I would have liked at least a shade of good news for us PS3 users. So you can say that I am disappointed about all of this hype that has been around for the last week or so.

I agree completely, but I think they also realize that as soon as they drop the price, Microsoft will follow suit. Right now if they can convince people to buy the PS2 for $100, that is money in their pocket. At the same time, it might sway someone from purchasing a Wii or 360. A lot of parents can't afford to buy their kids a current gen console, but at $100, the PS2 could hold them over for another year or so until they can afford it.

Kind of Sony's way of saying, "hey, we know you can't afford the best console right now...so don't settle on one of these other ones. Instead, buy "old faithful" and keep saving your money until you can (or get a second job already)."

It's really a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation for Sony. They make a shit-ton of money on the PS2, but the longer they do they are basically ceding defeat on the PS3. They don't make money on it like the PS2 so why should they support it the same? That all trickles down to third parties, if Sony isn't in it 110% why should they be? The longer they wait, the more people go with the Wii or 360, or hell even cannibalizing some sales due to the cheap PS2.

I dunno, just tossing that out there.

Does the PS2 have comparable multimedia capabilities as the PS3 (minus Blu-ray)? Does it upconvert DVD playback, support Divx/Xvid, and .vob?
@ $99 I would seriously consider picking up a few PS2s and media players for the bedroom and guestroom.

nope.

Now you are getting into the is it a "media machine" or a "gaming machine" area of discussion. My point is merely that the longer the PS2 sits on store shelves the longer it takes away from PS3 sales. The longer PS3 sales lag behind the competition, the less support it may get from third parties. Fewer games, fewer console sales. It's a domino effect.

Face it, there are over 100 million PS2 gamers out there that just want a gaming machine. I love my PS3 and can take advantage of all it's features so the cost is justified, which I would assume the same applies for the majority here. Unfortunately in the big picture. hi-def gamers are the minority. Sony screwed the pooch estimating when the HD era began instead of focusing on gamers.

MS offered an affordable gaming rig out of the box and treated everything else as a bonus. Sony seems to have gone in the opposite direction where all those extras are worth more than gaming alone and have justly charged for them. It may not be wrong, but it certainly hasn't helped them either.

Thanks. I never had any interest in the PS2 before so I know nothing about it. A price drop to $99 definitely got me interested.

If anyone thinks Sony is in any danger of not getting "third-party support", they're delusional.

Same for anyone that thinks 'not geting third-party support' is the same thing as getting 'fewer' support.

Two recent examples being Factor 5 rumored to be getting back in bed with Nintendo and NinjaBee going multiplatform after poor sales of their games on the PS3.

All I'm saying is if the gap continues to widen over the next couple of years between the 360 & PS3, it is conceivably possible that some exclusive devs go mutli-platform or exclusive the other way(see examples above). Look at the top 10 NPDs every month. At this point in time, if a company wants to sell a ton of games, that game better be on the Wii or 360. It's a rare occasion (SFIV, MGS4, etc) that a Sony title makes an appearance. So as long as Sony rides the PS2 train to the bank instead of making the PS3 their sole focus it probably won't get any better.

Sheesh... you guys act like I said Sony should close up shop and go the way of Sega. Brutal.

There are still some holding out hope for a "real" announcement coming from Sony. I agree with Michael Corvin about 3rd party supporters dwindling if Sony doesn't show full backing in the PS3 rather than cash grabbing with the ages old PS2.

I guess can all agree that Sony is right now pressured by third party developers to lower the PS3 price. That's for sure. Everybody is talking about that.
But it seems they have made their numbers/analysis and it seems that's not economically feasible. Just the years will tell us if they made the right decision.

Sony just needs a good scorched earth ad campaign, as I think people will pay for premium content...but only if they percieve it as premium content. If I did their ads, they would sound something like this (imagery should be self evident):

Is your console in for repair AGAIN? Shoulda bought a PS3.
Paying to play online? Shoulda bought a PS3
Can't play Blu-Ray? Shoulda bought a PS3
Tired of being nickel-and-dimed for hard drives and wireless? Shoulda bought a PS3
Does your console feel like a toy? Shoulda bought a PS3

etc.

I actually miss the old console wars between Sega and Nintendo. They had some great (and sometimes surreal) ads in those days.

Genesis. DOES
Genesis.. DOES
Genesis... DOES!
You can't do this on Nintendo, Genesis does!!!
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/k7nsBoqJ6s8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/k7nsBoqJ6s8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I think part of the problem with the launch of the PS3 was the sheer arrogance from the top. This turned me off and made me NOT want to even consider buying a PS3 and I don't think I am the only one. Decided I wanted a blu-ray player last March or so which is why I have one today. I think that if they ran an ad campaign like that they would definitely piss of the 360 crowd at the least. Today's society is so much more different than during the Sega v Nintendo days.

I sincerely doubt joe public noted Sony's arrogance (I agree BTW). All they know is that it costs more...at least up front. I'm just saying that they should highlight their advantages. I don't see how that's any different than how cars are advertised, for instance. Sony has gone for a differentiation strategy, but they haven't done anything to show how the PS3 is significantly different.

If that "pisses off the 360 crowd" so be it. You can't make an omelet...

Good points. I think it would be interesting to see campaign style ads out of Sony.

I like it, except that they don't have a bundle out there right now that stands tall enough for the task.

> Paying to play online? Shoulda bought a PS3 (the $200 price difference covers about 5 years of Live)

> Can't play Blu-Ray? Shoulda bought a PS3
>Tired of being nickel-and-dimed for hard drives and wireless? Shoulda bought a PS3 (+ a BD remote + HD cables) MS isn't alone in the nickel and dime-ing dept. Do the bundles come with a DS3 these days or is that still extra?

>Does your console feel like a toy? Shoulda bought a PS3 (not sure if I get this one since they do basically the same exact things except for BD)

$200 + wireless adapter ($90) + hard drive ($135) + Live ($40-50/yr)...what's the price difference again?

The $200 Xbox is a trojan horse (or potentially a replacement for a dead 360). It has almost no other use, really.

Agree that they should put an HDMI cable in, but they are only $5-10.
BD remote is wholly optional and is $20.
Even if you bought both, it would amount to 6 months of Live.
Yes, the PS3 has come with DS3 for about a year now.

Wii.

oh, Sony definitely can do that... I don't know why they didn't, maybe the idea can backfire? This is like the Mac vs PC commercial... Mac is doing so well with it, i don't agree 100%, but i do find the commercial entertaining. PC tried to do something to reverse the image by teaming up with Jerry Seinfeld, but that didn't go well.... It's funny that Sony didn't produce a commercial glorifying its arrogance, but yet, its general image is a cocky one anyway...

ah, nice math there The $200 difference covers about five years eh? Okay, let's say i need the WiFi adapter, that leaves me about $120? Three years of free Live? Hmmm, since Live offers so much cool contents, movies, games, demos, i'll run into hdd space problem. So how much do i need to upgrade a Xbox 360 hdd? Forget about the BD too eh? Or you rather get five free years of Live and no BD? The math is subjective really...

We all know HD cable is not worth mentioning anymore... a BD remote, maybe, but like the PS2 or even the Xbox. The console itself is able to play dvd, but remotes are sold separately... You can argue that if the PS3 is marketed as a BD player, then yeah, include the DB remote is common sense. But no, the PS3 is marketed as a gaming console using BD technology that can play BD... Look, as a consumer, hell, give me a free HD cable, give me a free BD remote, hell, give me a free game too while you at it. But realistically speaking, that didn't happen and frankly, i did get what i paid for.

Cheap WiFi solution.

Wireless is nice. It is not a necessity. Better yet, you can save your $13 since the system comes with a cat-5 cable.

We do? Until Joe Schmoe can walk into Wal-Mart and get an HDMI cable for $5, it's worth mentioning. The monoprice angle doesn't fly. For you, me and everyone else on an theater/movie enthusiast site it does. For everyone else, not so much. Here's the solution for the average person: Sony Component cable is $20 and the HDMI, $55 at walmart.

That point must have been lost on the millions of people buying it for the Blu-ray functionality. Case in point

If you're going to communicate with your friends on Live a headset will come in handy and is already bundled with the console. Here's Sony's for $50 at Wal-Mart.

You can't pick and choose features for arguments sake. BOTH companies exclude certain items for the complete gaming experience.

MC, the subjective debate over the actual value of the Xbox 360 vs PS3 never ends really... I see your points and personally, i do agree with you.

I mean, face it, $40 Live a year, it's priceless for those Xbox users who actually communicate with their friends/relatives regularly, you just can't put a real value on that! You can argue that the PSN is free, but the true value is, it's not just one PSN account in play here, all of the friends/relatives need to migrate as well. Simply put, PSN is all sudden more expensive than $40 Live, do we agree?

When you apply logic like that, you just can't put a real value on any console. So, should i just say, go gaming and just love what you do with what you have NOT hate what you don't do with what you don't have. I'm on a roll again with the philosophy

Yeah, value is relative. My point (I think) was that Sony could make that statement in an ad. However...

Wi-Fi is absolutely a necessity if I want my console in the living room.

Nice selective shopping considering any HDMI cable will work and any USB or Blu-tooth headset will work. Conversely, as far as I know, only a 360 hard drive will work, only a 360 headset will work, and only a 360 wireless adapter will work...and all are absurdly overpriced.

Check.. and MATE!

Totally agree with you.

Those are the main reasons why i don't recommend the Xbox 360. I can do fine w/o the headset and wireless adapter (no need to talk and use wired network), but i just can't stand the fact that 120gb cost more than $100! You gotta be kidding me. People argue that you don't need such big hdd for the Xbox to start with, but that's subjective... My style? I hardly delete anything, not because bad data management, because there are works involved to get the contents on the hdd in the first place. Perhaps in the past i need to do this, but now with the cheap hdds, i hardly find that acceptable!