PS3 NOT that expensive

[shmokes]

So...it is exactly as expensive as you've all heard -- $500 or $600 depending on the flavor.  But, as these charts show, in comparison with other consoles it is not that expensive and, in fact, it is less expensive than the Atari 2600 was, when adjusted for inflation.  Even without adjusting for inflation it comes in lower than the Neo Geo and the 3DO, though those consoles weren't exactly runaway successes.  The first chart shows the consoles in absolute dollars, or how much they actually cost.  The second shows their price when adjusted for inflation.  Still, I won't be buying it cos $500 or $600 is more than I can justify, but I digress....On to the data:

[Stingray]

Sony marketing horsepoo.

-S

[Hoagie_one]

adjusted or not, the 360 is still cheaper and the wii will be cheaper still

[shmokes]

Yeah....value is relative.  For my money Wii looks like not only the best value, but the most fun of the three even if they were all the same price.  I still really want a PS3, quite a bit more than a 360 (PS2 backward compatibility is a big selling point as I never owned one).  For that reason I really hope that the BluRay wins (making the PS3 that much more valuable), the console is a success (so lots of great games are made for it), and the price comes down to compete head-to-head with 360.  I want to like the PS3 more than the 360.

[Hoagie_one]

I never buy a console in their prime anymore.  I got a PS1 well after the ps2 came out.  Just got an xbox1.  I get it on the cheap and have my choice of all the games that came out so I don't have to settle for crap, I can only play the best.

I'll probably make an exception for the Wii if its $199, else I'll wait on this too.

Only thing that bugs me is the system originals.  Those games that you can only get on one system or another that you wish you had that system just to play.  (I.E. God of war, shadow of the collosus on PS2)  if you are an xbox guy, you cant play these.

[shmokes]

I don't buy systems at launch these days either, but I'm getting a Wii . . . not because it looks so great that I just can't wait.  I can.  I'm getting it because I want so badly for it to be a success.  I feel like I'm voting or something, but anyway, yeah.  Wii needs third parties and if people don't buy it in droves it'll be a repeat of the Gamecube/N64.  I feel like the failure of Wii will cement the standard gamepad's position as the primary interface between gamers and games for at least the next generation (PS4/Xbox 720) as the Wii will become a cautionary tale of, "Give gamers more of the same if you want to stay in business."

[Hoagie_one]

that is a very valid point

[GoPodular.com]

Interesting chart.  Nintendo has reduced the cost each generation.  If the WII is $200, it will also be in that trend.

I hope the WII does well because of the change in controls.  It's a good direction IMO.  I hope the P3 does well because of the hardware abilities.  Should be good eye candy... BUT...  it's going to be tough for people to justify the expense of the PS3 when they can get the same eye candy for their computer at a similar price.  I really think the success of the PS3 is going to lie with the game makers.  They need a couple top-notch titles that aren't available on the PC and put people side-by-side on the couch.

[shmokes]

It doesn't help Sony that the next GTA is going to be released for X360 simultaneously to PS3.  GTA is Sony's Halo.  Sony should have done anything, including forgoing any royalties, just to keep that as a system exclusive. 

[Stingray]

I don't buy systems at launch these days either, but I'm getting a Wii . . . not because it looks so great that I just can't wait.  I can.  I'm getting it because I want so badly for it to be a success. 

I'm also not someone who buys a console at launch, but I will this time and for the same reasons as you.

-S

[RayB]

If a person makes 3 times as much as they did in 1990, does that mean they will want to spend 3 times as much on a game console? I don't think so. Odds are all this "inflation" is sucking those extra earnings away into higher rents, mortgages and car payments.

[shmokes]

Inflation takes all that into account.  Prices rise due to inflation across the board, as do wages (hopefully).  It's not only good odds that extra earnings are being sucked away by higher rents, morgages and car payments (as well as everything else -- candy bars were 25 cents when I was a kid, now they're 70 cents), but it's exactly the way inflation works. 

The point of the charts is that back in 1977 paying $200 for an Atari 2600 wasn't the same as it is today.  $200 was A LOT of money then  -- a lot more than it is today.  You could buy A LOT more candy bars with $200 in '77 then you could buy with $200 today because they probably cost 15 cents back then.  But people made a lot less then, too, so it's not like everyone was rich.  Everyone had less money, but everything cost less so it more or less evens out.

So, back in 1977, shelling out $200 for an Atari 2600 was akin to shelling out almost $700 for it today.  Because a dollar then was worth a helluva lot more than it is today and people just didn't have nearly as many of them.

[versapak]

Interesting chart.  Nintendo has reduced the cost each generation.  If the WII is $200, it will also be in that trend.

I hope the WII does well because of the change in controls.  It's a good direction IMO.  I hope the P3 does well because of the hardware abilities.  Should be good eye candy... BUT...  it's going to be tough for people to justify the expense of the PS3 when they can get the same eye candy for their computer at a similar price.  I really think the success of the PS3 is going to lie with the game makers.  They need a couple top-notch titles that aren't available on the PC and put people side-by-side on the couch.

Correction...

It will be tough to justify the expense of the PS3, when they can get the same eye candy in an Xbox 360 for $200 less.


As for inflation...

Regardless of what that chart says...

I spent $300 on my first 2 Xboxes. I spent $200 on my N64. I spend $200 on my Dreamcast. I spent $300 on my first PS2. etc...


The impact of those costs on me back then were FAR less than the impact of a $600 price tag on me today. Especially so, when you consider that similar experiences are brought by Sony's competition for far less $$$.

They are using the PS3 to push their blu-ray format, which means paying more for everything, because of something I didn't want in the first place.

For people that are looking for a blu-ray player, then it may seem like a good deal, but I figure most people are looking for a gaming console.

[shmokes]

Well....yeah.  Those consoles didn't affect your pocket book as much because even adjusted for inflation none of them comes close to the PS3.  Those are all quite recent and they were relatively cheap, historically.  You have to look to the Saturn as the last system that launched with a price comparible to the cheaper version of the PS3.  Then you basically have to go clear back to the Ataris and the Intellivision to find systems that were as expensive as the PS3.  3D0, CD-i and Neo Geo don't count in my opinion because they basically failed.  Or maybe they do count and show what will happen to a modern console that tries to set such a high pricepoint.

[brophog]

adjusted or not, the 360 is still cheaper and the wii will be cheaper still

Exactly. If Sony had the market cornered, ala Atari, this would be an entirely different conversation.

No one really cares about inflation. They care about choices, and they have 3 of them, with 2 being significantly cheaper.

[pointdablame]

Or maybe they do count and show what will happen to a modern console that tries to set such a high pricepoint.

Ding ding ding.  That is, IMHO, what the case is.  I do not truly believe that the videogaming public will support a $600 console.  Sony's only hope is to drop the cost of the system the instant those blu-ray drives become affordable.  The Blu-Ray drive costs rougly $300 at the current point in time.  People are projecting that they will be in the $60-90 range within 12-18 months. 

If that change equates to a PS3 that is $200 cheaper, Sony may have a chance.  If not, I worry about the lifecycle of the PS3.

[versapak]

Or maybe they do count and show what will happen to a modern console that tries to set such a high pricepoint.

Ding ding ding.  That is, IMHO, what the case is.  I do not truly believe that the videogaming public will support a $600 console.  Sony's only hope is to drop the cost of the system the instant those blu-ray drives become affordable.  The Blu-Ray drive costs rougly $300 at the current point in time.  People are projecting that they will be in the $60-90 range within 12-18 months. 

If that change equates to a PS3 that is $200 cheaper, Sony may have a chance.  If not, I worry about the lifecycle of the PS3.

Of course in 12 to 18 months the 360 will have had that much time to broaden its installed base even more, and will be set to offer up a price drop of its own.

Sony looks at the PS2, and it seems to think that because the PS2 was a strong driving force behind popularizing DVD in Japan, that it can do the same thing with PS3 for the whole rest of the world, and I just don't think that will be the case.

DVD was already popular in the US before the PS2 ever hit, so its inclusion with the PS2 was a happy bonus, but with blu-ray we are talking another unproven sony media format, and all it is doing for us as a consumer so far is greatly increasing the cost of the PS3. When that is the sole reason for your console to be $200 more than the competition's, and the performance is right on par with them, then I gotta figure ya just f'd up by including it.

[SirPoonga]

I saw this too.  But there are other things you can use this data to spin.
First, look at just the last 10 years.

Next look at everything that is above the average $475 mark.  Other than the 2600 pretty much everything above that mark did not do that well compared to the other systems at the time.

BTW, did inflation go up that much in 6 months?  The adjusted price of the 360 is $409.  Another spin, you are getting a deal on the 360, it's actually worth more

Data can be spun to support your point of view.

[horseboy]

Well, I guess we need Bill O'Reilly to straighten all of this out then.

[Grasshopper]

I'd be very surprised if the PS3, or the 360 for that matter, was actually a failure. I'm pretty sure there is a plenty of scope for both consoles to be sharply reduced in price.

Micro$oft and Sony are companies that actually have a lot in common, and I'm not just talking about dodgy business practices. They both take a very long term view and their games consoles are only a part of a much wider strategy. Both companies also have deep pockets and recognise the overriding importance of gaining market share. I think they'll do whatever it takes to ensure that their respective products succeed at least in terms of unit sales. If, in order to gain significant market share, they have to sell their consoles at a price that means they won't be able to recoup their R&D costs, then they'll do so.

[Hoagie_one]

I don't understand why these companies take the risks they do regarding the huge losses.  Nintendo sells games, so they  actually like to make money I guess.

[shmokes]

Another spin is that the chart says that the N64 cost $200 and I swear it was $249.  Can someone back me up on that?

[GoPodular.com]

BTW, did inflation go up that much in 6 months?  The adjusted price of the 360 is $409. 

The Consumer Price Index rose 0.6% in the month of April.    I don't know what it has been for the past 6 months, but usually *expendable* income lags well behind inflation due to the time it takes for people to actually get raises.  If we see a sharp increase in the CPI, it may take up to a year before people actually have the same amount of income they did before.

What is Blu-ray really going to do for us anyhow?  The DVD offered an increase in quality, but  our TV's don't push the limit of a regular DVD yet (do they?)  I think Sony is going to have to show people WHY they need a Blu-ray player.  So far I'm not convinced.  I'd have to see the seek times and stuff for it before I could justify the "bigger is better" mentality.  Sure it may have 10x the info, but if it takes 10x as long to load... it sucks.

[Stingray]

Another spin is that the chart says that the N64 cost $200 and I swear it was $249.  Can someone back me up on that?

That sounds right to me. I didn't buy one at launch though, so I'm really not sure.

-S

[DaveMMR]

Another spin is that the chart says that the N64 cost $200 and I swear it was $249.  Can someone back me up on that?

You are correct.  That's what I paid when I bought one.

I personally think $500 ~ 600 for a PS3 is ridiculous.  While I'm sure Blu-Ray is the hot topic in videophile forums, it's a unnecessary expense for a videogame system. 

I'm kind of upset about it.  I really wanted to buy one (especially for it's backwards compatibility - my PS2 is starting to experience those laser snafus that plagued the PS1). 

Here's the way I see it:  I don't remember any game system being priced 100% more than its competitors ever doing well (e.g. 3DO, CD-I, etc.).  On the other hand, the Playstation is a very popular brand.  Still, I don't see how that price tag is going to convert to blockbuster sales.

Suddenly, the Wii sounds more attractive every day.

[SirPoonga]

Doing a search I am finding sites that say the N64 launch was $199.
At $250 was it a bundle?  I know Nintendo likes to bundle stuff.

[DaveMMR]

Ahh, you're right - I got it as a bundle (with SM64).  It is $199.00. 

Standing corrected.

[Luxury]

All I get out of looking at those charts is "Godamn it! Dreamcast was awesome!" 

[stellarola]

If anyone is planning on getting a x360, wait. When the PS3 is released, you know the price of the 360 will drop for sure. 

[versapak]

Another spin is that the chart says that the N64 cost $200 and I swear it was $249.  Can someone back me up on that?

The N64 was announced and advertised as $250, but was dropped to $200 right before release.

[versapak]

If anyone is planning on getting a x360, wait. When the PS3 is released, you know the price of the 360 will drop for sure. 

Yep, and if you wait even longer it will probably drop in price again, and then after waiting even longer, it will probably drop again.

Right now the wait is half a year.


You may pay more now, but you will be playing a hell of a lot longer.

[pointdablame]

If anyone is planning on getting a x360, wait. When the PS3 is released, you know the price of the 360 will drop for sure. 

That's a likely scenario, and a really good marketing move, but I'm not sure if 6months is enough time for MS to really lower the price.  The hardware likely will not have decreased in price as much as their price drop, so they'd effectively only be causing themselves to lose MORE money on each system.

My money is on MS keeping the 360 at its current price point when the PS3 launches, but creating a nice new bundle for that same price that includes 1 or 2 games, or maybe another controller, etc etc.

That's just my guess of course

[brophog]

Why would you drop the price when you're already undercutting the competition that much? If anything, the PS3 will allow MS to keep the price stable longer than they may have otherwise.

[Hoagie_one]

Why would you drop the price when you're already undercutting the competition that much? If anything, the PS3 will allow MS to keep the price stable longer than they may have otherwise.

Because its one thing to stab sony with the price differencial, but a whole other thing if you can bury that blade to the hilt.

[brophog]

MS is already losing money on the 360......you don't drop the price of something unless you have to, that's basic business 101.

What you're talking about is vengeance, not smart business. I'm telling you guys right now, you won't see an immediate price drop from MS. In fact, I give them atleast another year, which puts them around the normal business model of dropping the price to lure in additional consumers.

[shmokes]

Yeah, I don't think they'll drop the price right off.  You gotta think, if they drop the price by $50 that means that for every million units they push the company will take another $50 million loss.  Assuming they'll move another 5 - 10 million units in the year we're talking about a quarter of a bililion to a half a billion dollar loss.  Messing with price has ramifications.  They won't lower the price unless they have to in order to be competitive.  They're already more than competitively priced, so why take that kind of loss?

[Hoagie_one]

to hurt the dominant opposition.  Sony has a loyalty advantage.  Fanboys are stupid enough to go out and buy it at any cost, just to say they have a PS3.

While you are probably right, the gamble to hurt Sony might pay off in software sales.  Lets say that they lower the price by $50 and thus a new buyer says, I guess I'll get another game for $60.  Assuming MS makes $10 of the game, they only lost $40 on that console.  They look $50 cheaper, only take a loss of $40 and stop one more sale of a PS3.  I can see them doing it, because MS is nasty like that.

[shmokes]

Microsoft's style is more like they will increase the cost of Windows XP by $300 and give every XP user a "free" Xbox 360, LMAO.

[Hoagie_one]

Microsoft's style is more like they will increase the cost of Windows XP by $300 and give every XP user a "free" Xbox 360, LMAO.

lol, another nasty option, lol

[pointdablame]

to hurt the dominant opposition.  Sony has a loyalty advantage.  Fanboys are stupid enough to go out and buy it at any cost, just to say they have a PS3.

While you are probably right, the gamble to hurt Sony might pay off in software sales.  Lets say that they lower the price by $50 and thus a new buyer says, I guess I'll get another game for $60.  Assuming MS makes $10 of the game, they only lost $40 on that console.  They look $50 cheaper, only take a loss of $40 and stop one more sale of a PS3.  I can see them doing it, because MS is nasty like that.

you still have to think about the ramifications of that $40 loss... sell another 5 million units with that price structure and MS just lost another $200M on TOP of whatever they are already losing on each system.  That one game sale means nothign to them.

And in regards to stopping the sale of a PS3, as was mentioned, they already have a nice foothold in that argument.  They are $200 cheaper than the PS3 out of the gate.  Kids will have a much harder time saving up for a PS3, so they may get a 360 instead.  Parents will get their kids a new system... but why not save $200 by getting a 360?  People like us, even if we really WANT a PS3, are likely to hold off because of the high price.    I'd say MS is in a nice situation in regards to that.  A price drop would make the 360 look slightly better... but IMO, there is no business sense behind the move.

I still say they will go with a bundle.  Games cost next to nothing compared to systems.  Even peripherals are cheap comparatively.  They can throw in 2 or 3 games even, make it a really nice bundle... and they'll look a ton better than a bare $600 PS3 with no games.  Plus... with a price drop, you are stuck into it for the life of they system.  Short of a rebate or similar offer, you'll never be able to go back to a more expensive price after a price drop.   With a bundle, you can offer it for a few months to steal Sony's thunder, and then take it off if it is hurting your bottom line.

Microsoft is a lot of things, but they aren't stupid.