationship, good hurt while u r missing all that! and sometimes some poor people specially the young they still want to play and have fun. and thanks to the capitalism that most of the wealth of earth is owned by 1 percent of the population!!
@theKiller I was born in a poor family, Then I grew up and got a job and made sure I was no longer poor. Also you have missed my point... Buying a cheap crap HDTV and a cheap crap Bluray = CRAP PICTURE Poor people should just stay away from such CRAP as it is not worth buying, they can spend there pennies on other things that are more important instead of trying to look 'cool' and failing. Now for those with money, the PS3 wins hands down as a good quality Bluray player. Comparing it to a cheap one is stupid!
why don't you add extra controller paying for online charge dock etc?
Or paying for rumble controllers, HD cables, headset etc with the PS3.
"rumble controllers, HD cables, headset etc with the PS3. " Dualshock 3's are now included with all PS3s. HD cables, monoprice.com $6. As for the headsets yeah you got that one.
headset like what 10$? you can use any bluetooth or usb headset
Just use the bluetooth one from your cell phone, or grab one for 10 bucks at any store.
"psychological barrier " I agree that most consumers have that. But if it's the case, then why didn't MS sell 500,000 consoles when they dropped the Arcade to $199? So I still believe people "Want" a PS3. But it's obvious most still cant "afford" it. As much as I don't expect Sony to drop the price anytime soon. But it's inevitable that it has to come at least by beginning of '09.
The PS3 is still the best value of money. You get a gaming console, a bluray player, and a computer backup all in one.
what if you dont want a blu ray player, and want to play Fable2 and GeOw2 ?
Then you have to buy a 360. You're point ?
Point is good value is defined in the customers interest. Imho the ps3 has no value, (even thought i had a ps2 instead of an xbox) i know have a 360 because the games interest me more, and i dont want to waste money on things i do not use. SO my reasons to buy a 360, and there fore defining it has more value for me. -the games, more rpg's and shooters. -lower price. (i dont go online either) Maybe it time for some people to accept that value is based on interest, if someone would give me a ps3 for free, i would just sell it, or trade it for 360 games.
What if you want to play Resistance 2, Gran Turismo Prologue, Rachet & Clank, Ninja Gaiden Sigma, Little Big Planet, Uncharted, Heavenly Sword, MLB, Metal Gear Solid 4, Wipeout HD, and I can go on like this for days? You get a PS3. If you want to risk getting a faulty console, you can own both. Until THIS day, you're still claiming the PS3 is just a bluray player? IT HAS GAMES! Please don't embarrass yourself. And I bought my PS3 because *I* believe it has value. It has some of the best games I've ever played.
Like i said, i had a ps2 for the games, xbox had not enough interesting games compared to the ps2, ps3 also has games, but none interest me. Therefore the ps3 has no value to me, and many others, it has value to some, but not to everybody.
Okay, that's your opinion then. But hopefully something changes your mind about it. :)
the x360 has no value for me. I can play better versions of X360 "exclusives" on my PC
For the ones slamming disagree buttons, kindly prove me wrong, otherwise I'll just think you're doing it because it's *cool* and *fun*. Grow up. I never implied that Sony shouldn't drop the price. They should but they can't as of right now. If they drop the price, they lose even more money. They have to focus on making a profit first. I don't see what's wrong with saying that the PS3 is the best value for money. That's *my* opinion. I never passed it as fact. This site amazes me sometimes. -__-
Alright. What you fail to account for is the third party multi-platform lineup, which sells easily more games on the whole than any exclusive lineup. All of these games work in favor of the cheapest system. For the 360, you have the 360 exclusive lineup, and the multi-platform line up working in it's favor. From the mind of the consumer, it's hard to justify the extra money if you don't already have a vested interest in the established series for the PS3. You're all looking at this from the perspective of someone that wants PS3 exclusives, a blu-ray player, and a media center. Look at it from the perspective of someone that wants to play games cheaply.
You don't have to use the bluray player or any of that stuff on the PS3 if you don't want to. I only have one bluray movie for my PS3. I bought mostly games. The bluray player is an added bonus. Cheap things aren't always great if they spell out 'most likely to break within seconds.' People ought to let Sony do their job. if they mess up, it's their fault. If they succeed with their strategy, then kudos for them.
If I'm not going to use it, why should I pay for it? If I'm just driving my kids to school I don't need a Porsche. A honda or subaru will work fine, and they're not bad cars by any means when it comes down to it.
Well, that's your preference. You don't have to buy it if you don't need it. But not everyone thinks that way. There are some who will settle for a Porsche and some who will settle for something less expensive. But to assume that everyone will immediately pick the cheaper thing is kinda foolish.
I read, and I know what it is. I took economics before.