Your link for the day.
OK...
$600 + for a new console is asenine, in my opinion. Even if it has a next-gen DVD player and is HD capable. There are few games for it, it's overpriced and scarce.
The XBox 360 has HD capability, has lots of games, has been out for a year, and has a DVD player. Not next-gen, but capable nonetheless.
And it's HALF THE PRICE of a PS3!
Thursday, November 16, 2006
It's HOW much?!?!?!?!?!
Posted by Daishi at 3:36 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I don't play games. I don't own a gaming console of any sort. Never will. But in terms of which system gives you the best gear for the best price, it's the PS3. The reason the PS3 is worth the price is very simple: Blue-Ray. Blue-Ray is a significantly superior technology to HD-DVD (which Microsoft is offering in the Xbox), and to go out and buy a Blue-Ray player on its own would cost you over a grand. Sony is hoping that people will view it as not just a gaming console but as something you buy to upgrade your entire entertainment system. Additionally, the PS3 is backward compatible with PS2 games, so in reality there are quite a few games for it already. The Xbox 360 doesn't have that capability.
The technology in the Xbox 360 is also new, but Microsoft is deliberately taking a loss on the cost of their units in order to put Sony out of the console business. Sony is also taking a loss (industry calculations are that the wholesale value of the hardware in the PS3 is $804), but this is a well-worn tactic that Microsoft has honed over the years; their monopoly of operating systems and office software is a sizable enough cash-cow to allow them to bleed money in other areas. They just write it off as an investment. If Sony were charging what the PS3 is worth the disparity would be even worse, and they'd be in a world of hurt.
It's a very cunning strategy: lose money in the short-term in order to get people to buy your product because "it costs half as much" as your competitor's offering. Eventually your competitor can't sell enough of their product to stay in the business, and they close shop. Now you "own" the market in a very monopolistic way, and your sales can only increase. You can also set whatever price you like. You then recoup your previous losses. Only one company has the money to pull off that kind of stunt, and they made that money by doing it over and over again.
Why were we stuck with poor versions of Windows and Internet Explorer for years? Because once Microsoft won those markets there was no incentive for them to "innovate", as they like to claim. Once Apple came out with OS X they had to fix Windows. Once Mozilla came out they had to fix IE. They don't innovate, like they brag about so often. They only change when they find others passing them by.
When I said the PS3 is "worth the price" I meant that in a very literal way; the value of its individual components is equal to or greater than the amount the unit will cost you. I didn't mean ownership of a gaming device is worth spending money on; that's relative. However, you get what you pay for, and in the case of supporting Microsoft's ambitions, you get poorer quality and technological stagnation in return.
I had forgotten about Microsoft undercutting the competition, even though it is their 'tried-and-true' strategy, and that they are posting a loss for the 360.
I also thought the PS3 wasn't backwards compatible with the PS2 and PSX. That was one of the problems I had heard about. But, I have been known to be ignorant of issues before commenting on them.
My point was that $700 for a console is a LOT OF MONEY! But, if a Blu-ray is $1000+, then it is worth the cost.
But, maybe it would be better to wait a year for the Blu-ray to be backwards compatible with regular DVD's, and then get it. Or, is it already compatible?
I'm SO uninformed... :(
Blue-Ray is already backwards compatible.
Blu-Ray. Pardon the typos.
Thank you, once again, for informing me on things I should have already been informed on. It is much appreciated.
Post a Comment