PS3 pulling a Saturn?

[Otraotaku]

is PS3 pulling a saturn? i recently read that its still at 500-600$ at this point and has a really murdersome package selection unlike the 360's where its really based on controllers and a hard drive...they literally rip you off big time with the PS3's listed packages stuff like less usb ports i heard? and no SDcard support? no wifi? slashed 20gig hard drive, and also no HDMI?

is this true? because i dont think many people 4-5years from now will have one of these babys collecting dust under their coffee table, i think it will be one of those oh yeah, i heard of it but never played it systems like the fabled saturn.

i mean even though CD and saturn were released so close, it was still like 200 dollars more than the N64 when they were going at it, and had some great games but no one really bought it. I personally loved playing 3D shooters like Virtua cop, but sadly nobody i know has really heard of it. but who knows with todays spoiled generation of young gamers who have to rip a hole in their parents pockets just to play GTA cause it has a M-sticker on it and a cool factor.

[SithMaster]

i personally dont like gta.  if i want to ill watch cops thank you very much.

people will go for the more expensive one but that means no xbox 360 or wii as a second system.  or they dont get it and get an xbox 360 and a wii.  i would be a shame it sony slit their wrists so to speak before i get my killzone 2 and i-8.  did i mention ill be playing these in 10 years?  no way im spending that much on one system no matter how good it looks.

it may be worth it to some (those getting blu-ray)  but im not and i dont have a hidef tv so i really could care less.

when i was young i did hear of saturn both i didnt own any systems till n64 since my parents bought a pc when i was 3.  i wasnt spoiled.  but your right todays kids are spoiled by parents who either want the stuff for themselves or they just want their kids to leave them alone.  kids do want to play m games i know ive seen them in gamestops.

but with all these packages missing hardware that cannot be added on later (unlike the 360 hd) in the future people will get almost nothing in tradeins because sony decided to cut costs lets remove all the really cheap stuff and keep the expensive garbage.

[lloydcom]

I think you will find that the PS3 will be more than a console.

It has monster processor(s) and capabilities to extend it to the 'one box in the house' category.

We have heard it a thousand times when some company comes out with an all in wonder gizmo to take over the sky box, vcr and DVD, not to mention the games side of things. 

That One box solution is coming and I have a feeling it will have a Sony stamp on it.

I hear they are calling the PS3 a computer.   I think it will be an Apple type of OS that will blow you away.  Miles away from the Saturn, but maybe a little bit closer to the Dreamcast.

Lets wait and see.

[mairsil]

I think you will find that the PS3 will be more than a console.

It has monster processor(s) and capabilities to extend it to the 'one box in the house' category.

We have heard it a thousand times when some company comes out with an all in wonder gizmo to take over the sky box, vcr and DVD, not to mention the games side of things. 

That One box solution is coming and I have a feeling it will have a Sony stamp on it.

I hear they are calling the PS3 a computer.   I think it will be an Apple type of OS that will blow you away.  Miles away from the Saturn, but maybe a little bit closer to the Dreamcast.

Lets wait and see.

And that is exactly why it will fail for most people. People already have computers/DVD players/CD players/DVR's/everything else that Sony claims the PS3 will be. The only exception might be the integrated Blu-ray player, but that is not how Sony is marketing the PS3. If they created a stripped down game console (WITH HDMI output), it would please a hell of a lot more people.

[Otraotaku]

for once id like to see Sony just come out and make some damn games, even the PSx was a CD-player... come on. if there is going to be the almight one box solution it will be some type of Super server... everyone will have in their homes, and i think either sony or bill gates will have their hands in it. 

but currently the PS3 just doesnt seem to appeal to me at all... besides metal gear, but 500$ just to play metal gear? i didnt even get a PS2 till 2-3years ago and still cant find much to spend my money on. all i have for my PS2 is FFX,dothack, three gundam games and shadow of collosus. where each of my gamecube and Xbox library has doubled or tripled in size over it. and i get rid of alot of unwanted/unworthy games that gather dust.

[Anakin]

I love everything sony and the psone and pstwo have been some of my favorite consoles.  That being said, I have little to no interest in paying 600 dollars for a ps3.  I dont like the way the gaming industry, and in particular sony, is heading.

[elvis]

I think you will find that the PS3 will be more than a console.

It has monster processor(s) and capabilities to extend it to the 'one box in the house' category.

That One box solution is coming and I have a feeling it will have a Sony stamp on it.

I couldn't disagree more.

A "one box" solution needs to freely support all file types, formats and systems.  Anything with a Sony stamp on it is going to restrict you to Sony-only technology.  And I'm not talking games.  For a start, the PS3 won't support HD-DVD.  Nor will it play any Microsoft or Apple/Quicktime file formats.   For the same money as a PS3 I can build myself a home theatre PC that will play anything and everything.

If someone truly wants to make a "one box" solution, it's going to have to support everything under the sun, and not just one company's technology.  Sorry.

There's no doubt the PS3 will be a powerhouse.  You have no argument from me on that.  But Sony management are going to royally screw it up with stupid corporate-imposed limitations.  That much is certain.

The 1980's was an era where people had big ideas, but where limited by hardware.

Now in the 2000's we have big hardware, and limiting ideas.  Ironic how it's swapped like that.

[ChadTower]

What, did you read that off some fanboy website or something?  I bought my Saturn on launch day and it didn't go like that at all.  Your timeline isn't even right.  The Saturn launched at least a year before the N64.  It also initially came with four games and then they mailed a fifth to people who had registered their console.

And what other console has launched several months before the widely announced retail date?

And the Saturn didn't have a "murdersome package selection".  It didn't have any package selection. 

And it wasn't ever $500.  It was $399.99 on launch day.  I still have my Babbage's receipt for it.  $399 is high, yes, but with a packin game + 3 full games at the initial offer + the 5th that was mailed out, $399 wasn't any worse than any other console has been.

is PS3 pulling a saturn? i recently read that its still at 500-600$ at this point and has a really murdersome package selection unlike the 360's where its really based on controllers and a hard drive...they literally rip you off big time with the PS3's listed packages stuff like less usb ports i heard? and no SDcard support? no wifi? slashed 20gig hard drive, and also no HDMI?

is this true? because i dont think many people 4-5years from now will have one of these babys collecting dust under their coffee table, i think it will be one of those oh yeah, i heard of it but never played it systems like the fabled saturn.

i mean even though CD and saturn were released so close, it was still like 200 dollars more than the N64 when they were going at it, and had some great games but no one really bought it. I personally loved playing 3D shooters like Virtua cop, but sadly nobody i know has really heard of it. but who knows with todays spoiled generation of young gamers who have to rip a hole in their parents pockets just to play GTA cause it has a M-sticker on it and a cool factor.

[Truecade]

The answer to the original poster, IMHO, is the PS3 is shaping up to be a disaster for Sony.  All I've heard is bad press regarding:

High price, yield problems with the Cell chip, graphics chip downgrades, publishers dumping PS3 in favor of X360, the high price, the neutered 'entry' level PS3 at $500, half assed motion sensors in the controller, no rumble packs, extremenly limited supply for launch, crappy game demos at E3, heat problems, Sony's desire to continue upgrading the console (thus keeping the price high), the console size (it's huge!), $70 games, DRM-infected blu-ray drive, the high price.....

Oh, lets not forget about the giant crabs and MASSIVE DAMAGE.   

[elvis]

$70 games

That's nothing new for the rest of the world outside of the USA.

Although if you guys are going to pay that, it makes me scared of what out local game prices will hike to.  I've already seen a few triple-digit pricetags on 360 games around here, and that's utter ---That which is odiferous and causeth plants to grow---.

[shmokes]

You guys are nutso. 

Let's put a few things to rest:

- For one thing, there were more great games for PS1 than any of its competitors (because of the highest level of 3rd party support and exlusives). 

- There were more great games for PS2 than any of its competitors (because of the highest level of 3rd party support and exclusives). 

- People play GTA because they're great games.  MANY MANY MANY M-rated games fail at market.  Many ultra-violent games fail at market.  Many blatant GTA ripoffs fail at market.  GTA is successful because the designers are brilliant.  The others, in spite of their M rating, fail because their designers aren't.

- Anyway, GTA IV will be available on 360 the same day it's available on PS3, so what's the point?  Sony lost exclusivity to this title.

- Sony's in-house development teams have made many great games.

- The PSX was no more a "CD player" than the Wii is a "DVD Player"

- PSX games ain't gonna cost any more than 360 games.  That's nonsense.

- The Xbox 360 suffered almost every problem in Trucade's list of looming PS3 disasters including: High price, yield problems, neutered 'entry' level model, no motion sensors in controller, extremely liited supply for launch (12 of 18 games were sports, few genres were represented, not a single must-have/system selling title), the console size (any way you look at it the 360 is actually larger than an original Xbox.  It's better designed, but if it's bigger than an Xbox it's huge), no blu-ray. . .

- Publishers aren't running from the PS3 yet and it currently has more support than the Wii, and at least as much as the 360.

Sony is going to be fine.  People are still clamouring for a PS3.  The second preorders are opened up, they will be closed.  Take a walk into any game store and ask if there's been much interest in PS3 preorders.  Sony will sell every system they can possibly produce between now and march.  They're going to be fine.  I personally think that they will end up ahead of the 360, but even if MS beats them out in marketshare this time around, they're not going anywhere.  The PS3 is going to do just fine.

---smurfing--- fanboys.

[GoPodular.com]

Sony will be fine with the PS3.  Sony consoles are in the market long enough that they'll get their money out of it no matter how well it sells at launch.  FWIW, The PS2 is still outselling the 360:

[MajorLag]

I personally think the PS3 is crap, but being a Nintendo fanboy and all I'm sure no one is surprised by that. Still, I think the PS3 will do well not because its any good (aside from having eye candy), but because its named "Playstation" and the masses associate the name with video games and that "gamer coolness" that those people who only play FPSs and sports games like so much.

[Nannuu]

The huge difference between the PS3 and Saturn is the current fanbase and hype.  It will do extremely well when it launches.  Time will tell after that.  The Saturn flopped at launch and never picked up, especially after the PSone released with nicer looking games.  I had a Saturn at launch but I also really like Sega.
I also think Sony will do just fine, whether I think they've screwed up with the console or not.

[ChadTower]

The Saturn did not flop at launch.  It was just fine.  You have to remember it was initially released to four specific retail chains months ahead of the full scale launch.

I never bought the "ps1 has better graphics" line either.  Especially late in the console's lives.  The ps1 never had anything that looked like House of the Dead.

[Nannuu]

That's true, the specs of the Saturn were great but it's initial lineup didn't show it (Virtua Fighter vs Battle Arena Toshinden).  It took too long for the games to really look great and by then the PS was ahead.  I still think it flopped, it may have sold well in Japan but not many in the US ponied up $400 for it.  And because it didn't have much marketing due to the early release, many people didn't even realize it existed yet.  It seemed like the PS was out before anyone noticed.
Sega needed to take some lessons from Sony for marketing.  Sony is the king of that.  Fake videos, ultra specs a year before launch, getting the import license for the PS2 as a "supercomputer".  Yeah, stuff like that.

[ChadTower]

Battle Arena Toshinden came out probably a year later than VF did.  That right there accounts for much of the difference.  BAT wasn't any better than VF Remix was and Remix was mailed out only a couple of months after the Saturn was released.  And Remix was free.

[Nannuu]

Hmm, I thought I remember BAT being much better looking.  I'm too lazy to pull them out and test.  You could be right.

[Truecade]

Sony is going to be fine.  People are still clamouring for a PS3.  The second preorders are opened up, they will be closed.  Take a walk into any game store and ask if there's been much interest in PS3 preorders.  Sony will sell every system they can possibly produce between now and march.  They're going to be fine.  I personally think that they will end up ahead of the 360, but even if MS beats them out in marketshare this time around, they're not going anywhere.  The PS3 is going to do just fine.

---smurfing--- fanboys.

The fanboys and rich kids will assure that the PS3 will sell out for launch, and this will make it appear that the PS3 will continue Sony's dominance in the console market.  I'm sure we'll see the $1000 PS3s on ebay as well.

But the real test of the PS3's success will be when the casual gamers and middle class families want a new video game system in 2007 and beyond.  This is when, IMHO, the PS3 will fail.  Why?

1. The high price.  Even if there are price cuts (which Microsoft will mirror), the PS3 will still be priced abhorrently above the 360 and Wii. 
2. HDTV penetration is still at only 10-15% in the US.  There is no point in having a Blu-ray drive without a HDTV.
3. There will be no discernable difference between 360 and Ps3 games in terms of graphics.  The GPUs are virtually identical in pixel pushing power, and developers will design around 720p for the best portability. 
4. Exclusive PS3 games like MGS4 will not be enough to justify spending $200 more on a PS3 than a 360.
5. Sony can't subsidize the PS3 like Microsoft can the 360 will Nintendo will probably break even on the Wii.  Sony is poised to loose $200-$300 for each console sold initially, and this will quickly deplete Sonys cash reserves if they can't reduce their component costs. 
6. Most gamers just want to play games and could care less about the Cell, Blu-ray, and all of the other proprietary crap.  This goes back to point #2.

The list goes on... but I'm tired of the PS3 debate.  We'll find out in a year whether the PS3 is Sony's savior or a colossal ---fudgesicle--- up. 
 

And for the record, I'm a PC gamer and don't plan to get any of these consoles.

[ChadTower]

It did look a little better, you're right about that.  It played like ASS though.  VF was a strong player without any slowdown.

[Hoagie_one]

Excellent article about Sony

[shmokes]

How funny . . . I just got my mail and have that article opened up in front of me right now.

[Otraotaku]

What, did you read that off some fanboy website or something?  I bought my Saturn on launch day and it didn't go like that at all.  Your timeline isn't even right.  The Saturn launched at least a year before the N64.  It also initially came with four games and then they mailed a fifth to people who had registered their console.

And what other console has launched several months before the widely announced retail date?

And the Saturn didn't have a "murdersome package selection".  It didn't have any package selection. 

And it wasn't ever $500.  It was $399.99 on launch day.  I still have my Babbage's receipt for it.  $399 is high, yes, but with a packin game + 3 full games at the initial offer + the 5th that was mailed out, $399 wasn't any worse than any other console has been.

i was guesstimating chad, i was like 7-8 when it came out and the only one i knew who had one was my semi-rich cousin -.- i got my n64 that christmas,i knew it was 400, i just remember the N64 being 199$ or something. but still it was all around the same time to me... and i was a kid, lol...I never seen a sega CD till 3 years after... for its time it was way overpriced and that could very well be considered the equivalent of the PS3's price in modern economic value.

[Otraotaku]

How funny . . . I just got my mail and have that article opened up in front of me right now.

if you think thats funny, you better head over to IGN, everyone knows that IGN has always favored the sony consoles, but they used to have a poll on the main page 2-3 days ago that was just laughable...  check out some other polls ive found first 10 polls on google that show up...(6min span of google)  *google* but these are still really interesting results considering my keyword was "will you buy a PS3 poll"...

----------------------------QuickLinkPolls-----------------------------------------------
http://www.gamingforce.com/forums/general-video-gaming/9695-what-next-gen-system-will-you-buy-4.html
http://forum.teamxbox.com/showthread.php?t=464496&page=2
http://boards.ign.com/ps2_lobby/b7204/123305666/p1/
http://lotro.turbine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1739&page=2
http://evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16240
http://forum.deviantart.com/entertainment/gaming/703572/
http://forum.videohelp.com/viewtopic.php?t=300440
http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/smf/index.php?topic=19985.40
http://forums.windrivers.com/showthread.php?t=76007
http://www.wii60.com/forum/poll.php?s=9ee3a17ef23ea5d213ea0c90ce38f090&do=showresults&pollid=244
http://www.wiilounge.com/showthread.php?p=1102

and these last ones here are articles of speculation, i also found interesting.after acidently clicking, and are to be taken as a grain of salt.

http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=13291
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/46608/10_reasons_why_you_should_not_buy_ps3.html

[Hoagie_one]

All those articles esentially say, Nintendo gets to print money this generation

[ChadTower]

i was guesstimating chad, i was like 7-8 when it came out and the only one i knew who had one was my semi-rich cousin -.- i got my n64 that christmas,i knew it was 400, i just remember the N64 being 199$ or something. but still it was all around the same time to me... and i was a kid, lol...I never seen a sega CD till 3 years after... for its time it was way overpriced and that could very well be considered the equivalent of the PS3's price in modern economic value.

The N64 was $299 at launch and didn't come with a game.  The first wave of games were $60+ making the N64 effectively about $40 cheaper than the Saturn was but NOT coming with multiple games like the Saturn did.  And you had to buy a memory card which was another $20 or so.  Add that on and the N64 launch price was pretty much the same as the Saturn's launch price but actually came with less.

[Truecade]

i was guesstimating chad, i was like 7-8 when it came out and the only one i knew who had one was my semi-rich cousin -.- i got my n64 that christmas,i knew it was 400, i just remember the N64 being 199$ or something. but still it was all around the same time to me... and i was a kid, lol...I never seen a sega CD till 3 years after... for its time it was way overpriced and that could very well be considered the equivalent of the PS3's price in modern economic value.

The N64 was $299 at launch and didn't come with a game.  The first wave of games were $60+ making the N64 effectively about $40 cheaper than the Saturn was but NOT coming with multiple games like the Saturn did.  And you had to buy a memory card which was another $20 or so.  Add that on and the N64 launch price was pretty much the same as the Saturn's launch price but actually came with less.

No, the N64 launched at $200, at least in the USA.  I remember my best friend got his on launch day for $219. 

Here's a nice little graph that shows console launch prices. (both actual and inflation adjusted)  Notice that the only other recent console that comes close to the PS3 price tag was the Neo Geo and 3DO. 

http://curmudgeongamer.com/2006/05/history-of-console-prices-or-500-aint.html

[shmokes]

I seem to remember that the N64 was going to be $299 but at the last second it was launched at $249.  Who knows?  (Something tells me the answer to that question is Wikipedia)

[ChadTower]

It certainly wasn't $199.  Not on day 1.

I reject your source and substitute my own.

[pointdablame]

i bought an N64 on launch day and I'm almost certain I paid $199 for the system.

[shmokes]

I know that $249 was an official figure and that there was a $50 price drop decision just a day or two before launch, so everyone who had preordered was pleasantly surprised.  It was either scheduled for $299 but was actually $249, or it was scheduled for $249 but turned out to be $199.

Wikipedia says $199, FWIW.  It definitely did not ever sell for $299, though.

[ChadTower]

Wikipedia is great for a lot of things... as the definitive credible source it fails.  Any of us could go in and edit that to say $599 if we wanted.

[Otraotaku]

i was just asuming the N64 was 200$, as i did not pay for it when i was a kid. but i also have  a pretty good memory.

[shmokes]

Wikipedia is great for a lot of things... as the definitive credible source it fails.  Any of us could go in and edit that to say $599 if we wanted.

Hence the, "FWIW"

By the wayI knew this was d

[Otraotaku]

Wikipedia is great for a lot of things... as the definitive credible source it fails.  Any of us could go in and edit that to say $599 if we wanted.

Hence the, "FWIW"

By the wayI knew this was d

[AtomSmasher]

Another reason the Saturn failed is because it was so difficult to write games for it.  The harder is it to write a game for a system, the less games get made for and ported to the system.  Fewer games = fewer sales.

The PS3 will be nothing like the Saturn, other then being more expensive then their competitors, their launches will be nothing alike.  Also, I still have and love my Saturn   and I still rememver how awesome it was when I got Virtua Fighter Remix for free, plus all the free demo disks they were always mailing out.  Now, demo disks are extremely common given with magazines and stuff, but back then it was very cool when they mailed you a demo disk.  I still have everyone they sent me, including Christmas Nights which was a promo they did with a magazine.  Good times.

[ChadTower]

Another reason the Saturn failed is because it was so difficult to write games for it.  The harder is it to write a game for a system, the less games get made for and ported to the system.  Fewer games = fewer sales.

That one is true.  It took a lot longer to unlock the potential of the parallel processing nature of the Saturn.  They didn't really get in there until towards the end of the Saturn's life.  Man, once they did though, and came out with stuff like Panzer Dragoon Saga and House of the Dead, it made the PS1 look completely inferior.  There is a reason those games still sell for as much as they do.

[Otraotaku]

Another reason the Saturn failed is because it was so difficult to write games for it.  The harder is it to write a game for a system, the less games get made for and ported to the system.  Fewer games = fewer sales.

That one is true.  It took a lot longer to unlock the potential of the parallel processing nature of the Saturn.  They didn't really get in there until towards the end of the Saturn's life.  Man, once they did though, and came out with stuff like Panzer Dragoon Saga and House of the Dead, it made the PS1 look completely inferior.  There is a reason those games still sell for as much as they do.

doesnt that sound simular to PS3's dual cell processing?

but yeah PS1 games mainly were pure crap, i can only remmber playing a few decent ones,
MGS1 which pretty much sold me into playing it in the 1st place.
Megaman legends as well... (the true image of Megaman to me)
the DBZ games on it were awesome for any fan at that time, but sadly you had to import  unless you found the rare GT gem when it first came out.
Soul Edge, some star wars games were pretty intense,along with the whole Capcom CPS2 line of ports. after that though, Metal gear VR... and other watered down stuff, Megaman legends 2 didnt have the same feel. syphonfilter, Tenchu after you played so many they got boring on you that sorted thing happened and PS1 died for me.

i still have most of  my N64 games from that era, but very very very few PS1. they were just more solid, had many more aspects to them, and took quite a while longer to enjoy them. not too mention how many times someone told me to use toothpaste to fix PSX games... 

[ChadTower]

Well that is what happens when a consumer technology company tries to get into the gaming market... they end up with games that look nice but play like crap.  Much like anything Sony makes.  Sega and Nintendo are and always have been game companies so their games are about play first, graphics second.  Sure, the Saturn had some serious stinkers, but both N64 and Saturn could be counted on for elite first party games.  The PS1 could not and neither can the PS2.  The PS2 has more good games than the PS1 had but the crap-quality ratio is still pretty damn high.

[markrvp]

I'm going to guess that the top two reasons why people are still buying more PS2 consoles than XBOX 360s is because

1.)  PS2 is cheaper
2.)  There are more games available for the PS2


At Christmas time this year

1.) XBOX 360 is cheaper than PS3
2.) There are more games available for XBOX 360 than PS3


I will be curious to see if people are buying consoles due to price/games or if it is brand loyalty.  November will be the first wave of games that really start to take advantage of the 360 hardware.  GEARS OF WAR and CALL OF DUTY 3 are generating a lot of excitement.  HALO 3 next year should be out of this world.  Will it take a year before there are any games that use all the processing power of the PS3?  Also, how many 3rd party game developers will want to spend the investment in time/people to fully utilize all the processing capabilities of the PS3 when they are also programming for the 360 and Wii? 

I don't care one way or the other.  I own/owned a PS1, Saturn, Dreamcast, PS2, XBOX, and XBOX 360.  I spend 90% of my time online in Halo 2 and Call of Duty 2 on the 360 because that's what is most fun to me.  The other 10% of the time I play Guitar Hero on the PS2.  I like the games, not the console.  Having said that, if a game is available for both the XBOX and PS2,  I get it for the XBOX instead of the PS2.  I just like the controllers with dual triggers.

Only time will tell, but the PS3 has the potential to be another BETAMAX for sure.