Kutaragi defends PS3 price

By Ellie Gibson Published 11 May, 2006

Just look at PSone, says Ken.

SCEI president Ken Kutaragi has declared it will be up to us gamers to decide whether the PS3 is worth the asking price - as we did when the original PlayStation was released.

In an interview with the Nihon Keizai Shimbun, Kutaragi said: "Price setting is always a headache for us. No game machines are comparable to the PS3, which is neither a genuine game console, home electronics [product] nor a personal computer. It is a new kind of product."

The PS3 is set to launch globally this November, priced at $499 / €499 for the 20GB version or $599 / €599 for the 60GB model.

According to Kutaragi, it will be "consumers who decide whether it's expensive or cheap. If a product offers charm, then buyers will be convinced."

Kutaragi then referred to the original PlayStation, which launched in December 1994 with a price tag of ¥39,800 (€280).

"With Nintendo's 16-bit machine selling for about ¥12,000 (€85) at that time, the media criticised us for priciness - but it became an explosive hit."

Picture of Ellie.

About Ellie Gibson

Since joining Eurogamer in the mid 2000s, Ellie has written about subjects as diverse as the fall of Gizmondo, the rise of Hollyoaks actresses in Red Alert games and the noise a bear makes under NSFW circumstances.

Read more articles from Ellie by visiting the Ellie Gibson archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (94) Latest comment 6 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • coojam #1 6 years ago

    But the PS3 is TWICE that.

  • ecureuil #2 6 years ago

    I personally won't be buying it for that price, but a hell of a lot of people will.

  • spazmo #3 6 years ago

    "If a product offers charm, then buyers will be convinced."

    Oh well, the PS3 is fucked...

  • alimokrane #4 6 years ago

    relying on history as an argument shows how stupid sony has become! things change and most importantly people change.
    Edited by 2 at 11/05/06 @ 21:20

  • Jo0j #5 6 years ago

    no sale

  • Scimarad #6 6 years ago

    Ahhh, the usual brand of comments thread nonsense I see:-)

    At least some things are reliable.

  • Yossarian #7 6 years ago

    A NEW KIND OF PRODUCT

    *adds that to Ken's list of quotes

  • Tejstar #8 6 years ago

    @ coojam: But if you adjust for inflation, that's equivalent to just under €400 in today's money.
    Edited by 1 at 11/05/06 @ 21:46

  • Hughes. #9 6 years ago

    Wow, the PS3 will cost about the same as the PS2 did, the end of the world is at hand!

    Any of those cretins who declaimed with absolute certainty that the Blu Ray in the PS3 would make for a minimum cost of £600 UKP like to pipe up at this point?

    If releasing cripple packs nobody wants is a crime there are some guys in Redmond VA who should get their collars felt first. Like anyone with half a brain, I'll wait out the inevitable undersupply problems and buy a 60GB after a the first price drop. The videos I've seen show I won't be missing much games wise in the first months of the machine anyway.

  • peterfll #10 6 years ago

    Comparing the pricing of the PS One with the SNES and in the same context comparing the PS3 to the 360 is not a fair comparison.

    Was it me or was he being badly translated (or does he speak pigeon English)?
    Edited by 1 at 11/05/06 @ 21:33

  • #11 6 years ago

    Well Ken, there's still a leap from 280 euro's to 499.

    The PS3 as it stands has completely priced itself out of the market imho. I'm interested in it, but not at that kind of cost. Sorry Sony.

  • Danj #12 6 years ago

    Do we know what the official UK price will be yet? Converting it from Euros it should be around £409, but I was wondering if they'd just round it down to £399?

  • Scimarad #13 6 years ago

    I'll say it again - What essential game playing features are you losing by buying the cheaper one??

    Er, sod all I believe. Calling it a 'tardpack' or 'cripplepack' is pretty damn stupid as it's not as if they left out the HDD or anything...

  • Hughes. #14 6 years ago

    No HDMI and no WiFi sounds pretty crippled to me.

  • jack_klugman #15 6 years ago

    Converting it from Euros it should be around £409, but I was wondering if they'd just round it down to £399?

    More likely round it down to £499 I fear.

  • ROG27 #16 6 years ago

    Wow...so I guess its not a value at that price...

    Either that, or it seems most people are confused. It's definitely the latter.

    The PS3 is the most capable game machine with the best content, a blu-ray player, and wait, wait, this is the one most people don't know yet, also a Linux-based personal computer with mouse, keyboard, and full peripheral support. And wait, there's more: it's also a Location-free Server!

    How the hell are people saying $500-$600 is a bad deal for this? It's definitely not a console in the traditional sense. People are confused.

    @Hughes...you don't need Wi-fi to use full-speed broadband and you don't need HDMI to have 1080p picture and digital sound.
    Edited by 1 at 11/05/06 @ 21:50

  • Scimarad #17 6 years ago

    "No HDMI and no WiFi sounds pretty crippled to me."

    Really? My 360 does pretty well through component. And what exactly would you be using the Wi-Fi for?
    Edited by 1 at 11/05/06 @ 21:50

  • Azazel #18 6 years ago

    Um Ken... It kind of looks like a games console is the only thing...

  • Hughes. #19 6 years ago

    What is the point of having a Blu Ray player that won't output a Hi Def image? And I would use WiFi for PSP connectivity and networking, thanks for asking.

  • ROG27 #20 6 years ago

    What don't you people get about Component supporting 1080p and optical out supporting dolby digital surround sound? The only thing that could potentially restrict this is ICT (Image Constraint Token), which is not being implemented by any of the studios supporting Blu-ray (which is mostly all of them) for the foreseeable future.

  • Nikanoru #21 6 years ago

    No game machines are comparable to the PS3

    Roflz there we go again. Your shiney PS3 is nearly identical in specs to the Xbox 360, guy.

    blargh

  • the creeper #22 6 years ago

    While everybody shouts about the price, does anybody want to bet that it's not going to sell out when it's released? It's actually pretty simple economics: supply and demand. For example:

    You know you're going to have two million PS3s ready for launch. If you priced it at 400 euros, then there might be demand for 10 million at that price. If you price it at 600 euros, then demand will fall to 3 million worldwide. Since demand will still outstrip supply, you're still going to shift all of your units, and make more money (or rather, less loss). Where's the incentive for Sony to sell it for less at launch?

    When demand starts to dry up at that price, we will then see the first price cut. And even if you don't think it's worth that money, I bet there's 2 million people on this planet who are prepared to pay it.

  • Scimarad #23 6 years ago

    Now I don't think it's fair judging Sony consoles by the insane crap spouted by Ken Kutaragi :-)

    And hughes, do you or are you planning to own a 360 or Wii? Because I don't think either of them have Wi-Fi networking either and will, I suspect, miraculously manage to be good machines.
    Edited by 1 at 11/05/06 @ 22:01

  • Foxclose #24 6 years ago

    Ken's right: It is the consumer that decides if the price is expensive or not.
    Like it or not, the PS3 looks like to be a success at launch at these high prices. (4 million units by the end of the year worldwide is hardly a lot!)

    But maybe this time next year, price drops will make this more an affordable option to the casual mass-market. (I also expect the PS3 to surpass the Xbox 360 in graphical looks this time next year.) You can't compare first wave of PS3 games with this year second to third wave of Xbox 360 games.


  • Sko #25 6 years ago

    "Comparing the pricing of the PS One with the SNES and in the same context comparing the PS3 to the 360 is not a fair comparison."

    Yeah, kinda made me blink a few times, too.

  • smelly #26 6 years ago

    I personally thought the ps2 was worth 500 quid, after all what over console gave you ACTUAL emotion in the games?

    *cough*

  • WicKeD #27 6 years ago

    Kutaragi defends PS3 price - by replacing the rumble with a load of ramble!

  • bloodflowers #28 6 years ago

    Too much money. People said the Xbox 360 was too much money, but this is taking the piss. It's like the product has gotten out of control and forgotten what it is - a games console. Blu Ray? High def? Sorry, I just don't give a damn - I want enjoyable games, and I want devs to master using the pixel area they have instead of shovelling us jerky games at even higher resolutions that make zero difference to the experience. If anyone thinks every game will be as smooth as GT4-HD, don't swallow that one. I wish it were the case. I find their vision of gaming, passes me by, and no amount of Tiger Woods grinning just like on TV is going to change that.

    Well done, you made Microsoft seem innovative.

  • souljah #29 6 years ago

    "I personally thought the ps2 was worth 500 quid, after all what over console gave you ACTUAL emotion in the games? "

    My old commodore used to bring out real emotions as well.

    Mainly tears and anguish, but emotions none the less :)

  • RS3York1 #30 6 years ago

    Foxclose: "You can't compare first wave of PS3 games with this year second to third wave of Xbox 360 games. "

    No one from the media to the fanboys had a problem doing this when they pretended that Killzone & Motorstorm @ E3 '05 were real.

    Furthermore, you can't expect the average consumer to walk into a store and say "well, those are launch titles sooo..it's ok". The *price* speaks for itself. Consumers will see the price gap, then see that the cheaper box has better graphics (Gears of War FTW) and forgo the PS3. Yes, the hardcore will buy the PS3 even if it cost 800 Euros but you don't build substantial marketshare on the hardcore segment.

  • Sl1pstream #31 6 years ago

    "With Nintendo's 16-bit machine selling for about ¥12,000 (€85) at that time, the media criticised us for priciness - but it became an explosive hit."

    or

    "All of our shit is overpriced, are you really that surprised?"

  • JA$ON #32 6 years ago

    Fuck off Kutaragi, and take your overpriced console with you!
    CUNT!

    Whats that you say ken? No game machines are comparable to the PS3.
    LMFAO! CUNT!

  • FredMT #33 6 years ago

    Dear Mr. Sony Man:
    Your biggest mistake is making 2 consoles. Stupid, stupid, stupid...

  • ROG27 #34 6 years ago

    bloodflowers...maybe you didn't realize but Sony is delivering on innovating gameplay. I will let you know that the Naughty Dog game you saw in a teaser trailer was actual unscripted gameplay (just captured for a trailer at dynamic camera angles) and that Lair was an actual, in-game cutscene.

    MGS4 also is using the in-game engine for the cutscene.

    You should also take a look at Heavenly Sword, War Devil, Heavy Rain, and Assassin's Creed...which are all PS3 exclusives right now...all have in-game, realitime cutscenes or gameplay for viewing on a number of gamesites. Gametrailers and Gamespot have great coverage if you are wondering.

    Why don't you review what you saw here again before making that blanket statement like not promising innovative gameplay? You will definitely see that PS3 is the most powerful system out there in absolute terms and that these upcoming games are even nicer looking than halo3 and gears of war. They are what is showing pre-launch, too!

  • effinwooly #35 6 years ago

    twat

  • dr_faulk #36 6 years ago

    "What is the point of having a Blu Ray player that won't output a Hi Def image? And I would use WiFi for PSP connectivity and networking, thanks for asking."

    Jesus, I never thought of that.... Man, pricing system is bullshit. The whole thing is a mess. Where were the days of simple console buying?

    Actually, the article was wrong stating that the PS1 was €290. It was IR£300 (Irish pounds), which is..um, €380?

    As expensive as the PS3 is (the €600 pack), you kinda are getting value for your mone, especially as a blu ray player. Of course, just as a games machine it's probably worth half that.

  • Diabeu #37 6 years ago

    Got to agree with bloodflowers

  • admir #38 6 years ago

    when you buy the ps3 you will get
    ps1,ps2,ps3,dvd player, umd player


    when you buy the x360 you will get

    xbox,x360,dvd and to get HD you will have to buy HD-DVD drive which will be about $ 200 or more.

    so please dont say its a high price its up to me or you

  • bloodflowers #39 6 years ago

    "MGS4 also is using the in-game engine for the cutscene."

    ROG27: Please look at the above sentence. The clue, is in the name. Innovation does not mean releasing sequel after sequel. I've seen the various trailers, there's very little groundbreaking or interesting - it's all the same old thing, just the graphics are more shiny. Seamlessly integrating online play with the whole system - now that was innovation, even if otherwise Microsoft share a lot of the same problems as Sony.

    You're the best and most amusing new fanboy I've seen on EG, please be sure to keep taking the pills Sony sent you! Some of the rest of us have actually been around in gaming long enough to know when we're being served up last nights dinner.

  • Carlo #40 6 years ago

    So people demand ever increasing graphics capabilities, more physics, richer environments, and more than just a gaming console, but a 'full-blown entertainment system'.

    Then they complain it costs more.

    Err... WTF?

  • SwedBear #41 6 years ago

    Are you for real ROG27? You really swallowed every little thing Sony has said about the PS3.

    "It's definitely not a console in the traditional sense."

    Of course it's a console. What do you think it is?

    "The PS3 is the most capable game machine with the best content"

    It's not even out yet and you claim it has the best content? The games so far look no better than Xbox 360 games. True, it has the CELL processor but contrary to what Sony first bullshitted about it's not the invention of the millenia . Heck, read up what developers so far said and the picture painted is that both have their weaknessess and strenghs and that both can produce great looking games. As for the games, both again has strong titles coming. I already am playing several kick-ass games and have several more that I'm excited about on the Xbox 360. It really comes down to taste.

    So far the strong point is the blue ray player but thena gain, we don't know which format will "win" and I will have the choice of adding a HD DVD to my Xbox 360.

    "wait, this is the one most people don't know yet, also a Linux-based personal computer with mouse, keyboard, and full peripheral support."

    Yes, I think most am aware that linux was mentioned but just as with the linux kit to the PS2, who do you actually think will use it? Got a good link BTW giving info aobut this wonderful linux based computer the PS3 can turn into?

    "And wait, there's more: it's also a Location-free Server! "

    Huh? What the hell are you talking about? Link please.

    So far I still think the PS3 is to expensive for me. I'll wait until it drops a bit in price.
    Edited by 1 at 11/05/06 @ 22:58

  • the creeper #42 6 years ago

    Sorry admir, the PS3 is many things but I don't think it's a umd player. I think the PSP is condemned to be the only UMD player ever made. But that's OK - I love my PSP anyway :-)

  • SeesThroughAll #43 6 years ago

    "Your shiney PS3 is nearly identical in specs to the Xbox 360, guy."

    LOL, the PS3 CPU runs at nearly twice the speed of the 360 one. What good is processing power for? Better A.I. and better physics come to mind.

    Still, I also think the price tag is excessive.
    Edited by 1 at 11/05/06 @ 23:09

  • RS3York1 #44 6 years ago

    "LOL, the PS3 CPU runs at nearly twice the speed of the 360 one. What good is processing power for? Better A.I. and better physics come to mind. "

    Que? You're wrong on 2 levels comrade.

    1. Both the PS3 & Xbox 360 have CPU's running at 3.2Ghz
    2. Processor speed alone is a poor indication of performance between chips if they aren't the same fundamental chipset. So you can (typically) say that a 3Ghz Pentium 4 is better than a 2.5 Ghz Pentium 4, but you *can't* say that a 3Ghz P4 is better than a 2.5Ghz Athlon XP.

    Similarly, the different designs between the CPUs in the PS3 & Xbox 360 mean merely looking at clock speeds is moot at best, outright foolish at worst.
    Edited by 3 at 11/05/06 @ 23:16

  • Carlo #45 6 years ago

    For those of you who want to draw your own conclusions on teh (still to be completely confirmed) techical specs, I suggest you go here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_games_(sev enth_generation_era)

  • yonno #46 6 years ago

    so far i cant see the benefit of buying ps3 over 360, what are you getting for the extra money, they still havent shown any gameplay footage of note

  • SeesThroughAll #47 6 years ago

    Similarly, the different designs between the CPUs in the PS3 & Xbox 360 mean merely looking at clock speeds is moot at best, outright foolish at worst.

    I was thinking in terms of MIPS, not clock speed.

  • WicKeD #48 6 years ago

    As a matter of fact the CELL runs at the same speed as the Xenos, 3.2GHZ.

    I think what you was trying to get at is theoretical peak performance and for that, well I'll just let John Carmack explain how misguided you are... Watch!

  • drumbaby #49 6 years ago

    How long will the Xbox 360 be in service? 3, maybe 4 years? How much does 3 to 4 years of Xbox Live cost for the person who likes to game whenever the mood takes them?

    I guess as long as the online demographic of the Xbox 360 remains at last gen's lowly 10% then the large saving your minority PS3 onliner makes on free online over the course of the PS3's life isn't even a valid argument.

    But if that's the case, so much for making a big thing out of how essential Xbox Live is as an Xbox 360 feature. You may as well not have it unless hardcore, or a weekend warrior, right?

    My aim's not to knock either console...but what you spend on certain things, you save on others, and vice versa. It evens out over the course of a console's life span.

  • WicKeD #50 6 years ago

    Your theory is flawed, Xbox Live Silver is free.

  • jozz #51 6 years ago

    "Eurogamer: Does Sony's announcement that they won't charge a subscription fee on their online service put pressure on you to follow suit on Live?

    Peter Moore: Well, on Xbox Live Silver you can do anything except play multiplayer. What Sony has actually announced is that they're pushing the emphasis to the publishers to figure out what they want to charge. They have said, "we're not going to charge you" - but if you truly believe that the publishers are going to build data centres, build user interfaces, network stacks, run bandwidth costs, egress costs, do compatibility with every provider around the world... For free?

    Somebody needs to show me the business model there that's going to work."


    Moore makes a good point. I think you are assuming too much with this 'free' service Drumbaby.
    Edited by 1 at 11/05/06 @ 23:26

  • Xerx3s #52 6 years ago

    $599 = 599€?

    Lets see...

    The $ to € rate is 1 to 0.777907. That would be $599 to 466€ (what we should be paying)
    The € to $ rate is 1 to 1.2855. That would be 599€ to 770$ (what yankees would pay in our place)

    And dont blaim it on taxes, these machines arnt made in the US, so the yanks have to pay taxes as well. Its simple, fuck over the europeans and underprice it on the rest of the market. It isnt just sony btw, but its yet another example of ripping off the europeans.

    Would yankees pay $770 for your PS3 sony? No? Oh.

  • SeesThroughAll #53 6 years ago

    Xerx3s,

    $599 = 599€?

    Lets see...

    The $ to € rate is 1 to 0.777907. That would be $599 to 466€ (what we should be paying)
    The € to $ rate is 1 to 1.2855. That would be 599€ to 770$ (what yankees would pay in our place)

    This nominal conversion crap contaminates just about every sector involving transcontinental import and export. The idea is to force the euro to depriciate so that this currency is never considered for oil transactions.

    Pardon my english, it's not my native tongue.
    Edited by 1 at 11/05/06 @ 23:37

  • MrAtheist #54 6 years ago

    This nominal conversion crap contaminates just about every sector involving transcontinental import and export. The idea is to force the euro to depriciate so that this currency is never considered for oil transactions.

    Watch out dude I think theres some black helicopters circling...

  • Derblington #55 6 years ago

    "Your theory is flawed, Xbox Live Silver is free."

    And doesn't let you actually play games, and that's the whole point..

  • Lost_in_Darkness #56 6 years ago

    There is no space in my Living room for that monstrosity. 5Kg, bigger than an original Xbox and fucking ugly to boot. It will need a drastic redesign and price reduction if I am to take one. No thanks for now.

  • WicKeD #57 6 years ago

    You are missing out, If you think the whole point to Xbox Live consists of purely multiplayer gaming. Essential things to Xbox Live are things like the Arcade, Marketplace, Gamercards & Gamerscore, messaging, voice chat etc etc.
    Edited by 1 at 12/05/06 @ 00:00

  • Freek #58 6 years ago

    You have to forgive the man, he lives in his own little universe in wich products that aren't Sony do not exist and everybody loves him.
    He ocaisionally jumps through a dimensional port to apear at E3 and goes back afterwards.

  • lthrface #59 6 years ago

    The price is comparable if you get the external hd dvd drive, and from what some of the game publishers have said the next generation of games will have to be put on blu ray or hd dvds.

  • Luigi #60 6 years ago

    600€ is always a good price for a Blu Ray Player (how much a stand alone player will cost?), a 60Gb media center with a reliable OS (Linux), a video game machine with great games and a massive library. But hey, the Xbox is good too for the price. Everybody is forgeting one thing. The Xbox uses as media a regular DVD9 as, which means that when someone "cracks" the xbox it will be easy and cheap to duplicate/find games. It's an incorrect way of "promotion" but it worked in the past. The final decision it's up to you guys :) Cheers

  • Derblington #61 6 years ago

    WicKeD - the major point of Live! is playing online, the rest are (welcome) extras that do not cause people to buy the machine. How many people do you know that bought the 360 in order to message each other? The games sell the machine, nothing else.

  • caligari #62 6 years ago

    Jah jah jah. I said I wouldn't buy a PS2 all those years ago...then the games kept on coming and I eventually gave in.

    I'm sure the same will happen when the PS3 is eventually released.

  • GordonJ #63 6 years ago

    And doesn't let you actually play games, and that's the whole point..

    Think you need to check out the sony conference again, and the slide which showed the free online stuff that was offered, nowhere did it say gaming.

    Also you cant really compare with the ps1 price at £300, as when it came out it was considered the cheaper option as the saturn had been retailing for £400.

    Another point with the blu-ray (and also the hd dvd drive for the xbox 360), as neither the 20gb ps3 or the addon hd dvd drive have hdmi slots, then they will not be able to play copy protected discs.

    Although at the moment movie studios seem to be saying that they wont be adding protection to their initial titles, if at some point they start then the hd dvd drive will become completely useless (and the 20gb ps3, as a movie player)
    Edited by 1 at 12/05/06 @ 02:14

  • Foxclose #64 6 years ago

    RS3York1 :
    "Furthermore, you can't expect the average consumer to walk into a store and say "well, those are launch titles sooo..it's ok". The *price* speaks for itself. Consumers will see the price gap, then see that the cheaper box has better graphics (Gears of War FTW) and forgo the PS3. Yes, the hardcore will buy the PS3 even if it cost 800 Euros but you don't build substantial marketshare on the hardcore segment."

    Yeah, that's the advantage being first off the block.
    Sony's machine was the most expensive for the longest time in the last generation. I think they are counting on initially first the hardcore fans buying into it at the expensive price, when software titles aren't so great.

    And then hope when the software gets better: lower the price and hope for then the mass-market to embrace it then. (They’ll have a lot more units in production)

    I don't know where this leaves them in their battle for Blu-ray, except hoping HDTV/ HD-DVD take up is slow!

    Naturally profit has to be more important then market share to Sony.





    Edited by 2 at 12/05/06 @ 02:49

  • MrGrumpy.au #65 6 years ago

    What don't you people get about Component supporting 1080p ... [snip]

    ROG27, I'm not sure what you mean there because Component does not have enough bandwidth for 1080p (1080i is a different story). [Apologies in advance if I interpreted your statement incorectly ;)]

    It's a no sale for me unfortunately, there's just no way I'm paying ~$AU1000 for a machine I just want to play games on and the crippled version without HDMI is crazy seeing how they (for the last year) continually pushed 1080p as "the real HD".

    I'll either go 360 or Wii until Sony do a price drop on the top model (Forza 2 is making me favour the 360 atm, but Wii has SSB:Brawl argh!!).

    :(
    Edited by 3 at 12/05/06 @ 03:54

  • Feanor #66 6 years ago

    God I'd love to see an interview with poor old Phil Harrison where he gets asked about Sony's recent "only PS3 is true HD" and "two SKUs is a bad idea" claims.

  • Syrette #67 6 years ago

    I've many an issue with the PS3 and Sony right now... even so I know I'll end up with a PS3 in about a year.

  • RS3York1 #68 6 years ago

    Foxclose:
    "...Sony's machine was the most expensive for the longest time in the last generation. I think they are counting on initially first the hardcore fans buying into it at the expensive price, when software titles aren't so great.
    And then hope when the software gets better: lower the price and hope for then the mass-market to embrace it then. (They'll have a lot more units in production) "

    This is true. That's pretty much the standard model for deployment. But in Sony's case with the PS3 this isn't so simple. We can assume that the software will come, but Sony will face more challenges in dropping the price than their competitors.

    Sony not dropping the price of the PS2 in Europe wasn't due to inability but rather that Sony knew they could leave the price and sales would be alright. Europe has proved time & time again that bleeding out the nose (in comparison to the Americans) for a console is something we'll ultimately tolerate.

    The mass-market really does react on price, the questions are...when the PS3's price is low enough for most people to stomach it, how long will Nintendo and Microsoft have been selling their wares at a similar price point or lower? Are there benefits specific to the PS3 that warrant the higher price? Do enough people perceive those benefits as real to make the purchase? Can Sony catch up if the price is too high for too long?

    If Blu-Ray becomes standard relatively soon, Sony's will suddenly have a huge advantage because the price then seems low when compared to a standalone Blu-Ray player. If Sony delivers some killer exclusive games that excite even the mainstream media (the Halo 2 hubbub comes to mind) then the price isn't so bad.

    But as it stands now, where are the killer exclusives? MGS4 comes to mind, as does Virtua Fighter 5 but does John Player's Choice Doe care about either? Do his children? The biggest franchise for Sony last generation was GTA - it's no longer a timed-exclusive. The biggest franchise for Nintendo was Mario, still exclusive. For Microsoft it was Halo which is also still exclusive.

    These sort of things don't bode well for Sony, but things change and they've still got the bulk of Square Enix's respect. What will happen? Who knows? But for Sony an awful lot seems to hang on Blu-Ray becoming standard.

  • Elfish #69 6 years ago

    So for the price of a PS3 you could buy an Xbox 360 AND a Nintendo Wii. I think it's an easy choice for consumers.

  • #70 6 years ago

    Certainly is for me Elfish, because that's what I'll be doing if the PS3 launches at £400 for a tard pack. The last consoles to launch at that price were the 3DO and the Saturn. Look what happened to those.

  • Scimarad #71 6 years ago

    What I find totally idiotic is people complaining about Sony pushing 1080p because so few people can actually use 1080p and then complaining that the cheaper one isn't worth buying because it hasn't got HDMI...

    Sorry? Do you have TVs capable of 1080p? Are you going to stop using your dear beloved 360s because they can't output at 1080p as well?

    For f**ks sake, the cheaper one is NOT crippled in any sense of the word unless you 100% agree that 1080p is absolutely essential which, let's face it, it isnt. More to the point is it actually impossible to get a 1080p signal through component?

    The really amusing thing is all you whining fanboys complain about Sony recycling the same old crap whilst simultaneously doing exactly the same thing!

    It's boring. Just...don't buy one and piss off!!

  • wolfen #72 6 years ago

    With Nintendo's 16-bit machine selling for about ¥12,000 (€85) at that time, the media criticised us for priciness - but it became an explosive hit.

    Yeah, but how much was compared to the Saturn? Around here, it was less 20.000$ (100€ in modern currency) on release. By the time the PS3 is out, the difference between it and the X360 should be the triple (if not more) of that. And comparing the Eastern market to Japan is next to pointless.

  • #73 6 years ago

    Scimarad, I couldn't agree more.

    The first batch of PS3s will leave the shelves faster than you guys can blink, and so will most probably the second batch of PS3s.

    After that the price will come down a bit and more people will be getting it, etc. Like it's been on every PS launch.

    I just hope I can get one before christmas. /x-fingers

  • smelly #74 6 years ago

    Similarly, the different designs between the CPUs in the PS3 & Xbox 360 mean merely looking at clock speeds is moot at best, outright foolish at worst.

    I was thinking in terms of MIPS, not clock speed.


    Whereas you're correct, MIPS is the best way to measure cpu speed (a fact most people seem to miss when they're quoting mhz - or in the past "bits";)

    Did you know the PS2's cpu is considerably faster (About 4 times) than the xbox?

    Ever looked at a ps2 game and said "wow, look at the processing power on that, that's loads better than the xbox"? Nope, as you're probably too busy looking at the xbox's GRAPHICAL power to notice.

  • smelly #75 6 years ago

    unless you 100% agree that 1080p is absolutely essential which, let's face it, it isnt

    Currently it isnt no. But then, i'd argue that currently Hidef isnt worth it full stop (as the only thing supporting it is games machines)

    However in 5 years time, it probably will be.

    If you're going to push hi-def as a "must have feature" dont tell me that the highest hi-def isnt needed, as that negates the whole argument about having hidef in the first place surely?

  • MrGrumpy.au #76 6 years ago

    What I find totally idiotic is people complaining about Sony pushing 1080p because so few people can actually use 1080p and then complaining that the cheaper one isn't worth buying because it hasn't got HDMI...

    Sorry? Do you have TVs capable of 1080p? Are you going to stop using your dear beloved 360s because they can't output at 1080p as well?

    @Scimarad, so for example in 1-2 years time when you pick up your (nicely priced) HDTV with HDMI 1.3+ compliance you don't have to go out and buy another PS3, quite simple actually.

    Sony stuffed up on price and lack of an HDMI input on the lower priced version, HDMI connecton with everything at 1080p(the REAL HD??) has always been their big selling point.

    It really should have been called the "Sony MediaStation" because gaming seems to have taken a back seat at the moment.

    EDIT:
    Spelling o_0
    Edited by 2 at 12/05/06 @ 08:43

  • #77 6 years ago

    You guys love making incessant complaints don't ya.

    HDMI and HDCP will be essential for those who want to use the PS3 as a Blu-ray movie player. If not, then it is not needed.

    If you plan on using the PS3 as a games console only, it does not matter if you don't have HDMI. You can hook up you PS3 to an HD screen and display up to 1080i with a component cable.

    1080p is just future ware, there are hardly any screens that can display this resolution, and the ones that can cost 12000 USD pluss.

  • chronom4n #78 6 years ago

    according to todays rate on google 499 euros equates to 341.150879 British pounds and 599 euros equates to 409.517788 British pounds. So at todays prices would you be willing to pay that amount?

  • bloodflowers #79 6 years ago

    I think the best example still to show that tech specs are invalid for comparison between different architectures, is the good old Amiga. The A500 ran at a little over 7mhz. It was years before PCs could match up, and by that time the very first Pentium appeared at 75mhz. Even then they weren't able to match the 2d performance for a while longer. The difference is all in the support chips, and the way they're programmed.

    Another more recent one would be PSX vs Saturn. The PSX had a single 30 MIPS CPU. The Saturn had /two/ 50 MIPS ones, but I think we all know which was better at doing 3D....

    Anyone using the (likely made up) specs claimed by either side as some kind of comparison, is either desperately naive, or extremely gullible. Possibly both.

  • Kafeen #80 6 years ago

    No HDMI and no WiFi sounds pretty crippled to me.

    Sounds like a 360 to me.

  • Scimarad #81 6 years ago

    "@Scimarad, so for example in 1-2 years time when you pick up your (nicely priced) HDTV with HDMI 1.3+ compliance you don't have to go out and buy another PS3, quite simple actually.

    Sony stuffed up on price and lack of an HDMI input on the lower priced version, HDMI connecton with everything at 1080p(the REAL HD??) has always been their big selling point. "


    And exactly how much would any of this impact me playing the latest JRPG? Not to mention in 1-2 years time (should I have been bothered to buy a new HDTV) I suspect PS3s might be a tad cheaper if it was that desperately important to me. What's wrong with 720p, anyway?

  • udat #82 6 years ago

    Those still wittering back and forth about HD resolutions should read this: http:/ /www.hdtvexpert.com/pages_b/reality.html

    It's a bit USA biased, as the statements about consumer televisions relate to the US market (where it's all 1080i) rather than the UK market where most TVs are 720p natively, but still worth reading.

    I work in this industry for a company that makes HD decoders and it's amazing how much FUD there is floating around.

  • Darkedge #83 6 years ago

    "I was thinking in terms of MIPS, not clock speed."

    we only have Sony and MS's MIPS values. I certainly don't trust that, plus is doesn't mean anything to a console - the PS2 had well more than twice the MIPS of a Xbox yet did it have twice the power? I think not..

    Stop swallowing all the hype and relax kid.
    Edited by 1 at 12/05/06 @ 10:02

  • Carpathian #84 6 years ago

    I've largely stayed out of the mud-slinging so far but I think this latest quote fest has tipped the balance in favour of just having to say something.

    Kutaragi seems to be morphing into a horribly non-comedic Brent character who believes some of the buzz-phrases they use in Sony's E3 PS3 push.

    I realise that all three of the players have to, realistically, put spin on their kit and none of them are wholly without stain, but some of the things issuing with a total seriousness from his mouth border on the farcical.

    What I'm starting to wonder, and hence the thought to comment, is whether these are purely from blind faith (which is unfortunate but at least forgivable) or if I detect the sense of arrogance as an undercurrent like people have mentioned before now.

    The thing is that if we're thinking this I'm surprised nobody at Sony is also thinking the same about reigning him in at all.

    Curious.
    Edited by 2 at 12/05/06 @ 10:26

  • SeesThroughAll #85 6 years ago

    we only have Sony and MS's MIPS values. I certainly don't trust that, plus is doesn't mean anything to a console - the PS2 had well more than twice the MIPS of a Xbox yet did it have twice the power? I think not..


    GPU, memory available, etc. were ALL MUCH superior in the XBox, the difference is negligible for the X360. The specs are now extremely similar, except for the processor which could make a difference in other areas other than graphics. Nice try at a spin, kid.

    Stop swallowing all the hype and relax kid.

    Nice advice, why don't you follow it yourself?

  • Levez #86 6 years ago

    I recall reading in the Ultimate History of Video Games that when the Saturn was first shown, at E3 or a similar show, the price was announced as being something like $299.

    Shortly after, the Sony representative walked on stage and just said '$199', to cheers from the audience, or so I seem to recall.

    So, Sony have a clear history of under-cutting prices, and spotting over-priced hardware. The only difference now is that they are the behemoth, and $299 in the mid 90's US economy is a hell of a lot more affordable than $400-500 in the current poor economy.

    'tards.

  • Shadar #87 6 years ago

    SeesThroughAll: So, what makes the Cell so much better than the Xenon? Is it the fact that it's even more paralellized? Is it the amount of instruction and data cache available to each of the SPEs? Is it the sheer power of the CPU, however you classify that? Are you judging by the theoretical MIPS numbers given by Sony?

    The same Sony that has shown us Motorstorm and Killzone? Why the hell would you trust them? Also, let's have a look at what a MIPS is.

    Critics of the term refer to it as "Meaningless Indication of Processor Speed" or "Meaningless Information on Performance for Salespeople." In Linux and UNIX circles MIPS are often referred to as bogoMIPS. MIPS are certainly not comparable between CPU architectures.

    I realize that Wikipedia is not a proper authority, but it's a fairly good indicator. MIPS cannot be compared between architectures?

    Why, by Golly! Then I can actually claim that the Xenon is faster than the Cell, based on Sony's MIPS numbers, since MIPS mean precisely dick with regards to actual computing performance.

    Oh, and let's not forget the fact that both processors are in-order. All the millions of instructions per second in the WORLD can't make up for bad branch predicting. It's just numbers. Few, if any, of us really understand them.

  • SeesThroughAll #88 6 years ago

    So, what makes the Cell so much better than the Xenon? Is it the fact that it's even more paralellized? Is it the amount of instruction and data cache available to each of the SPEs?

    Yes, it is more paralellized, and more optimized for floating point arithmetics.

    No, they cannot be comparable at all if one is CISC based (very obsolete), and the other is RISC. Is this the case?

    Whatever. Toma la a bicicleta. Es muito esperto, parabens.
    Edited by 6 at 12/05/06 @ 13:51

  • Shadar #89 6 years ago

    So you're saying that the architectures of AMD XP and Pentium 4 are comparable because they use the same x86 instruction set? Is Pentium D comparable with AMD 64? Is Itanium comparable to Turion?

    RISC and CISC doesn't mean much anymore. Reduced Instruction Set Computer versus Complex Instruction Set Computer ... those terms don't really say anything more about architecture than the model names of the CPUs I listed above. It has bearing on the way you structure your coding for them, sure, at least at a low level. I don't really see how that has any bearing on the theoretical MIPS numbers given out by Sony, though. We might as well be comparing Dhrystone and Whetstone.

    And ... does that last remark mean that you concede the discussion? Or is it just that you don't want to lose it?

  • #90 6 years ago

    OMG what heppened to this thread?

  • Shadar #91 6 years ago

    It got a hefty injection of common sense, and apparently didn't survive the shock.

  • SeesThroughAll #92 6 years ago

    Common sense or not, it means I concede the discussion, I'm really fed up of it by now.

  • NewHampshireDave #93 6 years ago

    Here in the U.S.A $600 is a lot of cash plus the games ( at least $60) plus an extra controller ($50) so realistically you are looking at 700-800 dollars to start off ................Yeah Blue Ray ..whatever...IT IS ALL ABOUT THE GAMES!!!!!
    SONY has laid a big turd as far as I am concerned

  • kasabian72 #94 6 years ago

    $500-$600 for the PS3 is waaay to much for me to start off(not including a game and at least one other mandatory 'accessory'). So a PS3 is out of the question at launch for me. Besides, i got to save for the Nintendo Wii for its launch while i buy a steady stream of 360 games until then.

    But i know of many who will save for the PS3, or just buy it on launch cause it will be the new, next-best thing/ulitmate next-gen system. Never under-estimate the public masses and their need and capacity to own new and expensive electronic devices. I predict the PS3 to be a big seller and sell-out. Whether it's worth the price tag or not, consumers will eat it up.

    Hopefully the Wii will not be lost in its hype. But i'm not a fanboy...if anyone would like to 'donate' a PS3 to me at launch, i will guarantee i'd play it :o)