Now this is kind of old news, and I knew about it some months ago, but I just wanted to say: I’m sad.
No more Final Fantasy for me, I’m afraid. I wasn’t around since the beginning, but I’ve been hooked ever since Six, and with all the re-releases I’ve played all of them but 1 & 2. (I own 1 & 2, but I’ve determined the diligence and effort to play them is worth more than the fun).
I love Final Fantasy, and there is no way I could put down $500 on a gaming system. Right now I have a PS2, which was expensive enough already, even though I bought it over almost nine months after it released. I have a Gamecube, which I bought by trading in my old PS1 and a bunch of old games which I hated.
Wow. For that price, it had better do much more than play Play Station 3 games. Clean my house, for instance, or do the laundry. That $500 could go toward a nice computer that does all kinds of tasks. Okay, so it still doesn’t clean my house or do the laundry.
Yes. They might build an alternative for $250 - $300.
But the whole freakin’ thing is might.
A few choice quotes from your link:
Hmmm… I notice a could in there.
So someone has analysed the industry and they say thet the PS3 might cost as much as $500 because Sony is said to be pushing for more of an entertainment center. So there’s a possibility of greater functionality. And these beople believe the resulting consle could be closer to the PSX.
Can we hold off on the widespread panic until Sony tells us … say … anything?
It’ll come down eventually. By the time they’re charging what it’s really worth, there’ll be tons of games for real cheap (like there is now with the PS2).
Or it’ll bomb. Either way, I’ll never spend that much on a gaming system, unless it’s a computer.
That’s basically what this is. It sounds like Sony is considering how it can break into the networked home market, which is one of those waves of the future I keep hearing about, but don’t see any real progress on.
I very seriously doubt it will be that expensive. This is not any sort of an announcement from Sony, but a third-party projection based on… well, I’m not entirely sure what it is based on. Or who this WMS even is. Anyone heard of them before? Should anyone listen to what they’re saying, or are they just talking out their ass?
Sony has completely dominated the console market by being the most affordable, most accesible console available. They are not going to fuck this up by pricing thier next gen console out of reach of most consumers. This isn’t Nintendo we’re talking about; this is one of the largest, most savvy competitors in the home electronics market. They aren’t going to shoot themselves in the foot like that.
Most affordable? Playstations have always been more expensive than same generation Nintendo consoles. Sony dominates soley thanks too image. Playstations are “cool”, Nintendo is “kiddie”.
The home videogame market won’t bear a $500 gaming machine – in America, that is. Now they might charge the equivalent in Japan, where the videogame industry is much more widely accepted, but in America, if you ain’t under $300, you ain’t sellin’.
Sony and Microsoft both know this. You give away the hardware at a loss, and you make up the revenue in software sales, which is conversely much less expensive to produce and profit from. It’s the primary reason why Sega got out of the home system market – they simply couldn’t bear the crushing weight of the losses from the Dreamcast system. The best business model for them was as a software manufacturer.
Fret not. The PS3 and Xbox 2 will retail at around $299 when it’s all said and done.
What Miller said. Sony kicked Sega in the teeth in the U.S. market by releasing the PS1 for $100 less than the Sega Saturn. They played the price game so well with the PS2 that Microsoft had to sell XBoxes at a loss to keep their head above water. The only way I can see them selling the PS3 for $500 is if Sony’s board of directors has secretly been replaced by a crack team of monkeys.
That being said, the people in this thread have made me feel better. I mean, that’s part of the reason why we post, isn’t it? You come upon something - and I have heard before the PS3 would be $500, it’s just that a brief search brought up the link in question first - and you come here and post it to see what people say.
I hope you all are right! I’m already missing the next FF! FF X-2 just didn’t do it for me, too damn cutesy and a lot of boring parts.
No, Sony dominates because they have the largest selection. Nintendo stays afloat because they don’t license their most popular titles out for the completionists to play.
You’re right, I should have said “better value.” A PS2, unlike a GameCube, doubles as a DVD player. If you’re a low-end electronic consumer with just a TV/VCR, what are you going to buy? A GameCube that only plays GameCube games, or a PS2 that doubles as a DVD player?
On top of that, you have a vastly larger library of games to choose from, thanks to both Sony’s habit of encouraging third-party developers (while Nintendo seems, inexplicably, to actively discourage them, if their relationship with Square is any indication) and their decision to make the PS2 backwards compatible with PSX titles.
It’s not nearly as simple as “cool” v. “kiddie.” At every turn, Sony has been making smarter business choices than any of their competitors, and they’ve been reaping the benefits of those decisions. There’s a lot more going on here than image.
Didn’t Microsoft try something like this a few years back? I seem to remember them marketing what appeared to be an overpriced PC that was supposed to be a PC/TV/VCR/DVD all rolled into one.
It seems to me that Nintendo shot itself in the foot by alienating adult gamers with their software releases, even as far back as the Mortal Kombat days. (Remember the bloodless release for the SNES?)
Sony immediately recognized that Nintendo was targeting the cutesy crowd with their titles, and positioned itself as the game system for the adult gamer. Remember, Sony isn’t stupid – they recognized an “in” and took it with fervor. Of course, these days, you can get just as violent fare on Nintendo’s box as you can with any other system, but I think the stigma still remains. It’s not helped that Nintendo’s systems come in a variety of kid-friendly colors, and their controllers look like something a kid created with a 64-box of crayons. Sony’s boxes, and even Microsoft’s, look utilitarian, sleek and cool. This also says nothing of DVD support, which Nintendo was slow and hesitant to utilize.
That’s not to say Nintendo’s offerings are crap – they’re not. It’s just that, by and large, most families only own one gaming system. That system needs to appeal to all the users of a particular household, and since the Atari kids have now gone on to have families of their own, it makes more sense to target the adult and child markets. Nintendo has been slow to embrace this concept.
