Console Pricing Speculation

[SackAttack]

There have been some comments, both here on FOFC and from other sources, to the effect of "how in the world are they going to sell <console here> for less than $400?"

Part of that, of course, is the sheer amount of tech being crammed into these things.

Am I the only one who wonders, though, if the higher pricing (should it come about) might not be part of a marketing ploy? Something along the lines of "If I charge $400 for my console, maybe that'll price my customers out of the two-console market for a few years, and let me build an insurmountable lead."

In the current market, many (though certainly not most) people own both PS2 and Xbox. That works in Microsoft's favor, and doesn't exactly hurt Sony...for the moment.

But if Microsoft is going to steal a march on Sony, and PS3 is only going to be 4-6 months behind instead of the previously expected 9-12 months, if you were considering both consoles, and they launched at $399.99 instead of $299.99, would you still buy both?

How far apart would your purchases be spaced in either eventuality?

[sabotai]

If they charged $400, I'd buy neither and wait for the price to come down.

[Vince]

I'll want one terribly badly, but I don't think even I could justify $400 for a system. I'm also getting to the point where I don't play video games nearly as much as I used to -- now I'm pretty much relegated to online text-sim leagues that I can get to whenever I want to, and which "run" when I'm not there. I don't know if that's because I'm getting a little older (done with College now), or because I'm just losing interest in console gaming.

[Radii]

No way in the world would I pay $400 for a console, at this point I couldn't and wouldn't even pay $300 though. Would have to wait til the prices came down a fair amount, and probably until a Christmas or a birthday.

[MikeVic]

I haven't played a console of mine in around half a year. I've played at friends' houses a bit, but that's it.

Unless the consoles cost less than $200 Cdn and have the greatest game ever on it, I won't be buying. Only game I've played at home recently was World of Warcraft. And once a Sven mod gets released for Half-life 2, there goes the rest of my gaming time. :)

[TazFTW]

After looking at the specs of the PS3, I would have to guess they would go for $399 or they're going to lose a lot of money per console (they'll still lose at $399, just not as much).

I'm not sure how Sony runs its entities but I figure they still look at their bottom line as a whole. Sony Home Video recently purchased MGM, the latest talks with the HD-DVD guys has broken down and it looks like a format war is going to happen. If the war does happen, I believe Sony will focus on pushing their Blu-ray format for home video (which should help the PS3 if Blu-ray becomes the standard).

Microsoft on the other hand, I feel will have to again price the 360 to gain market share.

[dubb93]

After looking at the specs of the PS3, I would have to guess they would go for $399 or they're going to lose a lot of money per console (they'll still lose at $399, just not as much).

I'm not sure how Sony runs its entities but I figure they still look at their bottom line as a whole. Sony Home Video recently purchased MGM, the latest talks with the HD-DVD guys has broken down and it looks like a format war is going to happen. If the war does happen, I believe Sony will focus on pushing their Blu-ray format for home video (which should help the PS3 if Blu-ray becomes the standard).

Microsoft on the other hand, I feel will have to again price the 360 to gain market share.

I'd say Sony is going to take a fucking on each PS3 they sell. The gamespot article I posted earlier says that the graphics chip that will power the PS3 would cost 1,000 dollars by itself today. I know that technology goes down in price quickly, but that is just the graphics chip. No matter how they price it, they are going to be losing loads of money on each one they sell.

[RPI-Fan]

I'd say Sony is going to take a fucking on each PS3 they sell. The gamespot article I posted earlier says that the graphics chip that will power the PS3 would cost 1,000 dollars by itself today. I know that technology goes down in price quickly, but that is just the graphics chip. No matter how they price it, they are going to be losing loads of money on each one they sell.

If we estimate that the whole machine, then, costs $1,200, that is a $900 loss on each machine.

For each $50 game, they make, to be generous, $40? That means people need to, on average, buy over 20 new games to even out the purchase. Can't imagine that is ever a number they can attain. I'm assuming they know something we don't about how and when their graphics chip price will drop.

[ThunderingHERD]

Um, there is no way either console is going to go for more than $299. Even at $350, potential Xbox consumers would probably think, "Well, I'll just wait for the PS3, it'll surely be better and, at most, $300." The idea that a company would overprice with the intention deterring future purchases is ludicrous.

And I don't know about Sony, but I know MS has lost money on every system sold in an effort to nudge into the market.

[Eaglesfan27]

Um, there is no way either console is going to go for more than $299. Even at $350, potential Xbox consumers would probably think, "Well, I'll just wait for the PS3, it'll surely be better and, at most, $300." The idea that a company would overprice with the intention deterring future purchases is ludicrous.

And I don't know about Sony, but I know MS has lost money on every system sold in an effort to nudge into the market.

I agree that it is ludricrous to think they would intentionally overprice, but I disagree with the idea that neither console will debut at over 299. I suspect they both will be at least 350. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the debut price of the PS2 was considerably higher than the PS1, and there is no reason not to think that the debut price of the PS3 will be considerably higher than the PS2 (perhaps 100-150 more.)

[TazFTW]

PS1 debut at $299.

[Eaglesfan27]

PS1 debut at $299.

The PS1 did? I guess my memory is hazy. I thought the PS2 was 299, but the PS1 was 199.

[sabotai]

I'm pretty sure most consoles trough the history of consoles have started off in the $300 range. I'd have to look it up, but I'm pretty sure they all fall in that area on release (except recently with the GameCube).

And companies have always lost money on their consoles. Each and every one. They sell consoles to make money off of the games. Sony gets royalties from each and every game sold of the PS. Microsoft gets royalties for each and every game sold for the XBox. That's where they make their money. They expect to take a lose on consoles (and you have to consider, with the amount of consoles they need to produce they are buying all of the parts in massive bulk, which would cut down the price considerably from the marklet value of the parts)

I'm pretty sure that's why SEGA got out of the console market. They couldn't sell enough games to make up for the loss they took on their consoles (coupled with them not selling many consoles compared to Nintendo and Sony to begin with).

[Eaglesfan27]

Well a quick google search reveals that both the PS1 and PS2 had a debut price of 299 dollars. The Sega Saturn had a debut price of 400!

[ThunderingHERD]

I'm pretty sure most consoles trough the history of consoles have started off in the $300 range. I'd have to look it up, but I'm pretty sure they all fall in that area on release (except recently with the GameCube).

Not true! I remember lusting over that $200 SNES when I was 9.

[Cringer]

Is MS or SOny going to give a discount if you trade in a Sega Dreamcast? Cause I have one, and who ever offers that has me as a customer. :thumbsup:

[sabotai]

Not true! I remember lusting over that $200 SNES when I was 9. Well ack in the 80's to eraly 90's, $200 was the normal starting price. From the mid 90's on, it's been $300. (What I said earlier was wrong as I just looked it up. :) )

Here's the list I found:

1979 - Atari VCS: $249
1982 - Vectrex:$200
1982 - ColecoVision $175
1985 - NES: $199
1986 - SEGA Master System: $199
1989 - TurboGrafx-16: $189
1989: SEGA Gensis: $249
1990 - Neo-Geo: $699
1991 - SNES: $199
1993 - Atari Jaguar: $250
1993 - Amiga CD32: $399
1995 - SEGA Saturn: $399
1995 - Sony PS: $299
1999 - SEGA Dreamcast: $199
2000 - Sony PS2: $299
2001 - MS XBox: $299
2001 - Nintendo CameCube: $199

So it's always been a bit chaotic, the initial price of the consoles. But since they've become much more mainstream, I expect most people would pretty much insist on what the standard has recently become ($299)

[timmynausea]

Is MS or SOny going to give a discount if you trade in a Sega Dreamcast? Cause I have one, and who ever offers that has me as a customer. :thumbsup:
Actually, a guy should be coming around with a wheel barrow full of old dreamcasts, ringing a big ass bell and hollering "Bring out your dead!" He'll take care of that unsanitary thing for you.

[SackAttack]

Well ack in the 80's to eraly 90's, $200 was the normal starting price. From the mid 90's on, it's been $300. (What I said earlier was wrong as I just looked it up. :) )

Here's the list I found:

1979 - Atari VCS: $249
1982 - Vectrex:$200
1982 - ColecoVision $175
1985 - NES: $199
1986 - SEGA Master System: $199
1989 - TurboGrafx-16: $189
1989: SEGA Gensis: $249
1990 - Neo-Geo: $699
1991 - SNES: $199
1993 - Atari Jaguar: $250
1993 - Amiga CD32: $399
1995 - SEGA Saturn: $399
1995 - Sony PS: $299
1999 - SEGA Dreamcast: $199
2000 - Sony PS2: $299
2001 - MS XBox: $299
2001 - Nintendo CameCube: $199

So it's always been a bit chaotic, the initial price of the consoles. But since they've become much more mainstream, I expect most people would pretty much insist on what the standard has recently become ($299)

I wanna see a list adjusted for inflation. That would be pretty wild.

[NAIWF]

I know this is probably needlessly kicking dirt on the dead, but what exactly were the makers of the Neo-Geo thinking with a $700 system and games that were all in the triple digits as well way back in 1990? I can honestly say that I never knew a single person who owned that piece of hardware.

[SackAttack]

I know this is probably needlessly kicking dirt on the dead, but what exactly were the makers of the Neo-Geo thinking with a $700 system and games that were all in the triple digits as well way back in 1990? I can honestly say that I never knew a single person who owned that piece of hardware.

I'm thinking they were thinking "we may not sell many, but we won't lose money on the hardware, either."

The fact that Neo*Geo owners routinely pay $300 for a single game on the system doesn't hurt, either.

[SackAttack]

Dola,

It wasn't until last year that SNK actually quit producing new games on the Neo*Geo, for what that's worth.

[TazFTW]

I wanna see a list adjusted for inflation. That would be pretty wild.
Inflation was going to be one of my reasons for raising the prices of consoles but I haven't taken a look at any figures recently. I mean you can't expect a cheeseburger to stay at $0.10 forever.

[Cringer]

Actually, a guy should be coming around with a wheel barrow full of old dreamcasts, ringing a big ass bell and hollering "Bring out your dead!" He'll take care of that unsanitary thing for you.

lol.

I have it because it was right after they stopped making them and it was on sale for $70 with two games. I enjoyed it for a little bit. I can't remember what the one game was but I know it was pretty fun.

[TazFTW]

Using the inflation calculator based on the Consumer Price Index, buying an Atari VCS for $249 in 1979 would cost you $662.97 in 2005 terms.

The NES in 1985, $199. In 2005, $357.50

The Genesis in 1989, $249. In 2005, $388.16

The Neo-Geo in 1990, $699. In 2005, $1033.79

The SNES in 1991, $199. In 2005, $282.43

Sega Saturn in 1995 $399. In 2005, $506.08

Playstation in '95, $299. In 2005, $379.24

Sega Dreamcast in '99, $199. In '05, $230.89

PS2 in 2000, $299. In '05, $335.64

XBox in '01, $299. In '05, $326.35

GameCube in '01, $199. In '05, $217.20

[SackAttack]

I heart Taz.

[Airhog]

Its a standard business model for sony to lose money on the console. Remember, that in order to sell a game that runs on the PS2, you have to pay sony a licensing fee. So they make money on every single copy of every single game made. And besides you have another year before the console comes out. The cost to manufacture that stuff will continue to fall.

[QuikSand]

The psychology of this entire market is really fascinating.

[TroyF]

Here is how I look at it:

Playing video games is a bigtime hobby. I may go weeks without playing a console, then play one non stop for a month. (the release of the new football games or a GTA will have me hooked)

I'm not even going to try to kid myself about not buying the newest consoles. It's the same thing everytime. I wait and I wait. And then a game comes out that I have to have. At that point, I'm toast.

Provided I have the income (and while you never know what's going to happen, I probably will have that income), I'll purchase both new console systems, within six months of their release. Why bother kidding myself and saying I'll wait a year?

[spleen1015]

I'm pretty sure I will get all 3 new consoles on release day.

[Crapshoot]

I think people are forgetting the potential impact from the PC gaming market- these are devices where for the first time, the console will rival and potentialy exceed the PC in terms of capabilities. All those gamers who paid for an SLI express setup and buy Falcon computers or what not, or are willing to pay $3K and up for gaming rigs will be in, and early. Admittedly, a console aims at a far larger audience, but you are essentialy buying a top notch gaming rig for $400 - that is a deal.

I'm going to buy one on release date, simply because its an amazing machine, and I think my PC is going to limited for text sims in the future - I don't run graphically heavy things on it anyway. Now, I have a dedicated gaming machine for an absurdly low cost- and it will limit my limited PC game spending as the resulting setup will be too expensive to assemble on that.

[QuikSand]

It strikes me as very odd that in a market where the typical consumer fully intends to spend $300 on a console, and then perhaps another $500 on individual games, not to mention the investment of countless hours of one's life into the hoby itself, that an addition $100 or even $200 in the console price would really have that big an effect.

I'm not denying that it would -- I've essentially been convinced by the many voices here that there is a huge difference between $300 and $400-500 in these buyers' minds... it just strikes me as very odd that this would be so. Seems totally driven by psychology, rather than rationality.

But I say almost the exact same thing about the mythical $50-or-so barrier for the cost of a computer game. Now, the consumers seem perfectly willing to just buy half a game for $50, and then get teh next pieces of it as "Expansions" later on, for another $50. Seems we/they are more than happy to do this, rather than just pay $75 up front for the whole game. It's fascinating to me.

[gstelmack]

I think people are forgetting the potential impact from the PC gaming market- these are devices where for the first time, the console will rival and potentialy exceed the PC in terms of capabilities. All those gamers who paid for an SLI express setup and buy Falcon computers or what not, or are willing to pay $3K and up for gaming rigs will be in, and early. Admittedly, a console aims at a far larger audience, but you are essentialy buying a top notch gaming rig for $400 - that is a deal.
Um, this happens with EVERY console release, including the last one. The consoles jump ahead of the PCs, and then the PCs slowly slide ahead until they are way out front, and then another bunch of consoles leapfrogs them.

Difference is that with the last cycle, people did not really return to PC gaming. The console market remains far more lucrative than the PC market, as attested to by the shelf space ratios you'll see in retailers.

[Franklinnoble]

I just have no time for console games anymore... I don't have hours of time to waste on it now that I'm a husband, father, and homeowner.

Hell, I hardly play computer games anymore. It's kinda sad...

[Crapshoot]

Um, this happens with EVERY console release, including the last one. The consoles jump ahead of the PCs, and then the PCs slowly slide ahead until they are way out front, and then another bunch of consoles leapfrogs them.

Difference is that with the last cycle, people did not really return to PC gaming. The console market remains far more lucrative than the PC market, as attested to by the shelf space ratios you'll see in retailers.

Bullshit. When the x-box was released, its graphic capabilities were limited to essentialy, a tricked out GeForce 3, with a 700mhz processor - even at the time of the announcement, PC's were well ahead of that, and the GeForce 4 had been released. The New X-box and PS3 are talking in Teraflops - and have graphic capacities that it would take a PC consumer a $1000 or more to build- essentialy, an SLI setup. That's a leap. At release time, the X-box 360 is likely to be one of the most powerful if not the most powerful gaming rig out there - something the last generation of releases did not have to deal with.

[timmynausea]

Bullshit. When the x-box was released, its graphic capabilities were limited to essentialy, a tricked out GeForce 3, with a 700mhz processor - even at the time of the announcement, PC's were well ahead of that, and the GeForce 4 had been released. The New X-box and PS3 are talking in Teraflops - and have graphic capacities that it would take a PC consumer a $1000 or more to build- essentialy, an SLI setup. That's a leap. At release time, the X-box 360 is likely to be one of the most powerful if not the most powerful gaming rig out there - something the last generation of releases did not have to deal with.
I agree. The Xbox was like a below average computer at the time it came out. It's funny cause I've been thinking this whole time that I wouldn't pay $400 for a console, and then I thought about how I just paid $400 for a video card a few weeks ago. My consoles have sat too long, though, and I've always enjoyed computer games much more for whatever reason. Unless the games are tremendously better, I don't plan on getting a console until the prices drop.

[General Mike]

It strikes me as very odd that in a market where the typical consumer fully intends to spend $300 on a console, and then perhaps another $500 on individual games, not to mention the investment of countless hours of one's life into the hoby itself, that an addition $100 or even $200 in the console price would really have that big an effect.

I'm not denying that it would -- I've essentially been convinced by the many voices here that there is a huge difference between $300 and $400-500 in these buyers' minds... it just strikes me as very odd that this would be so. Seems totally driven by psychology, rather than rationality.

But I say almost the exact same thing about the mythical $50-or-so barrier for the cost of a computer game. Now, the consumers seem perfectly willing to just buy half a game for $50, and then get teh next pieces of it as "Expansions" later on, for another $50. Seems we/they are more than happy to do this, rather than just pay $75 up front for the whole game. It's fascinating to me.

For me, Buying at $300 instead of $400 or $500 is about the opportunity cost it presents. When the PS2 was first launched I bought 4 games plus the system and a memory card and spent ~$550. If the system costs $500 at launch, I'm only going to buy 1 game then. The fact that I've had to buy 2 PS2s and get a 3rd thru warranty in the last 4 and a half years doesn't help my resolve to buy the system.

[ZXTT]

Bullshit. When the x-box was released, its graphic capabilities were limited to essentialy, a tricked out GeForce 3, with a 700mhz processor - even at the time of the announcement, PC's were well ahead of that, and the GeForce 4 had been released. The New X-box and PS3 are talking in Teraflops - and have graphic capacities that it would take a PC consumer a $1000 or more to build- essentialy, an SLI setup. That's a leap. At release time, the X-box 360 is likely to be one of the most powerful if not the most powerful gaming rig out there - something the last generation of releases did not have to deal with.

The Xbox was designed to compete with the PS2, which was better graphically than any PC when it came out. I don't recall any PC games when the PS2 came out that could match things like Ridge Racer V or SSX.

Nevertheless, I've found myself playing games that are available on both PC and console on the console with the current gen (KOTOR, NFS:Underground 2). I believe this next gen will be able to pretty much push my HDTV to the limit - how much better can graphics get and make a difference at that point. The only issue will be controllers - ie. mouse and keyboard work well for FPS, RTS, turn-based games.

[Eaglesfan27]

It strikes me as very odd that in a market where the typical consumer fully intends to spend $300 on a console, and then perhaps another $500 on individual games, not to mention the investment of countless hours of one's life into the hoby itself, that an addition $100 or even $200 in the console price would really have that big an effect.

I'm not denying that it would -- I've essentially been convinced by the many voices here that there is a huge difference between $300 and $400-500 in these buyers' minds... it just strikes me as very odd that this would be so. Seems totally driven by psychology, rather than rationality.

But I say almost the exact same thing about the mythical $50-or-so barrier for the cost of a computer game. Now, the consumers seem perfectly willing to just buy half a game for $50, and then get teh next pieces of it as "Expansions" later on, for another $50. Seems we/they are more than happy to do this, rather than just pay $75 up front for the whole game. It's fascinating to me.
Very good post. Video games are one of my primary hobbies, and by far my most expensive hobby. I don't see a huge difference between paying 300 and 400 for a console. I know that the hours I'm going to invest in those games are worth much more than the money. However, as you mentioned to many people it is a big deal. Very interesting psychology.

[ZXTT]

Very good post. Video games are one of my primary hobbies, and by far my most expensive hobby. I don't see a huge difference between paying 300 and 400 for a console. I know that the hours I'm going to invest in those games are worth much more than the money. However, as you mentioned to many people it is a big deal. Very interesting psychology.

But my wife sees a huge difference, since she doesn't think I need any more consoles at all. She certainly can't appreciate the improved games, so to her the entire cost is unnecessary. So it isn't just how much it's worth to the gamer.

[dawgfan]

Bullshit. When the x-box was released, its graphic capabilities were limited to essentialy, a tricked out GeForce 3, with a 700mhz processor - even at the time of the announcement, PC's were well ahead of that, and the GeForce 4 had been released. The New X-box and PS3 are talking in Teraflops - and have graphic capacities that it would take a PC consumer a $1000 or more to build- essentialy, an SLI setup. That's a leap. At release time, the X-box 360 is likely to be one of the most powerful if not the most powerful gaming rig out there - something the last generation of releases did not have to deal with.

Bullshit on your bullshit. Yes, the CPU in the Xbox was inferior to the higher end PC's at the time, but the nVidia GPU was superior to any they were selling at the time for PC's. That didn't last long, as the GeForce4 was released a few months later, but at the time of the Xbox's release, it's graphic capabilities were better.

[Anthony]

I'll want one terribly badly, but I don't think even I could justify $400 for a system. I'm also getting to the point where I don't play video games nearly as much as I used to -- now I'm pretty much relegated to online text-sim leagues that I can get to whenever I want to, and which "run" when I'm not there. I don't know if that's because I'm getting a little older (done with College now), or because I'm just losing interest in console gaming.

me too. i can guarantee i won't be getting both. i'd say $300 is my max, anything more than that and this will be the first time i wait for a price drop. you still have to buy like a game or two, likely two games (who wants to play *just* Madden?), so you're looking at around $400 as an end result anyway. ugh, i really don't want to pay that much for a hobby that's slipping down my priority list.

[dawgfan]

I'd say Sony is going to take a fucking on each PS3 they sell. The gamespot article I posted earlier says that the graphics chip that will power the PS3 would cost 1,000 dollars by itself today. I know that technology goes down in price quickly, but that is just the graphics chip. No matter how they price it, they are going to be losing loads of money on each one they sell.

Let's keep in mind that consumer gaming cards are priced for what the market will bear. These cards they're comparing the PS3 to may retail for $500 each, but that's certainly not what it costs to make them.

Let's also keep in mind that by the time the PS3 is released, the retail price of these graphics cards they're currently being compared to will be a lot less than $500 each.

Sony (like Microsoft and Nintendo) will lose some money on each PS3 they sell, but not nearly as much as you might be assuming.

[dubb93]

Bullshit. When the x-box was released, its graphic capabilities were limited to essentialy, a tricked out GeForce 3, with a 700mhz processor - even at the time of the announcement, PC's were well ahead of that, and the GeForce 4 had been released. The New X-box and PS3 are talking in Teraflops - and have graphic capacities that it would take a PC consumer a $1000 or more to build- essentialy, an SLI setup. That's a leap. At release time, the X-box 360 is likely to be one of the most powerful if not the most powerful gaming rig out there - something the last generation of releases did not have to deal with.

Your right on, the PS2 was powerfull, but nobody really mistook it for being better than a top of the line PC, but now the PS3....lets just say it would appear that its graphics chip is going to be out there......

"The RSX[PS3's graphic chip] is more powerful than two GeForce 6800 Ultra video cards"

Of course both the GeForce 6800 Ultra and the RSX are being made by Nvidia, so there really isnt any reason not to believe the claim. I really haven't heard alot about the XBox 360's graphic chipset, but I'm sure it will be right up there too when its released[it is being made by ATI afterall]. I'm sure it will take the PC's most of the XBox360 and PS3's cycle to catch up. I don't see Microsoft and Sony allowing ATI and Nvidia to release these chips on the PC market while they are being used in their consoles.

[Samdari]

I'm sure it will take the PC's most of the XBox360 and PS3's cycle to catch up.

Have you been paying attention to the rate of increase in GPU technology? A year from now, both ATI and NVidia will have put out chips that make the 6800 seem slow. They will likely catch up before the PS3 is released.

[dubb93]

Have you been paying attention to the rate of increase in GPU technology? A year from now, both ATI and NVidia will have put out chips that make the 6800 seem slow. They will likely catch up before the PS3 is released.

Prehaps, but I really haven't heard of anything new in development from them. Who knows, you may be right, I may be wrong. While I have paid attention to the rate of increase I haven't really paid attention to announcements from the companies themselves.

[gstelmack]

Prehaps, but I really haven't heard of anything new in development from them. Who knows, you may be right, I may be wrong. While I have paid attention to the rate of increase I haven't really paid attention to announcements from the companies themselves.
The rumors floating around earlier this month were that both ATI and nVidia were planning to announce new stuff at one of the trade shows coming up this summer. Do you really think the 6800 / X800 are it for a year or more?

Intel and AMD are both readying their dual-core processors for production.

I'm pretty sure you'll be able to buy gaming PCs this Christmas that have similar horsepower to both consoles. They'll just cost about six times as much as the consoles. And 2 years from now, the PCs will be much faster with much better video cards.

And those calling BS on me should really go dig up some articles from 2000/2001 to see that the exact same stuff was being said then.

[JasonC23]

But my wife sees a huge difference, since she doesn't think I need any more consoles at all. She certainly can't appreciate the improved games, so to her the entire cost is unnecessary. So it isn't just how much it's worth to the gamer.
Exactly. $300 to my wife is bad enough. $400 is just stupid. $500 is unfathomable.

[TazFTW]

I'm sure it will take the PC's most of the XBox360 and PS3's cycle to catch up.
Cycle is the key word and Nvidia and ATI will definately release more powerful video cards by then. It would not surprise me if they released more powerful videocards this fall/winter in time for the christmas season. Of course, I would also guess that the price of those cards would be more than what the XBox 360 debuts at.

[sabotai]

I'm not denying that it would -- I've essentially been convinced by the many voices here that there is a huge difference between $300 and $400-500 in these buyers' minds... it just strikes me as very odd that this would be so. Seems totally driven by psychology, rather than rationality.
Speaking for myself, I paid $180 for my PS2 and $150 for my XBox. I just recently (relatively) got into console games since it's only been until recent that I financially could. I don't think I've spent more than $400 in the past 4 years or so on console games.

I generally have good patience (unlike our friend TroyF :) ) and can wait out a console until its first or second price drop. To spend $400 on a console, even though I am a big gamer, seems to be a bit excessive. Especially considering I already have a PS2 and an XBox and they'll still be making games for those for a year or so after the new console releases (by which time, we'll probably see our first price drop). I can see spending $300, but that would be my limit.

It's a matter of preference. PC Gaming is bigger to me than Consoles. Consoles are my hobby, PC gaming is my passion. At $300, a new, next-gen console's value to me would probably just be barely more than a $300 PC upgrade's value. But at $400, the improvement to my PC would probably outweigh the value a new, next-gen console would give to me.

[Easy Mac]

I haven't personally purchased a console, but I'd say that a $100 difference is a big deal to me. If you want to know my cheapness, the only xbox games I've paid for at full/relatively full price are the NCAA games. All the other games I've purchased for $20 or less.

That being said, as much as I'd like to buy the next round of consoles, I'd rather spend my money on upgrading my current computer's graphics card, and bulding a dedicated HTPC to take some of that load off the current one. Best of both worlds for me (though no more NCAA games).

Of course, I've gotten to the point where I rarely play any games anymore. My girl has been out of town for ~2 weeks and I haen't even turned on the Xbox, and haven't opened any text-sims/real games on my computer. I rented Halo 2 on Saturday and haven't even played it yet.

[sterlingice]

lol.

I have it because it was right after they stopped making them and it was on sale for $70 with two games. I enjoyed it for a little bit. I can't remember what the one game was but I know it was pretty fun. I got one last summer off of ebay with 10 (decent-good) games for $70 :) One of my better gaming purchases, I might add.

SI

[Karim]

I owned a Vectrex. 1982? <sigh> I think it still might be in the basement somewhere. NFL Blitz was my favourite game.

[sterlingice]

If we estimate that the whole machine, then, costs $1,200, that is a $900 loss on each machine.

For each $50 game, they make, to be generous, $40? That means people need to, on average, buy over 20 new games to even out the purchase. Can't imagine that is ever a number they can attain. I'm assuming they know something we don't about how and when their graphics chip price will drop.
(EDIT: Dawgfan pretty much hit the nail on the head- I'm agreeing not refuting)

Let's keep in mind that consumer gaming cards are priced for what the market will bear. These cards they're comparing the PS3 to may retail for $500 each, but that's certainly not what it costs to make them.

Let's also keep in mind that by the time the PS3 is released, the retail price of these graphics cards they're currently being compared to will be a lot less than $500 each.

Sony (like Microsoft and Nintendo) will lose some money on each PS3 they sell, but not nearly as much as you might be assuming. $1000 is just plain ludicrous and to state that is just shock journalism. For one, the top of the line stuff always sells for a premium because they know they can charge it to people who swap out graphics cards every 6 months so they have "top of the line" stuff. Needless to say that in a year, that formerly "top of the line" stuff sells for half of what it does now. That $500 graphics card now, sells for maybe $200 next year and is that because it costs $300 less to make? No, it's because if you bought it a year ago, you were dumb enough to pay them $200 for bragging rights along with $100 (maybe) for technology, which has since come down in price.

Then take into account that Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo are bulk buying. I bet they get a pretty generous discount because they are buying millions of them. Not that you can do this, but if you and I were to walk up to NVidia or ATI and say "I'd like a card comparable to what they're running"- you'd probably have to pay twice as much because you're only buying one whereas with these companies that are buying millions essentialy buy them an entire assembly line so that the sunk costs are paid for an each additional costs a lot less.

SI

[dawgfan]

Aren't we saying essentially the same thing here SI?

[sterlingice]

Aren't we saying essentially the same thing here SI?
Yeah, I was using yours as a partial rebuttal and then agreeing. Probably should have made that more clear.

SI

[MizzouRah]

I'm a games person myself.. I get the console with the games I like to play. However, the Xbox was faster and a bit better looking for most games.. I'm thinking with the X360 coming out much sooner than the PS3, it'll see the inside of my house first. :)

I really need to get an HDTV to play it on though...


Todd

[dawgfan]

Yeah, I was using yours as a partial rebuttal and then agreeing. Probably should have made that more clear.

SI

No problem. I was a little confused by the original post layout though.

[sterlingice]

I'm a games person myself.. I get the console with the games I like to play. However, the Xbox was faster and a bit better looking for most games..
See- I think most people want to claim to be "games people" but, in the end, what console-exclusives did you want for each system? I suspect that's what people do at first blush, but in the end, this generation- the XBox was gaining steam on this board, not because it had better games (each system had 1 A+ hit the last year: GTA:SA vs Halo2) but because it had better graphics on the games that were available on every system (Madden, NCAA, NBA Live, etc). Ideals be damned, pocketbooks said something else.

SI

[MizzouRah]

See- I think most people want to claim to be "games people" but, in the end, what console-exclusives did you want for each system? I suspect that's what people do at first blush, but in the end, this generation- the XBox was gaining steam on this board, not because it had better games (each system had 1 A+ hit the last year: GTA:SA vs Halo2) but because it had better graphics on the games that were available on every system (Madden, NCAA, NBA Live, etc). Ideals be damned, pocketbooks said something else.

SI
Considering I waited for about 4-6 months to get a ps2 after it came out, it was all about NCAA Football and the controller. :) Considering GT4 and GTA were ps2 exclusives, not to mention the ps2 had tons of games out vs the Xbox, the ps2 was purchased. Later on, I wanted the HD and built in network card of the Xbox - so I traded my ps2 in for the Xbox. Since most games were on both systems and now I could play Halo, it was an easy choice at the time.

Since these two consoles are months apart as far as releases go (and I've traded my Xbox now for a psp), I'm sure some Next Gen games will have me back out to Best Buy to pick up the Xbox 360. I was thinking about standing in line on release day, but I might wait for initial impressions first.. especially since I've now seen some ps3 titles.

The one thing I'm really liking about the ps3 is the extra sports games you get with Sony - like MLB, Gretzky, Soccer, etc.. I could just imagine MLB 2007 on the ps3.


Todd

[Buzzbee]

It strikes me as very odd that in a market where the typical consumer fully intends to spend $300 on a console, and then perhaps another $500 on individual games, not to mention the investment of countless hours of one's life into the hoby itself, that an addition $100 or even $200 in the console price would really have that big an effect.

I'm not denying that it would -- I've essentially been convinced by the many voices here that there is a huge difference between $300 and $400-500 in these buyers' minds... it just strikes me as very odd that this would be so. Seems totally driven by psychology, rather than rationality.

But I say almost the exact same thing about the mythical $50-or-so barrier for the cost of a computer game. Now, the consumers seem perfectly willing to just buy half a game for $50, and then get teh next pieces of it as "Expansions" later on, for another $50. Seems we/they are more than happy to do this, rather than just pay $75 up front for the whole game. It's fascinating to me.
I think psychology plays quite a bit into it. There has been an expectation built up that consoles usually open around $200 to $300. History has sort of led us to that expectation (see the post earlier in the thread as a reference). Therefore we expect the upper end to be around $300. Bump it up to $350, and there isn't much squawk. Hey, it's *only* fifty bucks. Bump it up to $400 and the psychology kicks in. Rather than think of it in sheer dollar value (like the fifty bucks) we begin to think of it in terms of percentages (unconsciously, most likely). We don't 'do the math' and think of it as a 33% increase, but we can pretty much figure out that it is a big increase percentage-wise.

Think of a car. $22,000 vs. $23,000 is a $1,000 difference (obviously). That $1000 probably isn't going to determine whether we buy that car or not. However, make it $22,000 vs. $29,000 and we can realize without too much thought that it is a pretty big difference. Add in the expectation that a car should cost around $22,000 and it's pretty clear that we're not going to buy a car for $29,000.

Extreme example, but I think it demonstrates my point that at some point we quit thinking in terms of actual dollars and shift to thinking in terms of percentages. You might could even apply it to games as well.

Just my theory of course, and if it doesn't have holes in it already, I'm sure you guys will shoot plenty in there for me.

[Daimyo]

I am a very casual gamer, but personally I think its crazy to pay more than $200 for a console. The first generation games usually aren't that great anyway. Its all hype. I bought a SNES on the launch day, but since then completely ignore the consoles until they hit the $150 range... the other advantage of going that route is there is generally a huge library of great games available for <$20 by the time the console hits $150. You miss out on the latest and greatest, but I'd wager that other than happening later my experience playing my $20 KOTOR for the first time on my $150 XBOX was the exact same as if I'd payed $50 and $300 respectively.

[Airhog]

Personally, I wont buy a ps3 until it hits that 199 price point.

[TazFTW]

From IGN,


E3 2005: PS3 Price Revealed?
One of the most expensive consoles ever created, according to Japanese reports.
by Matt Casamassina (http://ps3.ign.com/email.html)



May 17, 2005 - According a an article published in the May 17th edition of Japan's Mainichi Shimbun, the PlayStation 3 could be one of the most expensive mass-market videogame consoles ever created. Officials from Sony apparently told the newspaper that PlayStation 3s would sell in Japan for "less than 50,000 yen each." That translates to about $465 US dollars.

Sony unveiled its next-generation console at the Electronics Entertainment Expo 2005. The beast of a machine utilizes the powerful Cell processor, a custom-designed graphics chip by Nvidia, and 512MBs of RAM for a quantum leap in performance. The system will also be the first-ever to support high-def movie-playback out of the box, taking advantage of the upcoming Blu-ray Disc format.

Sony claims that PS3 will be roughly 35 times more powerful than PS2. If Mainichi Shimbun is correct, gamers will be asked to pay a hefty price for the high-end functionality. IGN was unable to validate this news with Sony officials. Stay tuned for more as the story breaks.
Of course, if memory serves the Japanese price usually did not translate to the US price.

[sterlingice]

From IGN,



Of course, if memory serves the Japanese price usually did not translate to the US price.
Judging by that, it sounds like a $400 price point is likely. But Casamassina, one of the better "analysts" over at IGN, was very careful to point out that they couldn't verify it so I think that should be noted and push it into the rumor category.

SI

[TazFTW]

Of course, if you it were true and you were Sony why would you confirm it now?

Confirming it now would give Microsoft the edge coming out of E3 (having the 360 out 6 months earlier and the ability to undercut the PS3's price).

[ice4277]

The first generation games usually aren't that great anyway. Its all hype. I bought a SNES on the launch day, but since then completely ignore the consoles until they hit the $150 range... the other advantage of going that route is there is generally a huge library of great games available for <$20 by the time the console hits $150. You miss out on the latest and greatest, but I'd wager that other than happening later my experience playing my $20 KOTOR for the first time on my $150 XBOX was the exact same as if I'd payed $50 and $300 respectively.
I agree, especially about not buying new games right away. I've only bought one newly-released game in the past six or seven months. There is plenty of stuff to keep me busy in the $20 range if I want it.

[Bee]

I'm a geek with disposable income...I'll buy all the new consoles whether they're $300 or $500. The bigger problem is finding them in stock someplace because I never pre-order anything for some reason.

[ZXTT]

I'm a geek with disposable income...I'll buy all the new consoles whether they're $300 or $500. The bigger problem is finding them in stock someplace because I never pre-order anything for some reason.

No kidding. I bought the first PS2 I saw on the shelf - I think it was about 6 months after release, at a Walmart in small town I just happened to go into, 80 miles from home.

[TRO]

Judging by that, it sounds like a $400 price point is likely. But Casamassina, one of the better "analysts" over at IGN, was very careful to point out that they couldn't verify it so I think that should be noted and push it into the rumor category.

SI
Japanese price of PSP was roughly 185US, US price was then 250. Thus, 500 might be the likely point.

[Kodos]

Sony has a good thing going. They're not going to ruin their run by making the PS3 $500.