Network now...BLOG
Examining PS3’s Value Message
Sony fired the latest salvo in the console war last week with a chart that spelled out, from Sony’s perspective, the value of the three current videogame consoles.
Shockingly, Sony found that PS3 was the better value by $50-$100 compared to Xbox 360. The market-leading Wii, with its $250 price tag, undercuts PS3, but according to Sony, Wii “lacks enhanced features” like media playback and high-definition visuals. So the value supposedly isn’t there.
Before we pick apart just how effective this sort of marketing tactic actually is, let’s revisit Sony’s chart to see the company's view on which console really does offer the best “value.” (Sony used the entry-level package of all three consoles.)
.jpg)
Despite the Internet message board uproar that this comparison effectuated, the argument is actually fairly reasonable, in terms of bang-for-the-buck, and does point out some weaknesses in competitor’s offerings. To me, the main turn-off in the Microsoft column isn’t the $50 Xbox Live fee or even the non-standard hard drive, but (and I think many of you will agree with this) that damn $100 proprietary Wi-Fi adapter. I won’t bitch about it too much, but the configuration of many peoples’ houses (like mine) makes this a required purchase, and compared to generic solutions, the add-on is quite expensive. Sony knows this—notice how high it is on the list. Admittedly, that adapter isn’t required to game online—you could just invest in a really long Ethernet cable (that’d look lovely)—but the fact that PS3 and Wii do have built-in Wi-Fi hurts Microsoft’s value proposition notably. C’mon, even the freakin’ DS has it built in.
The hard drive argument against Xbox 360 is reasonable too. For a console that places so much importance on online features and content to not come standard with a larger means of storage is ironic. But you can’t blame Microsoft for excluding it—apparently, built-in hard drives are what ultimately killed the original Xbox. That, and the hard drive-less Arcade has given Microsoft marketing the bragging rights of being the first console below $200.
There are issues, though, with parts of the argument that Sony has tried to convey with this chart. For instance, HDMI is listed as “Not Available in Earlier Models” of Xbox 360. Seriously? Are we comparing what we can buy off the shelf today, or a year ago? As far as I can tell, HDMI-equipped Xbox 360s are what are on the shelves today.
Speaking of HDMI, we all know that PS3 doesn’t come with HDMI cables (Sony's still packing low-def composites), and, depending on the brand, cost anywhere from $5 to (choke) over $100. Sony’s official PS3 HDMI/USB 2.0 cable pack sells for $80 at Best Buy. The Xbox 360 Arcade doesn't come with HD cables either, so it evens out.
I suppose we should also mention that Microsoft has been including a game pack-in with the Xbox 360 Arcade.
And incidentally, what’s up with the chart calling Wii’s online gaming service “Limited”? I know what Sony’s getting at—the community and connectivity features of Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection aren’t as robust or plentiful as PSN or Xbox Live, but the Wii does have an online gaming service. Are we measuring the features by certain degrees now?
I’m not going to comb over any more of the items listed on the chart, because we could go on for a while. Let’s just be straight here—PS3 and Xbox 360 offer very similar bang-for-the-buck as far as high-def gaming and media playback is concerned. Where one console is missing a certain feature, it might make up for it in another area (for instance, Xbox 360 doesn’t have Blu-ray but it does have Netflix). Any of the console makers could spin a chart to make their own console look like a better value. One could probably even make a chart that included a $700 PC and argue that, from a features-to-dollar vantage point, it has better “value” than any of the consoles.
In the end, and no console maker can deny this, it’s the games that count. Pretty obvious, huh? Even with all of the great multimedia features that consoles are offering today, I wholeheartedly promise you that consumers haven’t lost sight of the reality that game consoles are for games.
Next: Let's Make Some More Charts
Shockingly, Sony found that PS3 was the better value by $50-$100 compared to Xbox 360. The market-leading Wii, with its $250 price tag, undercuts PS3, but according to Sony, Wii “lacks enhanced features” like media playback and high-definition visuals. So the value supposedly isn’t there.
Before we pick apart just how effective this sort of marketing tactic actually is, let’s revisit Sony’s chart to see the company's view on which console really does offer the best “value.” (Sony used the entry-level package of all three consoles.)
Despite the Internet message board uproar that this comparison effectuated, the argument is actually fairly reasonable, in terms of bang-for-the-buck, and does point out some weaknesses in competitor’s offerings. To me, the main turn-off in the Microsoft column isn’t the $50 Xbox Live fee or even the non-standard hard drive, but (and I think many of you will agree with this) that damn $100 proprietary Wi-Fi adapter. I won’t bitch about it too much, but the configuration of many peoples’ houses (like mine) makes this a required purchase, and compared to generic solutions, the add-on is quite expensive. Sony knows this—notice how high it is on the list. Admittedly, that adapter isn’t required to game online—you could just invest in a really long Ethernet cable (that’d look lovely)—but the fact that PS3 and Wii do have built-in Wi-Fi hurts Microsoft’s value proposition notably. C’mon, even the freakin’ DS has it built in.
The hard drive argument against Xbox 360 is reasonable too. For a console that places so much importance on online features and content to not come standard with a larger means of storage is ironic. But you can’t blame Microsoft for excluding it—apparently, built-in hard drives are what ultimately killed the original Xbox. That, and the hard drive-less Arcade has given Microsoft marketing the bragging rights of being the first console below $200.
There are issues, though, with parts of the argument that Sony has tried to convey with this chart. For instance, HDMI is listed as “Not Available in Earlier Models” of Xbox 360. Seriously? Are we comparing what we can buy off the shelf today, or a year ago? As far as I can tell, HDMI-equipped Xbox 360s are what are on the shelves today.
Speaking of HDMI, we all know that PS3 doesn’t come with HDMI cables (Sony's still packing low-def composites), and, depending on the brand, cost anywhere from $5 to (choke) over $100. Sony’s official PS3 HDMI/USB 2.0 cable pack sells for $80 at Best Buy. The Xbox 360 Arcade doesn't come with HD cables either, so it evens out.
I suppose we should also mention that Microsoft has been including a game pack-in with the Xbox 360 Arcade.
And incidentally, what’s up with the chart calling Wii’s online gaming service “Limited”? I know what Sony’s getting at—the community and connectivity features of Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection aren’t as robust or plentiful as PSN or Xbox Live, but the Wii does have an online gaming service. Are we measuring the features by certain degrees now?
I’m not going to comb over any more of the items listed on the chart, because we could go on for a while. Let’s just be straight here—PS3 and Xbox 360 offer very similar bang-for-the-buck as far as high-def gaming and media playback is concerned. Where one console is missing a certain feature, it might make up for it in another area (for instance, Xbox 360 doesn’t have Blu-ray but it does have Netflix). Any of the console makers could spin a chart to make their own console look like a better value. One could probably even make a chart that included a $700 PC and argue that, from a features-to-dollar vantage point, it has better “value” than any of the consoles.
In the end, and no console maker can deny this, it’s the games that count. Pretty obvious, huh? Even with all of the great multimedia features that consoles are offering today, I wholeheartedly promise you that consumers haven’t lost sight of the reality that game consoles are for games.
Next: Let's Make Some More Charts
Contact Us / About Us / Advertise With Us / BeltwayBlips / TechBlips / MassiveBlips / GamerBlips / FAQ
Subscribe To Edge Magazine / Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
Subscribe To Edge Magazine / Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
Sony’s value argument is pretty legit, but the fact of the matter is that $399 is higher than $249 and $199, and that price disparity has an undeniable psychological effect on a buyer.
It's called false economy and consumers are suckers for it, really Sony should have done the same and released a vastly cut down version of its console then reamed its customers, like Microsoft has, for its proprietary hardware add-ons, then maybe more people would have made the initial spend. This strategy would almost have been preferable for me to losing the emotion engine, but then that strategy would have been against Sonys philosophy of creating a relatively open console which I really appreciate. Yes they still sell their proprietary add-ons at exorbitant prices but this is just fan service, buy the official headset or the hdmi cable pack for twice the price if need be but you don't have to. Still, saying that their console is only relatively open, yes you can run Linux on it, but its hard to get access to certain parts of the hardware, and you can use any old 2.5" SATA notebook drive, and the customisation options are incredibly limited in retarded ways, ie the tool which lets you partition the drive for a new OS allocating either 10gb to the other OS and the rest to XMB or vice versa, which is again, retarded. But still I can go down to Toyworld and chuck a couple teraflops of processing power in my cart at a ridiculously low price point go home and have a mean game machine and something to program on too. If Sony worked on aspects like this a little more It would turn heads far quicker than my dic|(s bigger than your dic|( strategies, they've got a beautiful machine (cell architecture, the future) and I like it a lot more than the 360 but it's also incredibly underwhelming when you see such a good idea, and you see it implemented, and then you see parts of it fade away as your system updates turn into boring retarded things like "WOW now you're photo albums are a shit load more customisable with like ugly frames and stuff " and Home. Is this really what the programmers are doing(more likely just a facade for more system integral stuff)? There are so many amazing companies like Yellow Dog doing awesome things with the PS3 (Gaming unrelated) yet apart from some initial flirting we're yet to see much integration between Sony and companies like this.
In conclusion that comparison sucked (and was pathetic), let some fanboy do that. I want to see some PR about what the PS3 is really good at, or at least do some cool ass ad with Sackboys making some insane little big machine which destroys an army of Xbots. That would be awesome, the more blatant (And hilarious) the better.
By the way top whats your PSN ID mines mgw8984
Sony's PR people are getting increasingly desperate. They know that the PS3 is going to end up in third place (welcome to the Third Place, Sony, ha ha!) in this gen behind the Wii and 360, and so they come up with this value table bollocks. Consumers aren't falling for it though.
Sony is just trying to open ppl eyes and justify why the PS3 is so expensive. Most of the ppl don't know that the XBox only takes proprietary HDDs, and doesn't come with Wi-Fi.
The truth is that Sony is right. Who buys a PS3 only needs to spend money in games. Who buys a XBox ends up buying Wi-Fi, has to pay for XBL, has to spend some more money in batteries or a recharger for the controller.
I really don't know were all this Sony hate come from and why Xbox owners are so blinded. It seems that Microsoft is brainwashing people thru Windows.
Better watch NickgamertagO1 and OmegaVader (although i'm conviced they're both the same person) will come hunting for you now.
Sad, i know.
Maybe consumers are just waiting for the price cut?
SimonMaxwell said:
Sony's PR people are getting increasingly desperate. They know that the PS3 is going to end up in third place
It would be wiser to count the numbers when the production of the PS3 finally comes to a halt. Otherwise people are just wasting their breath with this numbers/NPD bullshit.
The PS1 had a production run lasting over 11 years, it ended on March 23, 2006, with the last game being release on September 29, 2006.
Don't kid yourself with NPD sales figures as they only tell a small part of the bigger picture.
the PS2 is still kicking, ala the 50 million in NA benchmark recently announced.....but you can hardly tell that anyone here gives a damn as they argue between the PS3 and 360 exclusively.
So I put this forward towards you: when the PS3 is in its (now highly doubted) 11th year of production, aren't you going to be more concerned about the PS4, and telling us to wait another 10 years again?
Top,
I see your point that we're only 2-3 years into this generation. Where I have to disagree with you is in the numbers argument. Yes, a lot of the time we talk NPD which is only the US, but the 360 has a significant edge worldwide, too. I think at last count the 360 has around a 9 million console lead worldwide (28 million compared to Sony's 18-19 million). I'm not making these numbers up so please don't say something like those numbers are fanboy fabrication or whatever you call it as a valid argument.
By no means does this mean the PS3 can't catch the 360 when its all said and done (it may be after the nextbox comes out which wouldn't really matter at that point) but for now, there's no denying the 360's substantial worldwide advantage. If the PS3 turns out to be at least close to the PS1 and PS2's success, it could surpass the 360. I don't see the PS3 having that kind of success though (it may pass up 360's 35-40 million lifetime sales, but won't hit 100 million). But we'll see right?
Don't get pissed or put up some crazy picture, trying to have a civil discussion here! ^^
@ OmegaVader & Nick
As i've said in my previous post NPD sales figures only tell a small part of the bigger picture. I'm not going to piss up sales figures as it would be unwise due to the living, successful facts of both the PS1 and PS2.
Like it or not, Sony make successful systems, there is no reason why the PS3 can't do what their previous systems have done, regardless of the 360/Wii sales.
Naysayers will obviously say otherwise (it's inevitable), but it would be very silly of one to count all the chickens yet.
And that's why i don't bother my arse with silly NPD numbers. Some people swear by them, the wiser hibernate for the real figures..
But you're neglecting to address the worldwide numbers released by both MS and Sony. Those are NOT NPD, they are for the entire planet. If Sony is to have the success of its previous two systems, they're going to have to start somewhere, and so far two years into it they've barely left the gate. 3-4 years from now this generation proper will be over, and by then no one will give a shit about the PS3 or if it ends up selling a bunch. Xbox 720 will be out and the PS4 will be on the horizon, PS3 will be an afterthought.
28 million 360s to 19 million PS3s, those aren't NPD numbers, they're worldwide. NPD (Which I think you know is US only) numbers look even worse than that for Sony (14 million 360s to 7 million PS3s after tomorrow's NPD numbers come out). When Sony actually starts walking the walk in sales this generation, I'll buy the whole 100 million console claim, till then, I'll stick with the numbers and not wishful thinking/speculation.
NickgamertagO1 said:
If Sony is to have the success of its previous two systems, they're going to have to start somewhere, and so far two years into it they've barely left the gate. 3-4 years from now this generation proper will be over, and by then no one will give a shit about the PS3 or if it ends up selling a bunch. Xbox 720 will be out and the PS4 will be on the horizon, PS3 will be an afterthought.
28 million 360s to 19 million PS3s, those aren't NPD numbers, they're worldwide. NPD (Which I think you know is US only) numbers look even worse than that for Sony (14 million 360s to 7 million PS3s after tomorrow's NPD numbers come out). When Sony actually starts walking the walk in sales this generation, I'll buy the whole 100 million console claim, till then, I'll stick with the numbers and not wishful thinking/speculation.
Your opinion (and that's all it is) has more pot-holes in it than Argyle St, Glasgow.
I'm not going to waste my breath debating worldwide (or indeed NPD) figures, it's pointless. Also, looking at a consoles sales figures when the system is no longer in production and getting the REAL FIGURES is not wishful thinking/speculation, it's more like getting the FACTS.
Don't be so ignorant to think that just because a new generation of systems come along the other systems on the market stop selling. Consoles like the PS1/PS2 have proven this not to be the case.
Now, run along and keep dreaming about those december "worldwide/NPD" sales figures you hold in such high regard.
Here, i'll even throw you a sleeping mask.
Thanks for the mask BTW, looks comfortable. I'll be sleeping comfortably tonight ^^
360 worldwide 28 million (3 years on market) worldwide annual average 9.33 million
PS3 worldwide 17-18 million (2 years on market) worldwide annual average 8.5-9.0 million
PS2 140 million plus (released nearly 9 years ago)
PS1 100 million plus (released about 15 years ago)
Based on the above facts, it is true the PS3 will hit those numbers if you base your predictions on Sony's previously released consoles' performance. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. It MAY, but just because the Giants won the Super Bowl last year doesn't mean they will this year (they were eliminated already). If it worked that way with consoles, after the NES (62 million) and SNES (49 million) dominated the Master System (13 million) and Genesis (29 million) the N64 would have beaten the PS1 handedly right? Using your rationale that would have been the case. I think its you who is being ignorant to the fact that history has taught us previous generation console domination does not AUTOMATICALLY equal domination in the next console generation. You can continue to HOPE the PS3 picks up its relatively slow pace (slow pace compared to Sony's previous two systems), but that doesn't mean it will. And just because the PS1 and PS2 dominated, doesn't mean the PS3 will. I'm basing my opinion on the PS3's performance so far on actual numbers and facts; and there's no holes there.
If you're concerned about facts and fiction, here you go. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_selling_consoles
edit: I doubt the PS3 will hit PS1/PS2 numbers, but I do think the PS3 has a chance at passing up the 360, I just think by the time it does the nextbox will already be out with the PS4 also being out or on the horizon. At that point, it wouldn't matter to the gaming community (maybe to Sony faithful, but not the community as a whole).
Your link above is what i'm interested in i.e. showing a consoles total sales (worldwide) when the console is no longer in production or near it. Only then can you see a true leader, if there is such a thing.
Monthly sales figures are useless, in fact i wish they'd never get known until each system is made redundant.
I don't blame you, I wouldn't want to see my console of choice get schalacked month after month either. ^^ I kid.
You choose your console winner after that particular generation has been over for years (assuming the PS3 were to "win" 3-4 years after the nextbox comes out), I choose a console winner for that generation as soon as the next one starts (that's when the previous generation is made obsolete and no one cares anymore). That doesn't apply to the last two generations as the PS1 and PS2 were miles ahead well before that generation ended. I don't see the PS3 doing the same.
We disagree on the definition of when a generation is over, that's ok with me.
I have to step in on this one Nick to say that a console is a "winner" just bc it has more sold when it releases its predecessor is ridiculous. The Xbox could release a new console tomorrow and according to you its won the "race". If that was the case then companies would be pushing out new items at an alarming rates just to one up there competition (just like the 360 releasing known faulty hardware), you dont count units sold till the next version comes out you count units sold throughout its lifetime and I know from our discussions on here that you know that. If thats the case than the 360 has ALREADY won since Sony has had a 10 yr plan for its consoles and the PS4 wont be out for a least 5 more yrs, knowing Microsoft they'll have one out in the next 2. Regardless I beleive Sony will overtake Microsoft b4 the nextbox is released, 2009 is going to be an interesting year for this generation of consoles and Im expecting great things lol.
Ryda and Top,
Yeah, there is a lot of emphasis put on the monthly numbers but that's how it’s always been. People love lists.
Ryda, good points, but the only thing I'd disagree with is your viewpoint of what a lifecycle or "10 year plan" is. 10 year plan doesn't mean Sony will wait ten years after the PS3 launches to release the PS4, it just means that the PS3 will continue selling even after the PS4 has come out (like the PS2 did/does now over two years into the PS3 lifespan).
The only other thing I'd mention and I mentioned this before is that the PS3 may take over, but it won't be like back in Sony's heyday when the PS1 and PS2 were way in the lead well before the next wave of consoles came out, they destroyed the competition and won those generations before there really even started. The PS1 and PS2 were in first and never looked back, this position for Sony is a new one, and I just don't see the PS3 winning out in the same fashion its predecessors did. And also, I don't think a console manufacturer is going to spend billions on releasing new systems every 3 years just so they can so they "won" at the same time sacrificing any chance of making any money in the process.
My point, if the next Xbox comes out say by the end of 2011, the next Wii most likely will also be out and the 360 most likely will have a small to moderate lead over Sony worldwide still (unless Sony has a big turn around as you mentioned Ryda). The PS4 may come out a year after the next Xbox like it did with the PS3/360. The PS3 will slowly die away but continue to sell eventually surpassing the 360 a year or so into the 720s lifecycle. That technically as you and Top put it would mean that total lifetime sales of the PS3 would be higher than the 360 and would mean the PS3 inched out second place officially. My point was mainly that the PS3 would eventually end up on "top" of the 360 claiming 2nd place, but that's a far cry from what its predecessors did (taking the lead right away and running away with the generation in its pockets just a couple years into its lifecycle instead of limping into second when the other player had already moved on to another race).
Either way, as Top put it we are all happy with what our system offers and that’s all that matters any way. I’m headin off to bed to my wife who is growing impatient with me (11:23pm here). Night fellas.
PS.
Top, you're right. Looking at that list its surprising how badly some systems did. And it’s also surprising to see just how dominant the PS1 and PS2 really were. To think they spanked the NES? I would have thought the NES would have been first. 60 mil is nothing to sneeze at, but 140 mil PS2? Try to top that, I don't care how amazing your system is, that was just the perfect storm (in a good way) for Sony with the PS2.
The point all these guys are missing is that these numbers aren't put out for the benefit of consumers - it's for the publishers and investors. The impact that has on us as gamers is that publishers use these numbers to decide their product mix moving forward. For example, when they see that PS3 fell behind another 1 million units this past year in NA combined with the software numbers demonstrating a lower attach rate, many of them will decide not to bother committing rapidly dwindling resources to even bother with a PS3 port.
Wii sales will begin to cannibalize the number of new releases gamers see on PS3 primarily and 360 to a lesser degree. The only reason we haven't seen a huge shift already is the tepid third-party attach rate, to date, on the Wii. However, the shorter development cycle and significantly lower cost to create a Wii game (half that of 360/PS3) combined with the massive install base assuages many of those third-party concerns.
I understand the logic that people are happy with their purchase (or are looking to justify it), but I find it hard to rationalize being happy about not having many new, good games come out on your system - and that's precisely what's going to happen when publishers green light funds for the rest of this generation (which they're doing right now based on this past Holiday's figures) and decide not to bother with PS3 or even 360.
Groggy,
Good point. I can remember back when I was a Nintendo fan I was all about the GameCube. Well, because GameCube ports of multiplatform games started to sell really really terrible compared to the PS2 and Xbox versions publishers literally would not release multiplatform games on the GameCube anymore. I don't think it’s that bad yet for the PS3, but there are a number of games already that have a 360/PC release with no PS3 mention. Is this a result of Sony's less than favorable returns on software? Or is it just publishers preference? Down the line at some point if PS3 versions of multiplatform games continue to do so poorly we may see a GameCube effect (that'd be disastrous for Sony). For example, Guitar Hero: World Tour in November sold more copies on the PS2 than it did the PS3. Not a good sign. Maybe the PS2 is just too successful? If there's little to no cost benefit to release a PS3 version, publishers won't, and they don't care about loyalty (look at Tekken 6, FFXIII, Mercenaries 2, GTAIV to name a few). Those publishers want to make money, they don't care if they've historically released those games only on PSs, (they only did because that was where the money was). Well, the money isn't quite with the PS3 as much as it is for the 360 (so far this generation).
I'm not speaking in absolutes, there are games on the PS3 that have been multiplatform that have sold strongly, or exclusives that have sold strongly, but the vast majority of multiplatform games sell better on the 360. And I'm sure publishers are well aware of that fact as you put it Groggy. And that's a problem that is inherent to lagging significantly behind in installed base. Less consoles=less copies of games sold=less publisher interest=less games released=less people interested in system=less systems bought...It’s a vicious cycle; one Nintendo is all too familiar with with the N64 and GameCube.
It wouldn't bother me if the PS3 sold only 10,000 a month.
My point is that if console sales were only released when each system is made redundant, then people would stop talking nonsense about irrelevant sales numbers (i like my games, that's all that matters). You see it on every site you go to these days. You just get sick of it.
What i find even more disturbing (within that link you posted) is that the Dreamcast only sold 10.6 million. Even the Master System sold more. That's pretty fucked up.
Sony are making enough money on the PSP, therefore they should pack every PS3 SKU with the handheld as the two are that inter-connected now. It would probably be a good move as it would boost downloadable content and overall game sales on both systems.
Considering the PS3 is still £299.99, a bundled PSP with every SKU would be a good move and boost sales, thus if they aren't prepared to drop the price of the PS3 system.
Sony say they want to add to the PS3 SKU, rather than drop the price, the bundled PSP could potentially be the answer.
That sounds more like a fire sale idea than a marketing scheme.
E. Zachary Knight said:
That sounds more like a fire sale idea than a marketing scheme.
Well, Sony don't want to reduce the price of the system and only want to add to the SKU. Adding a PSP to the SKU would be better than 1/2 games bundled with the system.
Hey, if you have a better idea (apart from a price reduction), then i'd like to hear about, genius.
It would be a great idea if the PSP and the PS3 had more integration. Right now it is just another way for you to download content and move it to the PSP. Pretty much a replacement for your PC in that regard.
Perhaps they would be better off bundling another controller. So start of with two controllers with no price increase over the regular console. Shoot, they could add another $50 to the price of the console and bundle in a full 4 controllers. Those could help. Or they could follow the 360 route and bundle in a headset.
I am sure there are a lot of ways to add value that the Sony Marketing team are working on.
I think there's more to ps3 - psp interaction than you maybe aware of, you can stream most of the media stored on the hdd (not any copy protected video tho), and control/streaming of playtv ... and that also applies to ps1 games & about a dozen ps3 games, check out the wiki article on Remote Play for more details.
An extra controller & headset sounds like a good option but I think 4 controllers would be overkill for most people.
I think bundling a PSP would be an great way to increase the value proposition of the PS3 if the cost of making a PSP was now $50 or less.
I believe the second point still has to be made by the games though. 2009 Sony and the PS3 must have at least 3 games that could not be made on the PS3. The companies that make those games have to be willing to admit that consessions would need to be made for the game to appear on the Xbox360.
If the value proposition looks great enough with the economy as it is and the games are better, that covers two purchase decision questions a person would consider when making they purchase of a video game console.
There is one more thing we could consider here though. That would be marketing. Marketing has been quiet so far and rightfully so. Sony has been prepared to allow just the early adopters buy the PS3 for now. You don't need to advertise to early adopters. We are watching for the next great thing. Now however is the time to grab their own customers. The PS2 owners.
Sony needs to target these people. Find a way to get them to buy Sony again. Stress the longevity of the PS2 and show how the PS3 is even more future proof. How long did it take for Microsoft to overcome the PS2s games, graphics, and value proposition? The ball is truly in Sony's court.
So how do you watch blu-ray movies if you have a 360? HD-DVD = dead, so surely you have to spend at least another $100-200 to watch Hi-def movies? That seems to be missing from the list.
Admittedly, Sony is crap online. I mean, its TERRIBLE. I'd rather pay $50 extra a year and get decent online access so a game of Team fortress or LBP doesn't have people teleporting from place to place and moonwalking. But this is still far more easily remedied than not having HD movie playback (the reason I chose a PS3).
HD movie playback via digital (either download service through the live marketplace or streaming HD movies through netflix). It doesn't have to be on a physical medium to be HD (some argue that quality loss is an issue when dealing with digital). I have an HD-DVD add-on and an HD-DVD player in my bedroom and about a 25 movie collection of HD-DVDs (quite a few movies came out on HD-DVD before it died).
two issues for me; in the current climate the price tag, the hit on your debit card to walk out of a store with a PS3 is a no no. I prefer the concept in theory, of buying the console and a game for low money and come back for more another day. My other issue is the eye watering price tag of the 360 hard drive. There are mobile phones with more storage space than a 360 these days. MS needs to sort this out fast, and with reasonable price tags.
My PS3 was great value anyway. It was £300 and came with LBP, MGS4 and MotorStorm: PR.
I like it so much more just as a piece of hardware, and I say I've probably spent an additional £70 or thereabouts upgrading my 360 Premium, even more if I buy a 120GB HDD soon.
Good stuff, Kris. But did the world really need any more charts! :)
FACTS
1. Xbox 360 currently has HDMI in all versions of the Xbox 360. It has been like this for years now.
2. Microsoft simply CANNOT be blamed for the fact that the original Xbox 360 did not include HDMI output. The only reason this happened was because of all the legal battles that were associated with HDMI standards at that point in time. If the PS3 would have launched in 2005, it would NOT have included HDMI either. If it would have, it would have been limited to a resolution output of 1080i.
3. If Microsoft would have included HDMI in the Xbox 360 at the time of launch, it may have been limited developers to the HDMI 1.1 standard, which would output only 1080i resolution. Microsoft displayed their intelligence by using Component with 1080p resolution, with the plan of modifying the Xbox 360 to HDMI output at 1080p once the Copyrights for HDMI standards came into place in the elecronics industry.
4. "Add-Ons" are something that Sony has problems with the Playstation 3.
Consider these necessary attachments for the PS3 to compete with the Xbox 360:
* High-Definition cables are NOT included with any version of the PS3. In other words, if you want your PS3 to play games in high-definition, you will need to buy an "attachment."
* Xbox 360 Elite comes with an HDMI cable and Xbox 360 Pro comes with high-definition Component cables that can output video all the way up to 1080p -- which is something that most Samsung models Accept through the Component video inputs.
* Headset is a feature that is NOT included with the PS3. Xbox 360 includes a headset, which is why every third-party game includes support for online chat in the games. Third-party developers often do not bother to support this feature in the PS3, simply because of the fact that the PS3 does not come with a headset.
* RUMBLE is a COOL feature in the controller!!! The Xbox 360 comes packed with a controller that rumbles, but NOT the Playstation 3. In fact, even if you were to spend $60 on the Dual-Shock 3 controller for the PS3, you would quickly find out that this is a waste of money for many games, because third-party companies often don't bother to support the RUMBLE feature due to the fact that it is NOT included with the system. For example, Soul Calibur 4 from Namco is a new game that does NOT support the dual-shock 3 RUMBLE.
Kim, full of shit as always!
I think I speak for most of the people on this site now when I say... grow up and be more factual, or go away!
Do you not ever read the replies to your posts? Why do you write loads of this on a site like here when 90% of the people on here know that all the stuff you're claiming just simply isn't true.
Andy,
Some of his comments are true. HDMI wasn't finilized in time during the developement of the 360 for MS to be able to include it in the launch hardware. They would have had to delay the 360 to include this feature. (Maybe they should have anyway to do a bit more quality control, but that's another story we've already beaten to death).
But my main point I wanted to say was, and I just realized this, we should just ignore what Kim has to say. He doesn't wait around for the replies or he does and ignores them. I say we just pretend his posts don't exist and talk amongst ourselves.
Also, I just wanted to add that I've been hardwired with my PC and xbox/360 since live launched and I have had no problems with wires. As I couldn't afford a wireless router a long time ago, I had to find other means. There is $15 wall molding available that sticks (it just has one sticky side, no caulking required) to the bottom of your wall on top of your normal wall molding that is hollow and allows you to put quite a few cables in there virtually hiding any sign there are cables going anywhere. Since I have to use those for my surround sound anyway, it only made sense for me to just stick my 360 and pc ethernet cables in it, too (my PC and PC monitor 360 uses the wall molding thing, my living room 360 is right next to the router so that's not a problem). I'm just saying that being hardwired isn't that bad if you put a little work into it (I put more work into figuring out how to set up my wireless router for when I had a Wii/DS than I did putting that wall molding up). I was probably one of the few that had to buy a USB-Ethernet adapter for my Wii since it didn't even have an eithernet port on the damn thing.
Okay on the HDMI thing, I know, but that post was more as comment to all of 3 or 4 comments that he posted within about 10mins of each other and I couldn't be bothered to reply to all of them, just wanted to see if I could get some kind of response.
I agree, ignoring him does seem like the best idea, as I said I think most of the people on here realise that his posts are "mostly" BS anyway. So I'm right there with ya.
I see what you mean on the Wireless thing, although it was kinda the opposite for me. I was on a wired connection, then when I moved house I got 20mb BB and moved everything to wireless... and a couple of homeplugs as well if I'm honest, but thats maily cause I already had a couple of them, and have a lot of PCs in the house of which a couple didn't have wireless cards, so it seemed silly not to. It was very convenient for me with when I got my Wii , then a year later my PS3 to just hook 'em up to my wireless, no fuss.
For the XBOX however, I ended up buying a wireless card for one of my PCs on homeplugs so I could use said spare homeplug to connect the 360 up as I didn't want to pay their extortionate(sp?) prices. Just seemed like an odd thing to leave off, and a very expensive option if unlike me you only have the option of wireless.
Didn't notice that the Wii didn't have an Ethernet port, thats a bit gash! :)
Got it (about kim's last 3-4 posts thing)
Sounds like you have a pretty nice set-up at home. I'm sure that wireless card you bought for your PC was a lot cheaper than the 360's adapter. I read a good article over at gizmondo about just bridging your 360 so its a lot cheaper. There's also a 3rd party (pelican) wireless adapter for the 360 that's only 60 bucks at best buy so you don't get raped as badly as the 100 dollar one.
Yeah, just about got it how I like it now, was gonna describe it to you, but not sure if you were actually interested and didn't want to sound arrogant, so decided against. -lol-
You're right, wireless card was about £10, so much cheaper.
I'm in UK, not sure that best buy deliver here, strangly though, I just had a look on Play.com (where I get most of my games, accessories etc) and the official wireless adaptor is £55 ($80) at the moment
http://www.play.com/Games/Xbox360/4-/719752/Official-Xbox-360-Wireless-N...
Does that mean something is actually cheaper in the UK? I need to go a sit-down.
The homeplugs are a really good solution if you don't want to run cables round your house and don't use wireless, need 2 of them, one to plug into a port on the router and one for 360, the models I have are up to 85mbit/s, so perfectly acceptable, but they now do a 200mbit/s version. Then if you need to add anything else to the network that is cabled, you just buy another homeplug and plug it into the power. I've had 0 problems with them in about 2 years! Highly recommend.
The 85mbit/s plugs are about £25 each.
Oh no, I'm all about hearing people's set up as I like talking about mine (got a nice panasonic DTS-ES 6.1 discrete reciever). My only dissapointment about the 6.1 DTS is that only a handful of movies are encoded in 6.1. Most are Dolby Digital EX, or DTS which is 5.1 only. My receiver will "fake" the rear center channel sound presumably based on the volume difference between the rear left and the rear right channel and it does a pretty good job for both movies and games faking that rear center channel (no games have I ever seen run at anything higher than 5.1 although I've heard a couple PS3 games actually were 6.1 and 7.1 discretely). I've yet to see any BluRay or HD-DVDs run discretely at anything higher than 5.1 so, a 4 year old receiver still not being fully utilized...
Are those homeplugs wireless or do you have to route cables through your walls? How much does 25 quid or lbs or whatever that means in USD?
There are few 7.1 blu-ray's at the moment ... few being the main word, the only two I can remember of hand are 3:10 to Yuma & Pans Labyrinth.
...
Blu-ray.com has 86 matches for 7.1 discs but some are dupes/music titles.
The plugs actually send the data signal through your electric wiring to other plugs in the house. Just plug one into the wall next to your router. Stick an Ethernet cable from the router into the plug. Stick another in the outlet next to your PC/Game console. Plug an Ethernet cable into it and the game console/PC. Now you are connected to the internet.
I am actually getting a couple to test in a few weeks or month. It will be nice to move my office without having to have the phone company come out and reroute the DSL.
"Just plug one into the wall next to your router. Stick an Ethernet cable from the router into the plug. Stick another in the outlet next to your PC/Game console."
My question then would be, what connects the two plugs? You have a plug plugged in next to your router and then one in another room that you would plug your PC/PS3/360, but how does the signal get from one plug to the other? Are the plugs themselves wireless as far as how they carry the signal to the other plugs, or do you have to hardwire the plugs to eachother? (seems it'd defeat the purpose to have to hardwire the plugs together.
Hey Nick.
Nah, you're mis-understanding bud, the power cables that are already in your house, behind your walls connecting all your wall sockets carry the signal. You plug one into one plug wall socket with an ethernet cable from your router into the plug, then another into any other wall socket in the house with an ethernet from that into your XBOX, PC, PS3 etc and you have in instant wired network without any cables and without wireless. :) See what I mean?
EDIT: Just had a look on the net briefly and they don't appear to exist for US style plugs, seems to be a UK only thing... or at least UK style plug thing. :)
http://www.homeplugs.co.uk/
Yeah we have the same thing in New Zealand, go PAL territories!
I used to do some business for a company in the U.S. called Current Technologies. They were trying to develop a similar type product - not just within the house but across the power lines for broadband access to rural areas. Unfortunately, the power companies in the U.S. are very "old school" and could not wrap their minds around the concept and the eventual benefit to them. There were also regulatory hurdles that hurt them. Current is still around, but on life support. I didn't realize the U.K. already had this in some form. Damn, now the US is even behind you guys - what's the world coming to? ;)
I was really hoping for that to actually happen, but we have too many greedy ISPs and utility companies to let it happen.
The infrastructure for it is there all that has to happen is a proverbial switch to be flipped.
The outlets themselves actually carry the signal from one outlet to the other? That's insane. Pretty cool though. yeah, I've never heard of those before and never seen them so I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't available here (US). Thanks for the help though.
They aren't out in the US yet. I will be testing some of the first in a few weeks. They use some kind of encryption that can only be decoded by synced plugs so that some outsider can't just plug his into one of your outside outlets and siphon the internet off of you.