Can we please stop talking about the PS3 launch as if its "worldwide except Europe". Its /not/ anything of the sort. It launches in the US and Japan. The whole of the rest of the world doesn't launch till next year.

I'm not posting this to suggest that the scenario is either better or worse than that which is portrayed, merely to point out that the scenario is /not/ that which is currently being portrayed, and I'm fairly sure the 5.5 billion people who don't live in either the US or Japan will thank me for reminding you all that the world extends considerably beyond your borders.

*ahem*

I understand the point this guy was atempting to make, but given the high price of the PS3, I think he'd be better off to focus our attention elsewhere.

Considering how much a stand alone HD-DVD or Blu-Ray player will run you the $499 PS3 is a great deal.

I just can't see Blu-ray being a big selling point for the PS3. Most people just don't care about HD movie discs. Hell, I'd be surprised if more than 10% of people knew that DVDs aren't high definition.

Compared to the PS2, yeah, they're more expensive. I guess the PS2 is all that Australia will have available from Sony for the next year though.

They also either stupidly superior in terms of hardware (XBox360) or superior and intriguing controller + free game (Wii). Pay more, get more (although not necessarily more fun, that's down to the games).

Now compared to the PS3 his argument does really really break down and look stupid. OMG new systems cost more than old systems because they incorporate newer better faster technology. OMGZ. I didn't see the PS2 launching at the price of the PS1 at the time!

Now if you want a bargain console, a PS2 + the best PS2 games evar is a great purchase in my opinion, and you have Bully (I have to buy it to thwart Jack Thompson, also it looks fun) and Guitar Hero 2 coming up alongside an insane back catalogue of cheap titles.

It seems to me that Sony bet too hard on having the most futuristic, or least conventional, architecture in the PS3. The Cell processor architecture plus the Blu-Ray drive sent the price into the stratosphere, and I'm not even sure if the image quality from a PS3 will trump an XBox 360. The platform should sell nicely, though; at the moment, it's the cheapest option for a Blu-Ray player, but if a lot of people buy it just for that function, Sony's royally screwed. Thanks to selling the console at a loss, they have to make all of their profits on games, and given how much they're losing per console, the game prices have to be incredibly high. The PS3 is something of a screw-up from my point of view, but it may be successful in spite of Sony's shoddy PR.

There seems to be a trend lately; forcing the consumer to buy state of the art hardware across multiple system components in order to experience what a platform has to offer. You need an HD display to even see the difference with these new platforms, which is more expensive than I care to consider. Vista's in the same grain, requiring 256Mb of onboard graphics memory to run with eye candy enabled. Forced upgrades aren't something a consumer's likely to enjoy, but it seems to be one of the only industry standards out there in the electronics world.

Sony exec = De-da-dee!

Problem #1, you need to get a couple hundred $$$$ or more HDTV display to even take advantage of HDMI and HDTV resolutions.

Again, IMHO the #1 reason that PS3 will be a disappointment is its overhyped and premature Blue-Ray drive. It is practically overkill and AV freaks prefer dedicated units.

Foot-mouth-disease sucks.

What if I just want a game console and not a Blu-ray player? Oh yeah right, I have no choice.

Poor deluded Sony, what else could they possibly say too make this launch any worse? I look forward to their next press release. I have to say I really hope Sony crash and burns on this… the whole entertainment industry (DVD, Games, Music) has completely lost the run of it’s self lately. I’ve gone all old fashioned and am back buying books. ‘Free you’re Mind’. If you though Brain Age was good checkout the ‘The History of Western Philosophy’, by one Bertrand Russell.

Given the suggested retail price of a stand alone blue ray player, and that Sony is known for getting great games to console, im somewhat optomistic. That said, they are head and shoulder's more expensive and blue ray is a long ways from being a legit competitor to any other medium. I would have made the focus of the PS3 the known games, games to come, graphics. Really anything to get the focus off their steep price. The wii looks to cleanup well for xmas because parents would love to save some jack, especially with younger kids. And the xbox 360 is out now, with a nice stack of games avilable and services too.

I wouldn't bet the farm on ps3, but I don't think it will fail by any margin. It might not grab ahold here right away, but im sure it will sell in japan.

He's probably trying to comfort a few rabid fanatics that are concerned about their investment heh ;) God knows how many will forego a home loan for the sake of the console.

No use trying to win over the average consumer, they seem to have given up on those and are hoping for hype and brand name to make up for all this bad PR.

He's right. The Wii is too expensive for what it offers. As is the x360. And it goes without saying (Sony certainly omits mention), so is the PS3.

However, let me address the Wii issue here. From a hardware perspective, the Wii is charging next-generation prices for last-generation hardware.

If one looks deeper into why Nintendo is doing this, it is possible to draw some unpleasant inferences. Nitendo has said time and again that it is trying to broaden the appeal of its console to traditional non-gamers. While that is a noble goal in itself, consider this shocking postulate: casual gamers buy fewer games than hardcore gamers! (gasp).

What this means is that Nintendo cannot afford to subsidise its console if it intends to sell it to people who will buy one copy of super smash bros. (or other party game) and have it sit in the corner until some friends come over or grandma brings the kids around. That's why MS and Sony are willing to take a price hit on selling their consoles, because they are banking on returns from software more than Nintendo can.

The scary (and conspiracy-theory, FUD, pessimistic, call it what you will) possibility is that this means Nintendo will have less impetus to release titles for the Wii. It's not like we haven't seen this kind of thing with the N64 and Gamecube. How much worse will this get when they don't have hardware parity with MS and Sony for cross-platform titles to ease porting?

Their only hope is for a significant userbase, and also enough dedicated gamers in that userbase, for developers to port A-list cross-platform games. Which they need to start doing by cutting the price. AUD400? Forget it. I might take another look when it's AUD250.

The prices are a bit inflated in Oz.

Wii = $400 Aus = $270 US
360 = $650 Aus = $440 US
PS3 = $1000 Aus = $680 US

US conversion is take off the tax and convert with 0.75c

Sony are right about one things, their latest console for sale in Oz at Xmas will be the cheapest, its only $180 Aus for the PS2.

As if Sony's reputation weren't bad enough already. Sheesh.

The only credible thing he said is that pushing back the launch date to 2007 isn't going to matter across the lifetime of the PS3.

It doesn't change the fact that it's going to be a very Wii60 Christmas in Europe and Australia. The fact that MS and Nintendo will actually have consoles for sale has got to hurt, and his comments just look like disparaging remarks towards competitors that actually have something to sell to consumers this holiday season.

While they try to justify the PS3's high price with Blu-Ray, the fact of the matter is, the 360 is still au$400 cheaper than the PS3 will be and will capture the gamer market, and the Wii is au$600 cheaper and will definitely capture the casual gamers.

As a side note, the PS2 was out for 2 years in Australia before it dropped au$399, the launch price of the Wii (and not taking into account 5 years of inflation/exchange rate differences) and they moved truckloads of units. I don't know how they can claim the au$399 pricetag will be a barrier to Nintendo's intended audience -- the N64 launched for au$399 way back in 1997 too.

"In reference to the Wii, Ephraim said the price of the upcoming Nintendo console plus the equivalent of $50 worth of accessories (taking into account differences in U.S. and Australian pricing) will be "a lot to fork out.""

*Ahem.*
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/09/15

"Sony believes the PlayStation 3's $499-599 price tag will offer good value considering the console's built-in Blu-ray drive, Cell processor, and features like HDMI output capability."

The only thing they *sortof* have a point with is the built-in Blu-Ray drive. Otherwise, there are plenty of methods to get HD video onto a screen, and to the average consumer or gamer, the type of processor something has doesn't matter. What does matter is whether or not it works, and the Xbox 360 has a generally good track record of that thus far. The Nintendo Wii seems to show few signs of odd bugginess.

The PlayStation 3, however... suffers from many apparent bugs. One month from it's "global" (*cough*minusEurope*cough*) laugh... I mean... launch.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/multimedia/display/20061004235015.html

Oh, and then there're games. The Xbox 360's games cost a normal amount of between $40-$60. Most PC games cost that much. It isn't difficult to imagine the Nintendo Wii having games costing around, or even below that. But the Playstation 3?

Games are $100 apiece. Funny, you can buy a game and all of the "accessories" for that much, Mr. Ephraim.
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34617