Is the PS3 overpriced?

[Alex Vandar]

AHAHAHAHA. AHA. Ha. Haha.

In short, yes. Yes it is.

[Aaron]

You estimate value by the cost of the components, by the electronics and pieces inside.

DVD's, as of right now, hold a max of 4.7 Gigabytes per layer as far as I know. The Blu-ray holds 25 per layer. This means, pretty much, it looks better. You can get a clearer picture, you can hold more, you can do more on layer of Blu-ray as you can on roughly 5 layers of DVD (Double layers is the norm now, so it's 1 Blu-ray disc for 2 and a half DVD's). For the layman, sure, it plays movies, just like the DVD player, but it does so better than the DVD player.

It's like going from analog to digital television. If you don't care about how the picture looks, there's no real reason for you to shell out to upgrade to a better model. If you don't care that the technical specifications don't allow as much on one console as the other, than it doesn't really matter which you go with, and you're going to go with the cheaper of them. Sure, neither of which can encode the images directly onto your brain, but it's pretty clear which gives you the better picture.

As for the price of the Blu-ray, pricing down consoles for a loss has been the practice for years. The goal is to make up for it in the sales of other goods, the software, the peripherals, and other things. Nintendo and Microsoft do the same thing, only they can afford to outprice Sony because of their specs. Sony is taking a huge loss per console for the PS3.

As for loyalty, I don't care at all who releases the consoles or what other people's personal opinions are about companies. If Joe Bob wants to compare one company to the empire and the other to the Jedi rebels, he can, but I won't buy the tripe. I'm not of the persuasion that any of these companies really care about more than trying to draw as big of a piece of the pie as they can. If I get one of these consoles, it will be the one that has the most games that I want to play on it, whether Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo. I don't believe any of the companies is out for the common gamer, that any of them are OMG EVIL empires or any of it. They are all competing for the gaming market and are going to try to spin it any way possible to get them that advantage. They just have different business strategies. Analyzing the bias of anyone and any company talking is just part of the game.

As for which strategies work better, I take interest in it more as an economist than as a consumer or gamer, because I find it interesting. If any or all of these companies folded tommorrow, I wouldn't really care. But the strategies are so divergent at this point that it makes it interesting to see which of them works and which doesn't. I want to see if the hype surrounding Nintendo is genuine, or if they just have far more vocal fans than the other companies; if a large number of people are willing to shell out so much more money for a blu-ray player that's going to have to compete with the HD-DVD (ala Betamax vs. VHS); if Microsofts lack of really big moves is going to destroy any advantage they gained by releasing their console first; if the lack of the big-name exclusives they had in the past is going to come back and haunt Nintendo; if the laser-pointer control and the seperate controller peripherals are really going to be as much of a draw as the vocal Nintendo fans and the company itself claim they are going to be. I don't care about the consoles for anything other than the games, but the business behind it is fascinating for me.

[Mitera Nikkou]

That's all that the Blu-ray is about? *Blinks* Eh... I'm satisfied with how things look as they are. I still haven't seen the difference between VHS and DVD. But I guess that's because I'm satisfied as far as I can identify what's on the screen. Still, a grand for an upgrade like that still seems to be too much to me.

Also, I'm more interested in the games than the consoles. Except when a console doesn't give you a choice with something additional, and poor people like me can't afford the console because of an added feature. -_-

Where we differ most is with business. It might make the economy interesting, but I think that it ultimately isn't concerned about the welfare of the nation. It's just every business for itself. I guess I'm just boring like that and have unrealistic ideals. ^_^;

[Aaron]

It's not really a grand for the upgrade, it's a few hundred bucks. I've watched things in HD compared to analog, if you are looking, there really is a significant amount of detail that is otherwise just blurred in. But the image looking better isn't all it's about. More space = more to do with a game. Games could look the same as before, but have much more gameplay. They could look a little better and still have more than other games. A better medium basically just means more options. Though, again, if you dont' care about the image looking sharper or having more detail, or about what each disc can potentially hold, then that really wouldn't matter. And that's perfectly fine, every person has different things they look for.

I'm also not entirely privvy to the individual specs for each system (and wouldn't even be able to begin to understand it even if I was)

Where we differ most is with business. It might make the economy interesting, but I think that it ultimately isn't concerned about the welfare of the nation. It's just every business for itself.

The welfare of the nation isn't really affected all that much by the videogame industry. There are far more important and influential industries at work if it's the wealth of the nation you are concerned about (energy, medical, agricultural, etc etc etc). The videogame industry would probably rate around the sports industry in how little it really matters to the overall economy of the nation, it just happens to be one of the easier ones to compare because it is a bit more controlled.

[Mitera Nikkou]

Well, I meant just Blu-ray itself, outside of being attached to anything. It's a grand for that, right? And I meant businesses in general. If they're moderately successful in America, it shows. But that's all that it is: based on how well they're doing. But if the businesses were to find more money elsewhere, we'd feel that as well. There's no true stability with any business, whose aim is to ensure that the economy and, thus the citizens of the nation, are good. They're just self-sustaining. Even though many do have billions worth of extra cash that could improve the country they're in. But since none are really affiliated with a country, they are just concerned with themselves. *Shrugs* I don't know if I'm making any sense, but I'll stop this here since I'm getting off-topic anyway. Maybe we can continue this somewhere where it's more appropriate if you'd like.

[Aaron]

Well, I meant just Blu-ray itself, outside of being attached to anything. It's a grand for that, right?

Oh, an actual Blu-ray player, yeah, I misunderstood. If what ZF says is true, a blu-ray alone costs around that, so yeah, it is a significant invesment on it's own, especially considering that it's competing with the HD-DVD. But on the PS3's release, it would be much cheaper than that, and it uses Blu-ray as its primary medium.

[Lucky]

I think it is. Gessh! @_@

I'm going to have to wait untill the price drops. You know the poor college student bit. >>

I dunno. What's the price?

$499 for basic (20 gig hard drive)

$599 for premium (60 gig hard drive)

>>;

You also for got that the preminum will have extra hardwear featers like Wi-Fi and Bluetooth made internaly into the system.



Personly thow I think sony made a bad move but putting so much expensive stuff into there system.
A premium 360 plus and Wii is the same as a premium PS3.
A core 360 and a Wii is the same as a core PS3.

2 Consoles>1 Console

And on top of that Grand Thieft Audo, Final Fantsey, and Resident evil. All big games that keep sony going. And there going to be made for both the PS3 and 360.

When you can play the same 3 games for $200 less I don't see why people even go for the PS3 option. But that's my option and the fact I dislike all of sonys 1st party games, Unlike Ninitedo and Microsoft games.

=/

[Daffodil Aura]

Technically, it is underpriced. All consoles are. Console pricing is subsidized by the sale of the games.

On the other hand - only a couple people want Bluray. Since they're foisting off another technology on us that very few people want or care about (is it going to flop, too, like UMD?) it is overpriced. I'm not going to pay that price for something I don't need.

[Cutey Kerina]

Blu-ray just exists for pirating tech and I figure it's going to fail just like UMD did. You can upsample DVDs. It makes this moot. We're not gonna you get a new established format till 2015 or later. DVDs had been talked about since the early 90's and only now are starting to get acceptance due to that you can buy one for less than 100 bucks. Actually having VHS and DVD built together was the important part and there are still tons of TV that can't really support DVDs out there. There was a really good article on the presentation of a formatt and how long it took to be accepted.

People loath to spend a lot of money - rule 1.
Variable - People are paying more for necessities lately
Result - Video games are going into a cycle of recession. I don't even where the console are right now. Wii looks to have the best chance for success in this environment. It's a low-risk investment.

[Aaron]

And on top of that Grand Thieft Audo, Final Fantsey, and Resident evil. All big games that keep sony going. And there going to be made for both the PS3 and 360.

Final Fantasy XI was rereleased for the 360, but the next actual title in the series is currently slated to be a PS3 exclusive, unless you have information I don't. The franchise is still

Blu-ray just exists for pirating tech and I figure it's going to fail just like UMD did. You can upsample DVDs. It makes this moot. We're not gonna you get a new established format till 2015 or later. DVDs had been talked about since the early 90's and only now are starting to get acceptance due to that you can buy one for less than 100 bucks. Actually having VHS and DVD built together was the important part and there are still tons of TV that can't really support DVDs out there. There was a really good article on the presentation of a formatt and how long it took to be accepted.

UMD was an entirely different problem. It was reliant on one device, which could already play DVD, and it was done better and cheaper other places. The Blu-ray and HD-DVD are both being included in the next wave of DVD players from several major companies.

I can't really say anything about upsampling DVD's, since I don't even know what it entails. But the more they try to work with DVD's, the more glitched they become. The double-layering has caused quite a few problems of it's own.

This next wave isn't really a full-blown new medium as much as it is an upgrade on a current one, upgrading the discs. Hi-def is gaining in popularity rather quickly at this point and it's become obvious that DVD's are limited in their delivery in it, which is why most producers are aiming for players that are either Blu-ray, HD-DVD or both compatable, as well as being back compatible. At this point, I'm sure that one of these or a similar storage mechanism is going to become commonplace well before 2015, although the next few years will be a battle of which. It's completely possible that Blu-Ray will flop faster than a fat fish out of water. It's also possible that they both will fail and some third party will swoop in and pick up the pieces. I don't think DVD use will end with their release, but I think we're going to see something like them become successful more quickly. The current generation tends to adapt much more quickly to new technology than generations of the past.

[P-tan]

I dunno, its not out yet..(did you miss me guys? i missed u)

[Cow Belle]

This next wave isn't really a full-blown new medium as much as it is an upgrade on a current one, upgrading the discs. Hi-def is gaining in popularity rather quickly at this point and it's become obvious that DVD's are limited in their delivery in it, which is why most producers are aiming for players that are either Blu-ray, HD-DVD or both compatable, as well as being back compatible. At this point, I'm sure that one of these or a similar storage mechanism is going to become commonplace well before 2015, although the next few years will be a battle of which. It's completely possible that Blu-Ray will flop faster than a fat fish out of water. It's also possible that they both will fail and some third party will swoop in and pick up the pieces. I don't think DVD use will end with their release, but I think we're going to see something like them become successful more quickly. The current generation tends to adapt much more quickly to new technology than generations of the past.

I'm not to sure why people will wan't a Higher def. I mean a few people would but I'm sure the masses wont. Take a look a history. When the maket has the "beta vs the VSH tapes". The VSH tapes won. Even thoght the beta tape was better to the VSH tape. I think this new format of DVD will flop do to the same do to the price. >>;

[Cutey Kerina]

But you must consider the variable that newer generations are also broke and/or fruggal. DVDs upsampling can provide 720P which is indistinguishable from 1080i which is what most next-gen DVD media will provide.

Extras and multiple movies on a single disk is the only real advantage. Also consider the output except on particular HDTVs that have full HDMI 2.0 support (not clear on the names but I know many people will be borked) will only get 720p...same as upsampling.

[Aaron]

I'm not to sure why people will wan't a Higher def. I mean a few people would but I'm sure the masses wont. Take a look a history. When the maket has the "beta vs the VSH tapes". The VSH tapes won. Even thoght the beta tape was better to the VSH tape. I think this new format of DVD will flop do to the same do to the price. >>;

There's one problem with your comparison, a new format still won that war. VHS and Betamax were in direct competition with each other to become the new standardized format, like HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are heading to do. It wasn't "old format vs. new format."

But I'm a reasonable guy and I'm going to make your argument for you with a more accurate example. Laserdisc was released 2 years after VHS. The discs were longer lasting (they didn't require direct contact with the information baring load) and had a higher resolution.

But, alas, the Laserdisc failed for more than one reason. It was heavy, easier to damage on handling, and each side could hold only about 60 minutes at it's height, which meant most any movie had to be paused half-way through and the disc turned over. You couldn't record on them and the prices of the actual discs were kept artificially much higher and many weren't properly manufactured, which led to the infamous "laser-rot". All of which contributed to the lack of success of the format, although it lasted until 2000, which means it wasn't a complete and total failure, just not as popular as VHS.

But you must consider the variable that newer generations are also broke and/or fruggal.

We must be talking to different generations, because most I know have some disposable income are aren't afraid to use it, being, in fact, the exact opposite of frugal. There are people on both sides of the fence. What I must consider is the basics of demand-side economics.

As for the sampling, unless you put it in laymans terms so I can check to see if what I find confirms or supports, I can't really respond, since what you just said is over my head.

[Cutey Kerina]

Ok, what about the "cheap-a**es" :-p There are plenty of those. A marginally better video output for thousands of dollars won't get the majority of people I know my age riled up. Cool DVDs will. One speaker surround sound will. Young people would rather buy a nice computer before an overpriced attempt at copywrite rewriting. Blu-Ray and HD-DVD is not a technology that will catch on now or ever with the mainstream public. I figure a third option will come along at a later time with a much better hook and fairer pricing. Simpler, easier, cheaper. VOD via broadband may even be it if the telecom jerks didn't bilk us out of national fiber-optic networks years ago.