• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Cnet dude doesn't think the $399 PS3 is what Sony needs

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rayne.S said:
GAF Before 40Gb : Sony NEEDS $399, or else GAMEOVER !

GAF After 40Gb : SONY IS DESPERATE !!!!! DOOM !

Anyhow, i think 399 is exactly what Sony needs ... although i really think BC is what gamers really need. So much for supporting PS2 for at least 4 yars to come ...

Price drops aren't doing shit without games. Especially since there are two more successful competitors selling their consoles for less..
 
Karma said:
Selling more consoles than the 360? Has Sony fallen so far that this is considered a win? Outselling the 360 and losing half it`s market share is a fail not a win. Now, for Microsoft to get anywhere near the sales of the PS3 is a huge win for them.

What is considered a win for the PS3?


-Blu-ray currently winning the next gen format war agianst the HD-DVD with the help of the PS3

-The PS2 is still outselling the Xbox 360 worldwide

-PS3 is selling at a similar rate to the Xbox 360 even with a $200 higher price point for a year.

- PSP still selling well and Sony succeeded in entering the handheld market where other companies failed, although its not selling as well as the DS but that doesnt mean they cant coexist with each other.
 
DeaconKnowledge said:
Price drops aren't doing shit without games. Especially since there are two more successful competitors selling their consoles for less..
Well you know, at the end of this year Sony will have published 13 retail games for the console and MS 15 for theirs. It's not long before they go past as far as 1st party lineup goes.
 
DeaconKnowledge said:
Price drops aren't doing shit without games. Especially since there are two more successful competitors selling their consoles for less..

Price drops = more consoles sold = more companies willing to make more games. It's sure as hell a lot better than leaving it at $600 and twiddling their thumbs.
 
gkrykewy said:
http://grkmcrp.com/tinfoil.jpg[IMG][/QUOTE]

Judging from how desperate people are to damage control this price cut, you better hope they're virals because if they're not, we're dealing with some sad [B]sad[/B] individuals. And speaking of sad this thread was most probably copied from OA.
 
beerbelly said:
:lol Back to my original comment that made you reply. So you think dropping $200 and releasing 4 SKUs was part of the 10 year plan?

Well as much as I hate that laughing emoticon I'm relieved to see your not taking this seriously. What I believe isn't much since I'm on the outside not even being able to look in but you asked so Ill accommodate. They originally said from the beginning they will launch different consoles as time goes by. Does it look off that they seem to be coming out quicker than what we would conceive as normal? Sure. Remember though they have 360 and Wii gripping the market faster then they would like so making changes sooner than later for the long term agenda should also be looked upon as an adjustment of the 10 year plan.
 
BenjaminBirdie said:
How can it end the thread when it's already been debunked in the post above yours?

It can't, thanks to the predictable nature of posts made by the likes of you, and others.

:D
 
Wollan said:
Well you know, at the end of this year Sony will have published 13 retail games for the console and MS 15 for theirs. It's not long before they go past as far as 1st party lineup goes.

Isn't that a bit irrelavent when a game they didn't even publish but was exclusive to their platform sells as much as two or three of those?

belvedere said:
It can't, thanks to the predictable nature of posts made by the likes of you, and others.

:D

I'd like to think I'm contributing a bit more to the discussion than, literally, "QFMFT, /thread".
 
RavenFox said:
lol [I really did laugh] I actually have a job and don't work for Sony so I think not. I buy electronics for entertainment but my post was an observation. Yours is a dream your wishing to come true. One day you'll laugh at all this. Well I hope you will.

Keep on laughing, old sport. Having a sense of humor is good for your health!

And yeah, Sony's 10 year plan is shot to hell right now. A $200 price drop within a year of release is unprecedented and kinda insane if you think about it.
 
DeaconKnowledge said:
Price drops aren't doing shit without games. Especially since there are two more successful competitors selling their consoles for less..

4588soemb_av.gif
 
Rayne.S said:
GAF Before July : Sony NEEDS a pricedrop, or else GAMEOVER !

GAF After 60Gb price drop / starter pack : lol 100$ pricedrop, not enough, forget it. $200 drop or bust

GAF After 40Gb : Sony desperate confirmed. Also, PS3 has no games and BC is like the most important feature EVER.

Fixed for accuracy.
 
BenjaminBirdie said:
Isn't that a bit irrelavent when a game they didn't even publish but was exclusive to their platform sells as much as two or three of those?
This sentence is like a puzzle. Specifics needed.
 
kevm3 said:
wahhhhh wahhhh ps3 is too expensive! I can't afford it! $600 dollars!

*Sony drops price

This isn't what Sony needs! Where are the games? PS3 dropping the price won't help!

Will these guys choose something and stick with it?

It's always been about the price:features ratio and perceived future outlook for me.

The PS3 wasn't worth $500 at launch when everyone expected the thing to be sold out for months and ultimately surpass the 360 in every territory. If the PS3 wasn't worth $500 for me WITH BC and a positive prospectus, it sure as hell isn't worth it at $400 without BC and quite literally a worst case scenario situation.

People keep using the same tired accusations of others having an agenda when their perceived value of the PS3 dwindles. Why are you and others so hell-bent on trying to convince us what $400 is worth to us? You were able to justify the purchase for yourself, but that doesn't apply to very many other people.
 
BenjaminBirdie said:
I'd like to think I'm contributing a bit more to the discussion than, literally, "QFMFT, /thread".

Don't forget conveniently overlooking noteworthy information such as the fall line-up that more than a few sources have deemed the best this year.
 
Forgotten Ancient said:
It's always been about the price:features ratio and perceived future outlook for me.

The PS3 wasn't worth $500 at launch when everyone expected the thing to be sold out for months and ultimately surpass the 360 in every territory. If the PS3 wasn't worth $500 for me WITH BC and a positive prospectus, it sure as hell isn't worth it at $400 without BC and quite literally a worst case scenario situation.

People keep using the same tired accusations of others having an agenda when their perceived value of the PS3 dwindles. Why are you and others so hell-bent on trying to convince us what $400 is worth to us? You were able to justify the purchase for yourself, but that doesn't apply to very many other people.

Its not worth $500 to you and there are many who say its worth more. Your 'us' is whom?
 
Rayne.S said:
GAF Before 40Gb : Sony NEEDS $399, or else GAMEOVER !

GAF After 40Gb : SONY IS DESPERATE !!!!! DOOM !

Anyhow, i think 399 is exactly what Sony needs ... although i really think BC is what gamers really need. So much for supporting PS2 for at least 4 yars to come ...

I think it's better to say:

GAF with launch PS3 (with BC) at $599: It needs to be at least $399 or else game over.

Gaf with failing PS3 (w/o BC) at $399: It needs to have BC and a healthier lineup.

Give me a PS3 @ $399 with all the features the original $599 model had, and I'll probably bite. Take away features that don't do much to reduce component cost but significantly reduce the value to me for $399 and I won't.

I bought Earthbound for about $100 on Ebay awhile back. I traded my original xbox for a ton of magic cards a few years ago. I gave away my PS2(fat) to make room for a PSlim. The value of certain things to me are different than that of others, and I don't expect them to do the same.

It's not that some people here can't afford $400 for a console; it's that some people don't think it's worth that. Get over it.
 
Forgotten Ancient said:
I think it's better to say:

GAF with launch PS3 (with BC) at $599: It needs to be at least $399 or else game over.

Gaf with failing PS3 (w/o BC) at $399: It needs to have BC and a healthier lineup.

Give me a PS3 @ $399 with all the features the original $599 model had, and I'll probably bite. Take away features that don't do much to reduce component cost but significantly reduce the value to me for $399 and I won't.

I bought Earthbound for about $100 on Ebay awhile back. I traded my original xbox for a ton of magic cards a few years ago. I gave away my PS2(fat) to make room for a PSlim. The value of certain things to me are different than that of others, and I don't expect them to do the same.

It's not that some people here can't afford $400 for a console; it's that some people don't think it's worth that. Get over it.

Good post. I can agree with this.

Forgotten Ancient said:
Well, the "us" is obviously the people who don't own a PS3. There's a lot of us, so I can understand your confusion.
I see but if you dont want it no one can force you to get it. Do you think the 360 is worth $399 or $299? I mean with it failing all over the place and all. You give some you get some. No confusion, what you posted could be easily picked apart.
 
chespace said:
Keep on laughing, old sport. Having a sense of humor is good for your health!

And yeah, Sony's 10 year plan is shot to hell right now. A $200 price drop within a year of release is unprecedented and kinda insane if you think about it.

It'd be more accurate to look at it as a 20-33% price drop within the first year, which isn't too unprecedented.
 
BenjaminBirdie said:
Absolutely not. Of course it does. I'm just curious as to whom this sentence fragment refers to:


I was mostly referring to almost weekly comments by the 1up editors on 1upyours and the recent Kotaku article. The later was engraved in my mind mostly due to the history of Kotaku and it's primarily negative catalog of PS3 articles.

http://n4g.com/News-72010.aspx
 
frankthurk said:
Price drops = more consoles sold = more companies willing to make more games. It's sure as hell a lot better than leaving it at $600 and twiddling their thumbs.

Of course it is. But it's not going to open some magical floodgates that shoot the PS3 into the stratosphere sales wise. Price drops are one part of a key plan that includes a healthy gaming library. No company can outright drop the price of their console, dust off their hands and call it a day, which is what a lot of people in this thread are insinuating.
 
Forgotten Ancient said:
I think it's better to say:

GAF with launch PS3 (with BC) at $599: It needs to be at least $399 or else game over.

Gaf with failing PS3 (w/o BC) at $399: It needs to have BC and a healthier lineup.

Give me a PS3 @ $399 with all the features the original $599 model had, and I'll probably bite. Take away features that don't do much to reduce component cost but significantly reduce the value to me for $399 and I won't.

I bought Earthbound for about $100 on Ebay awhile back. I traded my original xbox for a ton of magic cards a few years ago. I gave away my PS2(fat) to make room for a PSlim. The value of certain things to me are different than that of others, and I don't expect them to do the same.

It's not that some people here can't afford $400 for a console; it's that some people don't think it's worth that. Get over it.

The BC argument. It's astonishing how the same people who didn't care about BC
due to X360's shitty BC
became so interested in it (and only it since all the other features are there including WiFi) over night. Why do you think that happened? And considering that X360's BC is particularly bad do you consider the console missing features too?
 
chespace said:
And yeah, Sony's 10 year plan is shot to hell right now. A $200 price drop within a year of release is unprecedented and kinda insane if you think about it.
I wish GCN had dropped to $0 in the first year. :(
 
Forgotten Ancient said:
I think it's better to say:

GAF with launch PS3 (with BC) at $599: It needs to be at least $399 or else game over.

Gaf with failing PS3 (w/o BC) at $399: It needs to have BC and a healthier lineup.

Give me a PS3 @ $399 with all the features the original $599 model had, and I'll probably bite. Take away features that don't do much to reduce component cost but significantly reduce the value to me for $399 and I won't.

I bought Earthbound for about $100 on Ebay awhile back. I traded my original xbox for a ton of magic cards a few years ago. I gave away my PS2(fat) to make room for a PSlim. The value of certain things to me are different than that of others, and I don't expect them to do the same.

It's not that some people here can't afford $400 for a console; it's that some people don't think it's worth that. Get over it.

The BC argument. It's astonishing how the same people who didn't care about BC
due to X360's shitty BC
became so interested in it (and only it since all the other PS3 features are there including WiFi) over night. Why do you think that happened? And considering that X360's BC is particularly bad do you think the console is missing features too?
 
fortified_concept said:
The BC argument. It's astonishing how the same people who didn't care about BC
due to X360's shitty BC
became so interested in it (and only it since all the other features are there including WiFi) over night. Why do you think that happened?
Because more people have and plan to buy in the future more PS2 games than Xbox games?
 
belvedere said:
I was mostly referring to almost weekly comments by the 1up editors on 1upyours and the recent Kotaku article. The later was engraved in my mind mostly due to the history of Kotaku and it's primarily negative catalog of PS3 articles.

http://n4g.com/News-72010.aspx

That's kind of a weird piece. It says PS3 has the most and includes Rock Band but demerits 360 for only having two exclusives.

JoshuaJSlone said:
Because more people have and plan to buy in the future more PS2 games than Xbox games?

Holy shit beaten.

Seriously that seemed like a no-brainer, f_c.
 
fortified_concept said:
The BC argument. It's astonishing how the same people who didn't care about BC
due to X360's shitty BC
became so interested in it (and only it since all the other PS3 features are there including WiFi) over night. Why do you think that happened? And considering that X360's BC is particularly bad do you think the console is missing features too?

Well, I didn't like the Xbox. I mean, I did trade it for some magic cards. I have no games for the original system and don't care about going back to them.

For the PS2 and PSone, it's quite a different story. I have well over 100 games across the two platforms. Those were my main systems for the past 10 years and it was one of the key bullet points for me when initially wanting a PS3 - take that away and you're taking away a reason for me to transition into the next generation.
 
fortified_concept said:
The BC argument. It's astonishing how the same people who didn't care about BC
due to X360's shitty BC
became so interested in it (and only it since all the other features are there including WiFi) over night. Why do you think that happened? And considering that X360's BC is particularly bad do you consider the console missing features too?

That argument can also be turned around to all the PS3 people that talked up the fact the PS3 gives BC while the 360 couldn't get all the games working. So, all the sudden it's NOT important to them now.
 
I don't know if we're still on the "10 year plan" debate at this point, but I'd like to add...


A 10 year console life is only possible for the top selling console of a generation. It has such a big userbase, that even after the next-gen has started, developers still support it cause there's still a lot of money to grab. That's why it was possible with the NES, SNES, PS1 and PS2. The PS3 however is on life support 10 months after it's initial release. No way in hell this console will have a 10 year life if things don't change drastically.
 
belvedere said:
Don't forget conveniently overlooking noteworthy information such as the fall line-up that more than a few sources have deemed the best this year.
:lol

we need a summary of the best quotes from this thread.
 
squatingyeti said:
That argument can also be turned around to all the PS3 people that talked up the fact the PS3 gives BC while the 360 couldn't get all the games working. So, all the sudden it's NOT important to them now.


You can get a PS3 that is compatible with 90-99% of PS1 and PS2 games.

Is it the same with the 360 ?
 
JoshuaJSlone said:
Because more people have and plan to buy in the future more PS2 games than Xbox games?

You bought a 400$ next gen console and you plan on returning to last-gen gaming? Really? And btw the argument still doesn't make sense. Just because PS2 had better library it justifies X360's shitty BC? Wow, that is convenient.
 
DeaconKnowledge said:
Of course it is. But it's not going to open some magical floodgates that shoot the PS3 into the stratosphere sales wise. Price drops are one part of a key plan that includes a healthy gaming library. No company can outright drop the price of their console, dust off their hands and call it a day, which is what a lot of people in this thread are insinuating.

Is Sony dusting off their hands and calling it a day? I'd ask you to quote someone saying that... but I'm sure you could find a person or two in this morass. But I don't see how it really fit as a response to what you were quoting I guess. Saying it's not DOOMED is not the same as saying it's going to go into the stratosphere sales wise...

But then again I guess I should realize I'm on GAF and for some there is no middle ground... it's either failed or the stratosphere.
 
fortified_concept said:
You bought a 400$ next gen console and you plan on returning to last-gen gaming? Really? And btw the argument still doesn't make sense. Just because PS2 had better library it justifies X360's shitty BC? Wow, that convenient.

How is that so crazy? Playing Halo 3, I want to spin back through Halo 2. Are you saying DMC4 is going to be completely independent of 1-3? And that won't even want to just revist it for a few levels?

It happens.
 
Opus Angelorum said:
That would be a thread in itself.

But it would be more productive than this thread.

Can anyone even say what the argument is here?

Of course a price drop will help the PS3, but nowhere near the way it would if it had a strong line-up of software.

YES???


NO????
 
fortified_concept said:
You bought a 400$ next gen console and you plan on returning to last-gen gaming? Really? And btw the argument still doesn't make sense. Just because PS2 had better library it justifies X360's shitty BC?

Yes. Funny you would question that while having a FFVII avatar. Did all gaming previous to this generation suddenly become moot to you? That's kinda depressing.

And I don't think anyone is trying to justify the 360's shitty BC. It's shitty, it sucks, and it's not a reason to buy the system. Most ppl purchased the console with that already in mind. But the shitty BC on the 360 doesn't justify the acceptance of no BC on a PS3.
 
BenjaminBirdie said:
How is that so crazy? Playing Halo 3, I want to spin back through Halo 2. Are you saying DMC4 is going to be completely independent of 1-3? And that won't even want to just revist it for a few levels?

It happens.
Then get the PS3 that allows you to revisit 1-3.

asclepio_gtr said:
Oh the "usual suspects"... And the "Microsoft employees"... Trolling a PS3 related thread...

Why am I not surprised at the employee part.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom