computerandvideogames.com/ne … ?id=122420
…
It might work with all the fanboys Sony has gathered… But I think it will most likely fail… I don’t think anyone will believe the console will last a decade, not even the most hardcore fan… Of course the exact price isn’t known yet but no company would want to advertise it as expensive without a reason… Thoughts?
You forget that the original PSX launched at a $400 price point, and I believe the Saturn was, too (though I’m not as sure about that one).
Kutaragi has a pact with the Devil.If someone’s console is gonna last that long it’s Kutaragi’s.
In the end tho how can someone advertize “our console has the best games” when they aim at a 10 year cycle?Sony’s contracts don’t last that long do they.
PS: I think he’s underestimating the power of technological evolution too.
A) The saturn failed, this could be another reason for it
B) The prices dropped fairly fast
C) This may be a lot more expensive if Sony feels the need to advertise it as expensive this early when they did not do the same for PSOne all those years back…
I don’t think they’d make a fuss about it if it was 50-100$ more expensive than the last generation either… They’d just say “A little over the PS2 price” or something along those lines… not warn people to start doing overtime to raise the money… or say they think it may be out of the mainstream reach but that people who really want it will still be able to buy it…
Of course this could just be all hype to raise the discussions even if negative and then make the price appear that much better when they finally unveil it…
But it seriously can’t last 10 years… I mean, ok, Sony CAN support it for 10 years but it will be outdated long before that IMO… What does Sony think, that they are so good that their technological advancements will not be surpassed for a decade… Even if that was true, as soon as the thing was out it could be reverse engineered and everybody else could make just as good and then evolve it… But they won’t need to…
Well, I’m sure MS and the rest of the industry hope that the Xbox 360 and PS23 will last 10 years, too. It’s simply a matter of cost effectiveness. Will the incremental advancements in technology really warrant another generation change in 5 years? Perhaps. But will it be worth another increase in development cost? Another round of everyone having to buy new hardware?
Well I’m sure everybody HOPES that, in every generation, but does that make it POSSIBLE? IMO, no.
Besides, does the fact they think it will last long mean it’s ok to make it overly expensive?
I also think they WILL want to move on to a new system sooner than that anyway. After all, the PSOne was going strong when the PS2 was introduced and it had no real competitors in sight. But I’m sure there was or was going to be in the near future a decline in sales. Because from one point onward people will still want something new, and when a system has been expoilted to the max, well, something that looks new will be a rare thing to the mainstream… A new system with more capabilities will remedy that for them at that point…
Um. I’m not seeing any figures here.
Five years down the track, I’m sure gamers will be well and truly ready for another generation of consoles, or at least those with enough money to afford upgrading to a Playstation 4 (or whatever is available at the time). If you consider the current generation of consoles, already their technology is considerably outdated compared to today’s PCs. Run Halo 2 next to the PC versions of Half-Life 2 or Doom 3 to see what I mean. Even though Halo 2 does an excellent job of pushing the Xbox hardware, the Xbox simply can’t compare to technology three or four years ahead of it. I’m not saying that graphics make a game, but they can contribute considerably to certain titles and hardcore gamers simply won’t want to wait eight or nine years to play something better looking. Personally, I don’t like to play dumbed down versions of games when I can avoid them, I’d rather play the best version available, and if consoles end up lasting too long, I can only see the console versions of games feeling “less” than their PC counterparts.
Regarding the PS3’s price… $400 sounds too steep for a console, there would need to be good reason for pricing it that high when the 360 is bound to be cheaper. I’d imagine the majority of people would buy the 360 instead. Sony’s brand is strong, but is it really that strong? I’m talking about casual gamers here…
Kutaragi also said that it was not targeted at house holds, one point being because of its price… So, if it’s not targeted at households… then who else?
Hardcore gamers and people really into technology I’d imagine. “Gadget people” who have to have to latest and greatest thing out there, regardless of price. However, those kind of people are unlikely to still want to be using the same piece of technology in ten years time, so there seems to be a bit of conflict there.
the link doesn’t seem to work for me =S
bad webdesigning?
mmm, a good magazine gone down the drain.
But hrm, that’s a pretty stupid idea, moving away from their casual gamer core audience. Oh well, all the more reason for me to go for a Revolution. XD
So, how come everyone is ignoring the fact that the original PlayStation was $400 when it released? Did that hamper it’s success?
Was the PlayStation not launched at $300? I just did a quick search to try and find out the Saturn’s price at the time, and that’s the figure I’m seeing, at least. From what I can remember though, the PS was either the same price as the Saturn at its launch or actually cheaper than the Saturn; I know it was cheaper in the UK because the Saturn’s price ended up dropping to compete, though I’m not sure what prices were like elsewhere…
its price was quickly dropped from what I’ve heard but I don’t remember much about the PS1…mainly because I never heard about it until like '98 because I rarely watched tv or played any games then. I still don’t play games much but that’s because I do a lot more of doing nothing now lol
The difference is that the 360 and Revolution are likely to be significantly cheaper than the Playstation 3. If the average consumer can’t see any noticeable differences between the machines, they’re more likely to go with a cheaper alternative. Mind you, the Playstation brand does have a very strong following, so it’s likely to sell well enough, regardless.
I still think it will be more than $400, I don’t believe Sony would make such a fuss about an extra $100 saying how people will wanna work more for it or that the price isn’t household friendly etc … It would be bad publicity for no real reason and it can also harm their sales quite a bit seeing how the X-Box 360 will be out first and if people don’t find that expensive then they may not bother waiting for the PS3 at all …
Either that, or it’s another hype trick … All the kids will be going “oh my god, it’s so good that it’s going to be so expensive I can’t even have it, dammit” … then comes the release with an OK price and they all go “hell yeah that dream machine will be MINE, MINE, MINE” …
The Saturn at launch cost 44,800 yen, and the PS 39,800 yen.
And this was more or less true for the west. Where the PS was about 100 pounds cheaper than the Saturn ?299 (PS) Vs ?399 (Saturn).
Though inthe west Saturn users did get a free game (VF) and they didn’t need to buy a memory card. So when you factor those in. The PS wasn’t that much cheaper than the Saturn
Stop being you.
Whilst naturally I’d dearly love to fantasise over the Playstation plunging into a shrieking divebomb of oblivion and Ken Kutaragi commiting honourable seppuku on himself, viewing this situation objectively I have to agree with Abadd. It’s the brand that’s paramount, not the price - people are mesmerised by the name, and if they can pay for it, they’ll buy it (and, in this ruinous age of cheap credit, people will buy it even if they can’t).
Take trainers, for a simple example. If we exclude the ‘technical trainers’ produced for sportsmen and concentrate on the street layman, everyone wants to don Nike footwear, even though it’s more expensive than other generic brands. This is because the producer enjoys the attention of fashion. The same goes for the Playstation - apologies if it sounds rather pessimistic, but Sony has the liberty to very much charge whatever it pleases.