The Sony Pii!

[Uraniun235]

To be fair...

Atari 2600
1977 price: $199.95
Adjusted for inflation: $648.83

Colecovision
1982 price: $199.95
Adjusted: $405.63

(thanks go to one of the Slashdorks for above numbers)

That said, we've all gotten used to cheaper consoles, so it's still a gamble for Sony.

[Duckie]

To be fair...

Atari 2600
1977 price: $199.95
Adjusted for inflation: $648.83

Colecovision
1982 price: $199.95
Adjusted: $405.63

(thanks go to one of the Slashdorks for above numbers)

That said, we've all gotten used to cheaper consoles, so it's still a gamble for Sony.

To be fair, the Atari 2600 also presided over the Video Game Industry Crash.

I don't know if that's a precedent Sony wants to be setting.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

That's a dumb argument if I've ever heard one. The crash happened purely due to the industry practices that were going on between about 1982 and 1983, five to six years after the VCS was released. There's no basis for comparison, and frankly the idea is idiotic.

The VCS cost so much because of the standards of living at the time, and due to the technology itself used in the system being so new.

[Duckie]

That's a dumb argument if I've ever heard one. The crash happened purely due to the industry practices that were going on between about 1982 and 1983, five to six years after the VCS was released. There's no basis for comparison, and frankly the idea is idiotic.

The VCS cost so much because of the standards of living at the time, and due to the technology itself used in the system being so new.

True. But the entire comparision of the cost is pretty dumb in my opinion, since not only has the target focus but the actual division of expenses among the targets has changed. I'm not sure if Division of Expenses is the proper term I'm looking for here...

Still, I must concede that my idea was rather spurious and loosely connected even before I started thinking about it. My apologies for not thinking before posting.

[UCBooties]

I agree with the earlier sentiment that I will most likely end up with a PS3 because of the game selection precedent of this generation. Also, I've had a good enough experience with my PSP to think that Sony may have cleaned up their act as far as hard-ware quality goes. On the other hand, this E3 has really swayed me towards the Revolution (I know it's the Wii, but that name is damn hard to get used to) and even the XBox 360 which I had thus far regarded as a major dissapointment looks to be getting shit I want in the form of BioShock, Fable 2, and Oblivian. The last few days have really flipped my perceptions. It didn't bother me when it was revealed that the PS3 controller was going to incorporate Wii style sensors. But what has bothered me since is that, even more so than the 360, Sony seems to have upped the price without upping the ante. I have gotten a lot of enjoyment out of all three companies, but I admit I was very skeptical about nintendo's plans and very excited about the PS3, now its reversed and I'm glad to be wrong about Nintendo but I'm pretty dissapointed in Sony.

[Molyneux]

I was planning, at one point, to get a PS3. That is no longer an option for me; I simply cannot afford the system.

As of right now, the ONLY gaming purchases I'm planning on making in the near future are a Revolution, Twilight Princess, the PC version of SPORE, and possibly a Nintendo DS when the price drops.

[Darth Wong]

To be fair...

Atari 2600
1977 price: $199.95
Adjusted for inflation: $648.83

Colecovision
1982 price: $199.95
Adjusted: $405.63

(thanks go to one of the Slashdorks for above numbers)

That said, we've all gotten used to cheaper consoles, so it's still a gamble for Sony.

Back then, a floppy drive cost $600. A VCR cost more than a thousand dollars. You have to compare in the context of the high electronics prices of that era.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Back then, a floppy drive cost $600. A VCR cost more than a thousand dollars. You have to compare in the context of the high electronics prices of that era.

That's because a lot of that technology was brand new, much like how DVD was so pricey in '98 when it came out. With the PS3, you're getting a Cell based system and not only that, one with Blu-Ray. Both were pretty much experimental pieces not long ago, so it's a gamble of whether you want tried-and-tested for cheaper, or potentially revolutionary for a bit more dough.

I couldn't give a shit for HD-DVD, but if Cell delivers, I'm for it (after a price reduction. My cash is going towards that PC upgrade first).

[Darth Wong]

That's because a lot of that technology was brand new, much like how DVD was so pricey in '98 when it came out.

And it offered capabilities that were huge improvements over prior technologies. The early VCRs opened up an entire new market that didn't exist at all beforehand. The early floppy drives were a gigantic step up from audio cassette tapes as a data storage medium.

With the PS3, you're getting a Cell based system and not only that, one with Blu-Ray. Both were pretty much experimental pieces not long ago, so it's a gamble of whether you want tried-and-tested for cheaper, or potentially revolutionary for a bit more dough.

Revolutionary technology at the back-end doesn't mean shit to the consumer if it doesn't give me revolutionary new capabilities at the front-end.

I couldn't give a shit for HD-DVD, but if Cell delivers, I'm for it (after a price reduction. My cash is going towards that PC upgrade first).

As I said, I couldn't care less how a CPU is built. If I don't see a huge difference onscreen, then it's not revolutionary no matter how many white papers and wanktastic website articles there are.

[Admiral Valdemar]

That's why it still remains to be seen. For both previous PS systems, you didn't even scrape the surface of capability until midway through their lives, the programmers just weren't able to make full use of the system hardware at the start. If the PS3 can offer far more in the future that easily surpasses the other systems, then it may edge out over them. All consoles have seemingly sub-par games at launch compared to when they near retirement, but whether the later games manage to make full use of what's in the box is the deciding factor. Depending on fanbase, those loyal may see the full potential, but if they get conned...

I suppose it's more analogous to 64-bit CPUs today. No one sees anything different, and so they're slow to really take-off. But in the future, you can do a lot more with it when everyone gets used to working with that new hardware. This is what Cell is likely to follow. Or it could be hot air. The PS2's "Emotion Engine" was a letdown, though I heard they scrapped the original plan due to cost, ironically.

[Davis 51]

That's why it still remains to be seen. For both previous PS systems, you didn't even scrape the surface of capability until midway through their lives, the programmers just weren't able to make full use of the system hardware at the start. If the PS3 can offer far more in the future that easily surpasses the other systems, then it may edge out over them. All consoles have seemingly sub-par games at launch compared to when they near retirement, but whether the later games manage to make full use of what's in the box is the deciding factor. Depending on fanbase, those loyal may see the full potential, but if they get conned...

Exactly. Compare God of War's graphics to any first-gen PS2 game. Or better yet, compare any First-Gen gamecube title to Resident Evil 4. If you don't see a difference, you are blind.

Right now, although the PS3 games look great, the difference between them and PS2 games isn't that big. If it does indeed deliver, I won't get one until the price goes WAY down.

[RedImperator]

Heck, Robin Williams crashed Spore.

In any event, I really don't see Sony getting hurt very badly. It's a fucking expensive machine, but people are fanboys. People who had a PS2 and not an XBox won't buy an Xbox 360, they'll wait for a PS3. Or theywill buy both- fuck that's what my brother is doing. I don't see anything changing unless Sony fucks up some more.

Fuck that shit. I switched from Nintendo to Sony after the SNES because the N64 was pure shit and the PS2 had a lot more games that I wanted to play than the GameCube. But for $600, I'll go back to Nintendo, or if the game selection on that isn't what I want, I'll go to the XBox. Hell, I wound up only really used the PS2 for Madden and Grand Theft Auto anyway. I can wait for Grand Theft Auto to hit the XBox for that price, and Madden will be out on all three consoles.

No doubt there's a Sony fanboy component of the market which will buy the PS3 because Sony gives them happy feelings in their pants. But I doubt that category covers a lot of current PS2 owners. Shit, given the shoddy manufacturing that obviously went into my PS2, you'd be hard pressed to get me to buy a PS3 even if it was comparable in price to an XBox.

[Darth Servo]

To be fair...

Atari 2600
1977 price: $199.95
Adjusted for inflation: $648.83

Today, you can get the system and 10 games all in a little joystick for $20.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Heck, Robin Williams crashed Spore.

In any event, I really don't see Sony getting hurt very badly. It's a fucking expensive machine, but people are fanboys. People who had a PS2 and not an XBox won't buy an Xbox 360, they'll wait for a PS3. Or theywill buy both- fuck that's what my brother is doing. I don't see anything changing unless Sony fucks up some more.

Fuck that shit. I switched from Nintendo to Sony after the SNES because the N64 was pure shit and the PS2 had a lot more games that I wanted to play than the GameCube. But for $600, I'll go back to Nintendo, or if the game selection on that isn't what I want, I'll go to the XBox. Hell, I wound up only really used the PS2 for Madden and Grand Theft Auto anyway. I can wait for Grand Theft Auto to hit the XBox for that price, and Madden will be out on all three consoles.

No doubt there's a Sony fanboy component of the market which will buy the PS3 because Sony gives them happy feelings in their pants. But I doubt that category covers a lot of current PS2 owners. Shit, given the shoddy manufacturing that obviously went into my PS2, you'd be hard pressed to get me to buy a PS3 even if it was comparable in price to an XBox.

Yes, I think people are vastly overestimating the number of die-hard Sony fanboys. Sure, the Internet seems to be chock full of them, but all the blowhards on the Internet put together are a small minority of a 100 million unit market. The vast majority of PS2 owners are more or less casual gamers with no brand loyalty whatsoever. Also, a lot of the more vocal fanboys are minors who won't be making the household purchasing decisions, and with parents who will balk at the price. Some people seem to think that the fanboy demographic will move millions of PS3's at any price, but I just don't see it. Hundreds of thousands, yes, but millions?

[Stark]

Many late buyers of PS2s simply bought it because it had the most games. People like that (ie, many parents) won't buy a PS3 for the same reason: the other two will have more games. I don't think the PS3 will appeal to casual, non-diehard gamers AT ALL, since it's the last, the most expensive, etc.

[Spyder]

Sony will need a brilliant launch titles. If they focus on getting brilliant games out at launch instead of trying to promote how awesome their console is then they should be able to recover significant ground.

[Vympel]

People like that (ie, many parents) won't buy a PS3 for the same reason: the other two will have more games.

XBox 360, maybe, but the notion of the Wii having tons of games- bah. It'd be a miracle, the way Nintendo has fucked it up two consoles in a row. I mean, god, ~550 games for Nintendo Gamecube, well over ~1,200 for the PS2.

[Stark]

I am, of course, believing the list of scheduled launch titles. This may be optimistic.

Are you serious that there's 550 games for GC? I've seen maybe 90 in my whole life, most being uninspired cross-ports.

[Vympel]

Are you serious that there's 550 games for GC? I've seen maybe 90 in my whole life, most being uninspired cross-ports.

Yeah, I was surprised too- the amount of games I've ever seen on the shelves has been less than 90, and most sucked ass. It must refer to Japanese games that no one in the West gives a toss about.

[Instant Sunrise]

Are you serious that there's 550 games for GC? I've seen maybe 90 in my whole life, most being uninspired cross-ports.

Yeah, I was surprised too- the amount of games I've ever seen on the shelves has been less than 90, and most sucked ass. It must refer to Japanese games that no one in the West gives a toss about.

I would venture that the only reason that the Gamecube held up after launch was Super Smash Brothers Melee. It is the GCN equivalent of Halo. SSBM carried the system until Wind Waker came out.

[Pick]

At the same time, though, I've run into a startlingly large amount of people with no concept of money. I wouldn't be surprised to see a decent amount of morons sticking a PS3 on their Visa cards as long as the initial launch is inspiring enough.

[Uraniun235]

If any of my friends grab a PS3 at launch, I'm going to take their box and try to sell it on eBay.

*crosses fingers and hopes for high demand coupled with low supplies*

[Omega-185]

People like that (ie, many parents) won't buy a PS3 for the same reason: the other two will have more games.

XBox 360, maybe, but the notion of the Wii having tons of games- bah. It'd be a miracle, the way Nintendo has fucked it up two consoles in a row. I mean, god, ~550 games for Nintendo Gamecube, well over ~1,200 for the PS2.

And if you had been paying attention you would have noticed that 20 titles have been confirmed for the revolution lauch. How many did the 360 have? 3 or 4. Then there is also the fact that most of the 3rd party developers have come back to the wii which means more games. And finally there is the fact that the Wii compleatly pwned the competition at E3. I realise that Nintendo's last few systems have not been the greatest but the Wii seems to have reversed that or atleast that is the impression.

Of course you will probably dismiss me as a fanboy for pointing out the facts

[Davis 51]

Omega, you fucking idiot!

If you are going to try and defend Nintendo, at least get the fucking facts right! You're just giving him ammunition.

Amped 3 (2K Games)
Call of Duty 2 (Activision)
Condemned (Sega)
Dead Or Alive 4 (Tecmo)
Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (Bethesda)
Final Fantasy XI (Microsoft)
Full Auto (Sega)
Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter (Ubisoft)
Gun (Activision)
Kameo: Elements of Power (Microsoft)
Madden NFL 06 (EA)
NBA 2K6 (2K Games)
NHL 2K6 (2K Games)
The Outfit (THQ)
Perfect Dark LE (Microsoft)
Project Gotham Racing 3 (Microsoft)
Quake 4 (Activision)
Ridge Racer 6 (Namco)
Saints Row (THQ)
Tony Hawk's American Wasteland (Activision)
Top Spin 2 (2K Games)

source

That being stated, it looks like there are going to be plenty of launch titles.

[UCBooties]

Actually they had 18 launch titles so check your facts. The reason it seemed like there were so few is because there were only a couple worth caring about. If you think that 20 games at launch means that they're going to have twenty awesome hits than you haven't been paying attention to any launch in video game history. And I don't think you are a fanboy because you try to include facts in a debate (however poorly). I call you a fanboy because you said "they pwned the competition" as one of your facts.