Sony: "PS3 too cheap"

Has anyone at ALL considered that, like the PS2, XBox, and XBox 360 before it... the movies on the PS3 will be decoded IN SOFTWARE? All of the previously mentioned systems pretty much sucked, for the most part, at playing back DVDs with the same quality as a $50 walmart player that has dedicated DVD decoding hardware.

There is most certainly a reason why the initial BluRay players are double the price of the PS3, and despite the Cell being a pretty powerful media chip, the 3GHz XBox 360 still sucks at playing DVDs in comparison to a decent standalone. They make a great "fourth player in the house", but I certainly wouldn't want any of these consoles playing my movies in my home theatre setup. General purpose CPU power is moot, dedicated decoding hardware is not.
 
steviep said:
Has anyone at ALL considered that, like the PS2, XBox, and XBox 360 before it... the movies on the PS3 will be decoded IN SOFTWARE? All of the previously mentioned systems pretty much sucked, for the most part, at playing back DVDs with the same quality as a $50 walmart player that has dedicated DVD decoding hardware.

There is most certainly a reason why the initial BluRay players are double the price of the PS3, and despite the Cell being a pretty powerful media chip, the 3GHz XBox 360 still sucks at playing DVDs in comparison to a decent standalone. They make a great "fourth player in the house", but I certainly wouldn't want any of these consoles playing my movies in my home theatre setup. General purpose CPU power is moot, dedicated decoding hardware is not.
Click to expand...
Yes i have considered it but i dont want multiple boxes under my tv, plus i dont want to spend the same amount of money on a hardware hd player as what the ps3 costs, im sure the playback wil be fine, i think the 360 dvd playback is fine too, i think its only a minority that had dvd playback issues on the 360. I also think the majority. Seeing as everyone doesnt like spending lots of money i dont think many people will consider high end/normal dedicated hd players for a while.

Sony beleive an all in one unit is the way forward and i agree, they do after all make the best media center pcs, they know what they are doing,
Nintendo also know what they are doing, they know that they dont stand a chance in media capabilities so they stick to what they know best and have a chance in and leave that department to the Big Boys of the media world.
 
This guy sounds EXACTLY like steve jobs- every product they debut he touts as the most amazing thing ever, and how lucky you are as a consumber to be able to buy his product. Plus i think apple puts down its competition about as much as sony too.
 
NulloModo said:
I used my PS2 as my bedroom DVD player as well until I got a HDTV for the living room and bought a better DVD player for that, then that moved into the bedroom. I have a lot of friends who use the PS2 as a secondary DVD player as well.

Firewall - Sony hasn't ripped off Nintendo or Microsoft anymore than they do each other or Sony. Sony was the first company to release a system that played DVDs, was microsoft putting a DVD drive into the X-Box ripping off Sony? I guess both Sony and Microsoft ripped off analog sticks from Nintendo, and Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo all ripped off Sega for having an ability to play your console online.

Face it, when new technology comes out, if it's a good idea, other's will integrate it. Microsoft has no patent nor claim to own the idea of a centralized online gaming service, nor does Nintendo have the ability to claim they are the first to use motion sensing input devices. Both may have been the first to integrate them into consoles, but now Nintendo is going to have an online service just like XBL, so will Sony, and all three will probably end up with motion sensing hardware. It's just the way things work, good ideas spread around.
Click to expand...


for your sake, learn what ur talking about when ur trying sound smart

nintendo has plenty of patents fo its iput sensor tech,

face it, the warhawk guys etc admited that sony recently put the motion sensor into its controller not to long ago, u wont find any sony ceo's admiting theres no rumble in their controller either (talk about a bad rush job)

also using the same external shell and design (except for internals) for their controller 3 gens running now ?? (some how people say its the perfect controller not sure how though) either way perfection doesnt exist, its when something better comes alone u realize how lacking it was before (ie. xbox 360 controller improved greatly over previous gen)
 
powerade said:
for your sake, learn what ur talking about when ur trying sound smart

nintendo has plenty of patents fo its iput sensor tech,

face it, the warhawk guys etc admited that sony recently put the motion sensor into its controller not to long ago, u wont find any sony ceo's admiting theres no rumble in their controller either (talk about a bad rush job)

also using the same external shell and design (except for internals) for their controller 3 gens running now ?? (some how people say its the perfect controller not sure how though) either way perfection doesnt exist, its when something better comes alone u realize how lacking it was before (ie. xbox 360 controller improved greatly over previous gen)
Click to expand...

i think people are just use to that controller.. i hate it.. it hurts me.... jesus.. WHY sony WHY!!! did you keep the same controller desing?? WHY??!?!?!?!?
 
RancidWAnnaRIot said:
i think people are just use to that controller.. i hate it.. it hurts me.... jesus.. WHY sony WHY!!! did you keep the same controller desing?? WHY??!?!?!?!?
Click to expand...

I dont necessarily think they're wrong in using the same design, because its pretty good. But, the 360 controller design is a good example of how you can make something similar but just better. Old xbox s controllers really suck compared to the 360 one, even though the overall design is similar. Sony has the worst tactical feel with their analog sticks, and their positioning is just wrong. They could make an excellent controller by using the same design and giving it minor modifications, but instead they just added the tilt thing and changed the buttons on top a little bit. Thats not enough considering it lost rumble. "It interfered with the bluetooth" is bs- this is SONY. They couldnt figure out how to solve this problem? Gimme a break.
 
I read somewhere that the ps3 controller was thought up a week and a half before E3 so hopefully they'll rethink the design after getting back to design pit.

I also read that the $500 version of PS3 will NOT support wireless controllers... which is NOT cool. they better change that.
 
ZeroH said:
I read somewhere that the ps3 controller was thought up a week and a half before E3 so hopefully they'll rethink the design after getting back to design pit.

I also read that the $500 version of PS3 will NOT support wireless controllers... which is NOT cool. they better change that.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure it will support wireless controllers. It won't support a wireless network connection, tho.
 
ZeroH said:
I read somewhere that the ps3 controller was thought up a week and a half before E3 so hopefully they'll rethink the design after getting back to design pit.

I also read that the $500 version of PS3 will NOT support wireless controllers... which is NOT cool. they better change that.
Click to expand...


It won't have HDMI, either, effectively dumping it as a Blu-Ray DVD player... very stupid.
 
I don't know if this point has been made, but the 360 and PS3 aren't so off in price as you would think. A 360 with all the goodies is 500 + 100-200 for the HDDVD drive. A PS3 with the HDMI and wireless networking (which the 360 doesn't have) is 600. So really the two consoles are the same price with everything. Of course none of this matters, because no one really has a HDTV, so the Wii will wipe the floor with all of them.
 
GoldenTiger said:
It won't have HDMI, either, effectively dumping it as a Blu-Ray DVD player... very stupid.
Click to expand...

ICT isn't even in use yet so keep your pants on about HDMI. And that GamesRadar article about the lack of wireless controller support in the $499 version should be disregarded; they had no evidence from any reliable source supporting that claim.
 
ICT WILL be used. Effectively making the core PS3 and the 360 HD-DVD player useless. You honestly think that the movie studios will forego copy protection forever? I give it 2 years TOPS.
 
PS3 is cheap its just a matter of knowing your tech. Like your are getting an Cell Processor that is eqaulvalant to a Supercomputer, and the RSX chip that processes all the graphics and such is also equalvalant to 2 6800 running in SLi which cost's about $500-$1000 today for PC Gamers. You are also getting the new DVD format called Blu-ray that can hold upto 50gb of space plus you get more like wireless networking and HDMI support, all this stuff whould cost thousand's of dollar's seperatly while we are getting for $999AU.

I can see why some people are angry, at first I was angry because the 60gb version is going to cost me $999AU which is the dearest console in history, but then I realized what I get with it so now it does sound cheap. You also have to realize which one you want to get, the 60gb is mainly for those people like me that would use everything on the PS3 on a daily bases, while people that would just want to play games on it all the time would by the 20gb version (people how are not into the bells and whistles) of course its still dear but you are still getting the Cell Processor, RSX chip and the blu-ray drive which still would cost thousands of dollars.

Since I am an geek I willl more likly get the 60gb version even if it is the dearest console in history, and that's with the Xbox360 and Wii.
 
the gamer said:
...and the blu-ray drive which still would cost thousands of dollars.
Click to expand...

Still beating a dead horse here but if the standalone players don't drop in price FAST then HD-DVD will eat it alive. Customers will just see "Hi-def" and one product costing $400 vs another costing $1000. (Just my humble opinion).

I'm sure Sony doesn't want another betamax.
 
Psychotext said:
Still beating a dead horse here but if the standalone players don't drop in price FAST then HD-DVD will eat it alive. Customers will just see "Hi-def" and one product costing $400 vs another costing $1000. (Just my humble opinion).

I'm sure Sony doesn't want another betamax.
Click to expand...

It's an unfortunate situation, because I really like the Blu-ray technology.

I want the 25 GB of space, and I want the scratch/UV-resistant coating. I've paid for quality before, and I'll do it again. I'll be more than happy to pay an extra couple of dollars per disc for something that really is a step up from the DVD format -- an extra 20 GB of space, and discs that won't wear down from tiny scratches accumulated over time.

Someone mentioned this in another thread (pardon me for forgetting whom it was that said this) -- for once, I'd like to see the better technology win out. :eek:
It's frustrating to get held back. :(
 
ItsSoLARGE said:
I don't know if this point has been made, but the 360 and PS3 aren't so off in price as you would think. A 360 with all the goodies is 500 + 100-200 for the HDDVD drive. A PS3 with the HDMI and wireless networking (which the 360 doesn't have) is 600. So really the two consoles are the same price with everything. Of course none of this matters, because no one really has a HDTV, so the Wii will wipe the floor with all of them.
Click to expand...
The premium 360 with all the goodies is $399...that's around four hundred and thirty bucks. The premium PS3 is $599. That will be around six hundred and fifty bucks.

Where do you get that no one really has an HDTV?! Tons of people have them, and the number is getting greater. People who are buying Xbox 360's and people who are planning on getting a PS3 are buying HDTV's like crazy, and the trend will likely continue.
 
More and more people are buying them, but market penetration is still less than 15%. Simply put, I believe that it will be 2010 at the earliest before HDTVs are as mainstream as DVD players are now.
 
A bit OT, but does anyone have any figures for how far along any of the other countries are in HDTV penetration? :confused:

I have a feeling that, like with the adoption of broadband, the US might be among the slowest...
 
Well I plan to purchase 3 to 5 units then wait for the shortage to begin, O GOD I LOVE EBAY :D Just a little formula for you guys Shortage + !!!!!!s = CASH BABY! I will milk all the "LOYAL" SONY gamers for as much money as I can.

BTW Any one who thinks 2 million consoles is enough for a global release is out of their minds
 
deathstar550 said:
A bit OT, but does anyone have any figures for how far along any of the other countries are in HDTV penetration? :confused:

I have a feeling that, like with the adoption of broadband, the US might be among the slowest...
Click to expand...

Its an American trait
 
deathstar550 said:
A bit OT, but does anyone have any figures for how far along any of the other countries are in HDTV penetration? :confused:

I have a feeling that, like with the adoption of broadband, the US might be among the slowest...
Click to expand...


I think it's the basic attitude that if it ain't broken, don't fix it. It's just going to take time, although these next generation consoles are likely going to help drive sales of HDTV's. I bought my X360 on Nov 22 at midnight and realized that I just had to have an HDTV later that same day.
 
deathstar550 said:
A bit OT, but does anyone have any figures for how far along any of the other countries are in HDTV penetration? :confused:

I have a feeling that, like with the adoption of broadband, the US might be among the slowest...
Click to expand...
HDTV adoption and penetration in the US is one of the highest if not the highest worldwide. Japan would be the only one to come close. However nobody touches the US in actual HD programing and the numbers are only going up. Canada, Australia, South Korea are in the middle with Europe taking up the hind end. They got into HD very late in the game and are just now starting to take off.

JupiterResearch predicts HD penetration to be 25% by the end of this year in the US. Biggest jump coming from holiday sales and two HD optical formats out.
 
Well I'm just going to buy a Wii at launch and might buy a ps3 if I want a blueray drive and if it has enough good games out for it to warrent the 600$ price tag.

Btw I don't give a crap about high resolution, I admit it looks nice but doesn't really change gameplay or improve movies.
 
LynxFX said:
JupiterResearch predicts HD penetration to be 25% by the end of this year in the US. Biggest jump coming from holiday sales and two HD optical formats out.
Click to expand...

I've heard some rumors that OLED tvs might be out by the end of the year- it sounds too good to be true and therefore probably is, but this could help adoption numbers significantly.
 
Spaceman_Spiff said:
I've heard some rumors that OLED tvs might be out by the end of the year- it sounds too good to be true and therefore probably is, but this could help adoption numbers significantly.
Click to expand...
Why would this help adoption numbers? Does the average consumer know what OLED means? The major factor in most people's purchases is probably something like: 1) How much does it cost? 2) What does my neighbor have?
 
OutOfGum said:
Why would this help adoption numbers? Does the average consumer know what OLED means? The major factor in most people's purchases is probably something like: 1) How much does it cost? 2) What does my neighbor have?
Click to expand...

Theoretically at least, oled tvs should be significantly cheaper, thinner, and have all around better pictures than LCD or plasma technologies. If someone goes into a store trying to buy a tv and the guy tells them its some brand new, advanced technology, and the tv is vastly superior, he's not gonna say "oh but my neighbor has this other one..." he's gonna buy the new one, invite his neighbor over, and rub it in his face. This is AMERICA we're talking about, thats what we do. :) As long as they get decent life out of the panels oled absolutely should take off.
 
Don't know if someone already said this but I gave up reading after 4 pages.

One thing Sony doesn't understand, one thing "the PS3 is probably too cheap" man doesn't understand, when people look at a gaming console, they don't see a convergence of technologies and all these other features such as home media network hub or some other piece of crap they want to make us believe it is and will become, people just see a gaming machine. Sure it has blu ray and other new tech and fancy stuff but in the end, most people will see it as a device to play games...nothing more. How many people bought a PS2 because they went, "It has a DVD player!! I can watch DVD's on it!! OH, AND IT PLAYS GAMES!!"

$600 for a machine to play games...I doubt even the Japanese will have an easy time swallowing that..even with their penchant for tech.

Also, we've all seen consoles with the latest and greatest graphics that turned out not to be so great. I like a quote I read from one of the MS's Xbox people on the PS3. "Emotion Engine. Enough said."
 
TeknoZX said:
How many people bought a PS2 because they went, "It has a DVD player!! I can watch DVD's on it!! OH, AND IT PLAYS GAMES!!"
Click to expand...

Many did.

$600 for a machine to play games...I doubt even the Japanese will have an easy time swallowing that..even with their penchant for tech.
Click to expand...

The Japanese would buy it even if it cost a $1,000. $600 for a gaming console is nothing to them considering the prices that they already pay for technology.
 
For me, at least: a console isn't a HDTV DVD player. If I want a high quality HDTV player, I'll buy a quality HDTV player (be it HD-DVD or Blue Ray...), not one as part of a console. Console players are built for games, and that's what I expect them to do (unmodded of course! ;)). I don't see a PS3 offering the high quality image quality that I'd expect from a higher quality manufacturer making a discrete DVD HD player.

$600 for a console is retarded. $600 for a blue ray HDDVD player is a good deal, lower than expected. For $600, it better meet or beat the other blue ray DVD manufacturers quality. I will NOT buy a console for the purpose of watching movies.

If the games are >9GB and are awesome, then I may jump on it. I'll buy a console for the games. I'll buy it when it's <$300, though.

Sometimes, the all in ones aren't really all that. The XBox DVD functions show their flaws occasionally, and I love the XBox.

Movies on consoles are an added benefit, not for an initial purpose with gaming as a side note. I still feel that Sony is using this to help leverage their Blue Ray. If they can deliver games that actually utilize the extra space, then by all means I'll change my opinion. Until then, it stands. :)
 
Lord Nassirbannipal said:
The Japanese would buy it even if it cost a $1,000. $600 for a gaming console is nothing to them considering the prices that they already pay for technology.
Click to expand...

Wrong. You must not have been paying attention when the hybrid-PS2 (PSX) came out. Even Sony's fanatical fanbase has limits.
 
That's because it was just a glorified PS2 with an even more ridiculous price tag. I think it'd be hard for a company to convince anyone to re-buy something they already own (like UMD movies). The PS3 may have an assload of features that the "average" gamer probably won't need, but it's hardly a dolled-up PS2.
 
K600 said:
Wrong. You must not have been paying attention when the hybrid-PS2 (PSX) came out. Even Sony's fanatical fanbase has limits.
Click to expand...

Thats hardly a comparable example- there was a ps2 out for a fraction of the cost, it wasnt even new technology.
 
K600 said:
Wrong. You must not have been paying attention when the hybrid-PS2 (PSX) came out. Even Sony's fanatical fanbase has limits.
Click to expand...

I think the PSP is a better example. As others have said the PSX was simply a PS2 with some DVR function.
 
Spaceman_Spiff said:
Thats hardly a comparable example- there was a ps2 out for a fraction of the cost, it wasnt even new technology.
Click to expand...

That's irrelevant; it was full of useless tech (From a gaming perspective) and overpriced, just like the PS3.

You're completely missing the point. People aren't just going to ignore the price because it has the "Sony" label on it, regardless of how bad they want it.
 
K600 said:
That's irrelevant; it was full of useless tech (From a gaming perspective) and overpriced, just like the PS3.

You're completely missing the point. People aren't just going to ignore the price because it has the "Sony" label on it, regardless of how bad they want it.
Click to expand...

The PSX was essentially a revision to an already existing product which had already been adopted by millions of people. Nobody out there has a ps3, and they'd gladly pay the purchase price for just its gaming capabilities. $600 isnt really that much money- i dont understand why people seem to think they need to sell a kidney to come up with that sum of money. Sure, it would be in more demand if it cost less, but there's more than enough people out there who will buy it at launch to make it sell out everywhere.
 
Spaceman_Spiff said:
The PSX was essentially a revision to an already existing product which had already been adopted by millions of people. Nobody out there has a ps3, and they'd gladly pay the purchase price for just its gaming capabilities. $600 isnt really that much money- i dont understand why people seem to think they need to sell a kidney to come up with that sum of money. Sure, it would be in more demand if it cost less, but there's more than enough people out there who will buy it at launch to make it sell out everywhere.
Click to expand...

Because the competition is a lot less. And perhaps you may get more from the competition. It comes down to the games. If the PS3 doesn't deliver on the games, it can cost $100 and no one would buy it.

$600 is a lot to some people. If it's a choice between an XBox 360 or a PS3, I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't be able to justify the extra $200 or more just for the Blue Ray drive... And the exclusive games.
 
Spaceman_Spiff said:
i dont understand why people seem to think they need to sell a kidney to come up with that sum of money. Sure, it would be in more demand if it cost less, but there's more than enough people out there who will buy it at launch to make it sell out everywhere.
Click to expand...

It's not just the price of the PS3 itself; it's the price of the PS3 in comparison to the competition.

I've got a $600 motorcycle helmet...that doesn't mean that everyone is going to go out of their way to spend that kind of cash on a luxury item. Sony is pricing themselves out of their target demographic.

By the way, I know exactly what the PSX was. The point wasn't to insenuate that the PS3 was the exact same situation; the point was to say that the Japanese aren't just going to bend over and take anything that Sony tries to shove in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top