It was inevitable

[Roas Atrades]

And Roas, I have to agree with Kiz. In addition, complaints of the price certainly are worthwhile.

You know, I'd said my piece already, and was not really going to say anything else on the topic, because frankly, I had nothing relavent left to say. However, just now in the shower I remembered something from a few days ago that turns out to actually be relavant to the conversation.

So, I have to say I still disagree, and here's why.

So, it was last week, and I was out in town running errands. I pushed my errand runnings later than usual, because I had heard an old buddy was working at the local Gamestops, and I thought I might try to catch him on said day, since that was when he was supposed to be working. So, I went to both stores, and eventually ended up at the final one with no luck in finding my friend on duty. But, I stuck around for a few more minutes, incase he'd been in the back storeroom or something.

Well, as I was pretend browsing, I happened to catch the conversation between what appeared to be your average consumer woman and the Gamestop employee on duty. And low and behold, they were talking about the PS3. The GS guy was giving her the specs on the system while explaining how expensive it was supposed to be (this was before the offical conference this week, obviously).

Now, I know evesdropping isn't nice, but what else was I really doing there?

Anywho, the conversation went on and the woman (approximately, since this was last week) says, "I just bought my husband an Xbox 360. What can I do to reserve a PS3 now?"

The GS guy went on to explain how they were probably not going to take any form of reservations for the PS3 after the 360 debacles in the fall, yet she still tried to get him to let her do it somehow.

Back then, I just passed the conversation off and filed it away as misc. junk in my head. But now, to me at least, lends towards a feeling of "Who cares" when it comes to the money issue.

Basically we, and I say we as in the internet gaming community of geeks and gamers, are probably a marginal...maybe even small fraction of a percent of the actual consumer market for this stuff. We all have out big opinions and insider knowledge, as well as the decade plus experience in dealing with consoles and their developers. Some of us are appauled at the prices, and refuse on principle to participate.

However, I do not think we really compare to the true consumer masses out there, to which I believe this women I encountered truly represents. She is a possible example of a mentality of people that will purchase things no matter what because: A- they want it for themselves no matter what, or B- want to give it to a family member, friend, or loved one. These people are not gamers in the sense that we are, but they are simply consumers who see things they want and go out and buy them. Not to mention, we do live in the era of homes with multiple gaming consoles. Some of us here may be extremely frugal and choose only one system, but the common household will have two or even all three of the major systems under one roof nowadays, without even blinking an eye.

So, I really don't think the average consumer is going to care. I mean, they don't follow E3 and other stuff like we do. They will buy the system they want the most, or has the games they want the most, "innovation" or "price" be damned. Sure, Sony probably will take a few hits in the profit margin, as I've said, but I really don't believe they will be dead in the water as some predict. You don't maintain dominence for all these years being stupid.

And in the end, I still believe it will be Sony and Microsoft swapping first and second place, depending on whatever the hottest game is that is not cross-console, and that Nintendo will continue to be the odd man out. My predictions about the gaming world since the SNES days (the rise and fall of Nintendo, the fall of Sega, the rise of Sony, the rise, plateau, and rise again of Xbox, etc.) have been fairly accurate all these years, so I'm going to stick with my gut instincts. If I'm wrong, then I'll be wrong. Bu if I'm right...well, I like being right

K, I've added to my thoughts. I'm now back to having nothing relavent to say on the topic anymore.

[Kizyr]

So, I really don't think the average consumer is going to care. I mean, they don't follow E3 and other stuff like we do. They will buy the system they want the most, or has the games they want the most, "innovation" or "price" be damned. Sure, Sony probably will take a few hits in the profit margin, as I've said, but I really don't believe they will be dead in the water as some predict. You don't maintain dominence for all these years being stupid.

You're definitely getting your consumer types confused, and kidding yourself if you think the average person is not motivated by price. Price is the number-one thing that motivates someone who knows, nor cares, nothing else about a product. Price is going to be the biggest factor for the folks who don't care about following up on a system's game library, it's specs, what it can do, or any of that junk.

For all the "hard-core" gamers, the marginal group, they're the ones who are less likely to be affected by price, and thus more willing to pay a higher cost for it. The technical term for it is price elasticity of demand, which in the gamers case is low because there are more motivating factors that go into his or her purchase decisions. Your average person is going to weigh in on price a lot more heavily, since other things are going to be a lot less important. (If you're at all curious, Sony is trying to capitalize on the two separate market by offering a 'stripped down' version for a lower price--that would appeal to the less "gamer"-like consumer. Even then their pricing is way off.)

The only people who are thinking "price be damned" are going to be wealthy, or they have a lot of money to blow. You definitely didn't overhear the conversation of someone who was representative of your average consumer; you heard someone who had enough money to where $600 after buying an X-Box 360 wasn't a big deal. I'm also wondering where you get the idea that the common household has 2-3 different consoles under one roof; I don't know a lot of folks who are willing to spend $500-600 on multiple consoles alone, unless they're of that marginal "gamer" category you mentioned. KF

[Rune Lai]

It's late, but I'll throw in my two cents.

My predications: Sony is going to take a hit this generation. I thought they already were going to since the Xbox360 is coming out with a more expansive library than before (getting more Japanese developers on board will definitely help them), but with the price point being as high as it is only the most hardcore (or wealthy) people are going to buy it.

The 3DO, and the Saturn as well, launched with terribly high prices, and neither system took hold on the marketplace. The Saturn probably only lasted as long as it did on the strength of the Genesis, and after the Saturn Sega never really recovered.

If people want a game machine, they'll pay what they want for a game machine, but the thing is, the PS3 is not just a game machine. Sony is including the Blu-Ray to increase the install base of the Blu-Ray players for the next format DVD war. Sony is a much bigger company than just video games and including Blu-Ray is part of the larger picture. They want to take over the living room. The PS3 is built to be more than a game system, but if a person wants "just" a game system, they can't get it. Not with the PS3.

The $600 price point for a full system is larger than even what the industry analysts were expecting, and I think it's going to hurt Sony in the long run. They'll lose more market share than they would have otherwise. And if Nintendo can pull a $250 system out of a hat I think they just may increase the market share they've been losing.

[Imperial Knight]

Some of us are appauled at the prices, and refuse on principle to participate.

What? You make it sound as though people are saying they don't want to pay $600 for a PS3 because they're mad at Sony, almost as if it's some sort of personal boycott. I don't think that's the way it is at all. Now I can only speak for myself, but the reason I don't want to pay $600 for a PS3 is because $600 is a lot of money, and money doesn't grow on trees. Sure, I acknowledge that Sony can price their products at whatever price point they want (and they're almost certainly losing money on each PS3 sold, even at $600), but I have to consider the cost of everything I purchase, and so does everybody else unless (a) they're rich or (b) they're irresponsible and going into a ton of debt. I wasn't planning to buy a PS3 at launch anyways, but even buying one later will be an expensive proposition unless there are massive price cuts. I can't say I won't ever buy one, but I certainly will need more convincing (in the form of a significant number of "must-have" games) that I would have needed otherwise.

I think your abstract point is a good one. I agree that message boards are hardly representative of the gaming population as a whole. But I also think you've applied that pricinple incorrectly to this situation. Kiz has already made a good argument, so I don't really have much to say on that matter. I would also agree that price is not the only factor in the average consumer's purchasing decisions (after all, the PS2 outsold the Gamecube despite being the more expensive machine), however, that doesn't mean that price isn't a factor at all. And I do think the high PS3 price tag will cause people not to buy a PS3.

How will the overall market shares end up because of this? Honestly, I have no clue, but I do think this will be a fascinating generation in that regard.

[GhaleonOne]

How will the overall market shares end up because of this? Honestly, I have no clue, but I do think this will be a fascinating generation in that regard.

That's the big picture IMO. It should be interesting to see how it all plays out over the next few years. The first year after both the PS3 and Wii are out will be a huge indicator I'm sure.

And if I did, I certainly didn't mean to imply that Sony would get killed by Nintendo or Microsoft this generation. They won't, I'm sure. But I just don't think their major dominance will be what it was in the past two generations. In fact, the way I see it, it's the third party support they may loose over time that might cause them to loose their dominance. The idea that there will be a possible substantially less installed user base due to the price of the PS3 might turn some third party's off a bit. I could see multi-platform support becoming a much more common occurance than even last generation. Though if it boils down to first-party games to make a deciding factor, I still think Nintendo would dominate (save Halo and a few other titles that can sell an entire system).

Speaking of Halo, I could see the 360 take off bigtime with Halo 3 now announced. That's the game that will move systems faster than just about anything. Especially since they'll likely release it around the PS3's and/or Wii's release.

[phyco126]

Is it me, or are gameing consoles pulling more and more away from young gamers? With the real exception of Nintendo and wealthy parents with spoiled kids, all these new gameing consoles are getting more and more expensive and the games are getting more and more violent. So, it seems like the target crowd is supposed to be gamers with good jobs, and that usually only comes about from peeps out of high school.

[Silver Phoenix]

I was one of those people that bought a Saturn for $400 at launch, plus a controller and games so it definitely cost a mint. I have no interest in buying a PS3 for quite a while after launch. Sony always releases new hardward that is loaded with defects and if you're smart you'll wait for the revisions. The launch library will have possibly one or two games at launch that will seem like must haves, but they'll eventually drop in price as better games are released. Sony is still an arrogant company and is more interested in the bottom dollar over consumer satisfaction. The hype will sell systems but the inflated price tag will deter the average consumer. Consider a few weeks/months of putting gas in your car over an expensive console you can't drive anywhere.

Nintendo was initially looking to have a low price tag at launch, but I'm not sure of their marketing plans as of yet. Originally the system was touted to launch at a remarkable $199, but in this day and age I find that incredibly hard to believe. In either case, I would bet that it will be the least expensive system at launch.

[Rune Lai]

Is it me, or are gameing consoles pulling more and more away from young gamers? With the real exception of Nintendo and wealthy parents with spoiled kids, all these new gameing consoles are getting more and more expensive

I think this is what Nintendo is going for with the Wii. They're going for the audience that is looking for affordable fun, and if they can pull it off, more power to them. The only other major next gen consoles are the Xbox 360 and the PS3, so there aren't really a lot of other systems to compare to, but if you want the power you have to pay for it. What concerns me the most though is that in order to make use of the power, someone has to design and program for all of it, and that's making development budgets bigger than ever.

and the games are getting more and more violent. So, it seems like the target crowd is supposed to be gamers with good jobs, and that usually only comes about from peeps out of high school.

Well, the average gamer is now in their mid-twenties if I recall, so the majority of people buying and playing games are comfortably in the age group for while playing violent games is a personal choice and unlikely to corrupt the soul of some innocent individual. They're getting more violent because they can, and with the next gen they can bring visceral carnage to a height yet to be experienced. Not all games are doing this. But the types of games that would have had they need able to do so in their generation, are doing so now.

Look at it this way. 8-bit Castlevania was a very simple affair with Simon Belmont harmlessly killing enemies with his whip. Nobody cared about the violence even though we had flying Medusa heads, skeletons, mutated midgets in what by rights should be a scary, creepy environment. When Castlevania finally landed on the PS2, it came with an M-rating. Why? Because enemies finally started bleeding, and those mutated midgets' knives actually did something worse than make your character flash. The castle was actually creepy. Castlevania was never horror, but things that would have been in the original, had the technology been available, are in there now and the rating has been raised according.

[phyco126]

True about our generation of gamers being in their mid twenties early 30s, but it's not like gaming dies with us. If anything the newest generation of gamers who are being brought up in the late PS2 to current era should by all means out number last generation of gamers. I could be wrong, after all I'm only trying to bring simple math into this.

[Rune Lai]

I never said anything about our generation. This is the average across everybody. There are more adult gamers than child gamers. It's a fact. We have people in their twenties, thirties, and even forties playing. We have children somewhere between five and eighteen playing. Even if there is a higher percentage of children who play, there are more adult gamers simply because there are more adults (and a healthy portion of the adults in their twenties and thirties grew up gamers).

[Zophar]

Wow, there's a lot of nintendo fans here. Good source of people to make fun of. Just kidding!

Anyway this happens all the time, technology is always copied into other game systems. That's the way it is. It's what they call COMPETITION. No matter what, all game systems will completely own any crap that nintendo makes (obviously I hate nintendo). Nintendo might have been the star back in the days of the original Nintendo and the Super Nintendo but those days are over and done.

Okay so the Wii is getting a Dragon Quest, big deal. When it comes to RPGs the Playstation series ALWAYS has the better ones, Nintendo gets the trash. Let's see, who got Final Fantasy VII which turned into a huge hit? Playstation. What did N64 have? Nothing. While Nintendo has a new Dragon Quest, Sony has Final Fantasy XIII (and Final Fantasy Versus XIII which is totally going to own any crap that nintendo pulls out like Twilight Princess.) Even if the next Lunar game was going to be released on the Wii I still wouldn't get that system, that lunar game would probably suck anyway.

Speaking of Zelda, they said that this Twilight Princess game is going to be harder. Oh my god maybe they will have 3 enemies in every other room instead of 1 or 2. Zelda is too damn easy, it's pathetic. Instead of focusing on pointless puzzles they should be working on the action. I watched part of the Nintendo conference and the guy says: "and here is some intense battle action" or something like that. Wow link is fighting one enemy and is just blocking against an enemy that almost never attacks. GET A GRIP! If you want to see intense battle action, fight a member of Organization XIII in Kingdom Hearts II (especially Xaldin).

Now before you obsesive compulsive nintendo fan boys/girls start attacking me and making sad attempts at a flame by calling me a Playstation fan boy I will make this clear. I AM NOT A FAN BOY OF ANY KIND! I merely look at the systems coming soon, the games that are going to be on it, and I decide from there.

Besides, Playstation 3 is going to have Devil May Cry 4. Beat THAT Nintendo. Wow, big rant lol.

[Dunkleheit]

It seems Nintendo has accepted your challenged. link

Anyway, I do like that Sony chose to add a motion sensor. While it does irk me a bit that they copied the idea from Nintendo, it wouldn't stop me from buying a PS3.

[Imperial Knight]

Now before you obsesive compulsive nintendo fan boys/girls start attacking me and making sad attempts at a flame by calling me a Playstation fan boy I will make this clear. I AM NOT A FAN BOY OF ANY KIND! I merely look at the systems coming soon, the games that are going to be on it, and I decide from there.

Uh, are you reading the bizarro world version of this topic or something? Sure, most people in this topic have expressed misgivings about the PS3 (mostly based on price), but as I mentioned before, the things said have been quite reasonable.

Your assumption that the PS3 will have the best software library is also quite bizarre, since, you know, it's not even out yet. Sure, you can assume that Final Fantasy XIII, etc. will be great, but who knows until they're actually out.

And before you reply that I'm just some disgruntled Nintendo fanboy, I will have to point out that I am no such thing. I own a PS2 and I don't own a Gamecube (and I do not in any way regret either decision). I don't believe that Nintendo invented gaming. I don't believe that they're the only company that makes good games. I don't believe that everything Sony has ever done has been harmful to gaming. In fact, back on the WDMB I was once or twice accused of being anti-Nintendo (I would maintain that such accusations were unfair, but still...).

But nor do I think that just because Sony's consoles have had the strongest software library these past two generations necessarily means that'll still hold in future generations, or that the PS3 will be so incredibly good that I'll want to spend $600 on it, or that every move Sony makes is brilliant and every move Nintendo makes is dumb, etc. Frankly, such attitudes are just as closed-minded and fanboyish as those you decry.

Of course, that post was so over-the-top that I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be a joke post. In which case, eh, whatever.

[Werefrog]

Zophar: You fanboys better not insult me by calling me a fanboy. <Stand and Deliver> Nobody has the right to call me a fanboy </Stand and Deliver>

Also, just so this isn't solely a "flame," don't call Zelda easy while saying to play Kingdom Hearts. I beat Two, 4 levels under-levelled and only going to the moogle shop to buy items a handful of times.

Oh my God... your post has to be a joke... are you calling all puzzles pointless or just the ones in Zelda. Either way, you're way off base. People like you make me want to just give up on current gaming all together and just play adventure games.

[phyco126]

So, you are saying that he has no right to call you a fanboy, yet you in turn call him a fanboy?

Besides, he has every right to say that Zelda is easy and Kingdom Hearts is hard. For him, it may be easy to beat Zelda, and again may be hard for him to beat Kingdom Hearts.

I mean, I beat Lunar: Legend very easy, never used any items, had over half a million silver, and never cheated once. You don't see me going into posts where people say its hard and say "Don't call Lunar: Legend hard, because I beat it and I'm blind!"

Were, you seem to take things people say and turn them into attacks on you. No where in Zophar's post did he say Kingdom hearts was hard, he said the battles were intense, nor did he personally call you a fanboy.

Edit: By the way, I'm not trying to flame you, just trying to get you to realize that no one is attacking you. Lighten up, have some fun, drink some soda.

[Werefrog]

So, you are saying that he has no right to call you a fanboy, yet you in turn call him a fanboy?

Actually, I wrote that as a parody of what he was saying. Sorry, I should have quotation marks about. He was the one actually saying don't call me a fanboy while calling someone else a fanboy.

Besides, he has every right to say that Zelda is easy and Kingdom Hearts is hard. For him, it may be easy to beat Zelda, and again may be hard for him to beat Kingdom Hearts.

I mean, I beat Lunar: Legend very easy, never used any items, had over half a million silver, and never cheated once. You don't see me going into posts where people say its hard and say "Don't call Lunar: Legend hard, because I beat it and I'm blind!"

Well yes, he has the right to. He has the right to do many things, yet it doesn't mean that he has to. There are courtesies that we should attempt to mantain in life. These courtesies were ignored. Granted I ignored them after that.

Were, you seem to take things people say and turn them into attacks on you. No where in Zophar's post did he say Kingdom hearts was hard, he said the battles were intense, nor did he personally call you a fanboy.

Edit: By the way, I'm not trying to flame you, just trying to get you to realize that no one is attacking you. Lighten up, have some fun, drink some soda.

I don't think I usually do this, but with Zophar, yes I might do that. It may come from the fact that he and Roas kinda teamed up on me last time when the mods weren't "looking." I think that most of your post, Phyco, came from the fact that you misinterpreted my first post which was my fault. I should have made my point clear.

And I know that this is just games, but I don't enjoy people calling Nintendo crap. Know your damn roots Zophar. And Zophar, by saying that you "hate" Nintendo, you are a fanboy. If you feel strongly enough to hate a company that you don't even know personally, you are a fanboy. I don't hate Sony. I may have for a bit after WD's demise, but I don't now.

[GhaleonOne]

Look at your statements:

No matter what, all game systems will completely own any crap that nintendo makes (obviously I hate nintendo).

and Final Fantasy Versus XIII which is totally going to own any crap that nintendo pulls out like Twilight Princess.

Even if the next Lunar game was going to be released on the Wii I still wouldn't get that system, that lunar game would probably suck anyway.

If those aren't fanboy statements, I don't know what is. Specifically the second and third statements. One, neither FFXIII or Zelda are out. Stating Zelda will be "crap" and FFXIII will "own" it and any other Nintendo games, considering NONE of the titles are out makes you a fanboy. The Lunar comment just cements it. Cause we all know a game coming out for a system you dislike (which you haven't even played) makes it suck. Right... fanboy.

Now before you obsesive compulsive nintendo fan boys/girls start attacking me and making sad attempts at a flame by calling me a Playstation fan boy I will make this clear. I AM NOT A FAN BOY OF ANY KIND! I merely look at the systems coming soon, the games that are going to be on it, and I decide from there.

Stop being obnoxious... re-read your posts and compare them to the rest of the thread. It was going quite well, but your post totally threw things out of whack. Noone in this thread up until your posts exihibited "fanboy" qualities. Complaints towards Sony had been on legit factors. Price IS an issue. And while some may have said they copied Nintendo (myself included) I don't think any of us didn't expect it or really hold it against them. The price point has been the legit complaint here. None of us have played any of the games. Sure, we can likely speculate as to which games we will want to play, but noone said "MGS will suck and Zelda will kill it." or vise versa. If you look back, you're the only one that made comments based on absolutely no fact.

[phyco126]

I think that most of your post, Phyco, came from the fact that you misinterpreted my first post which was my fault.

Now worries then .

So hey, since peeps are either sony fanboys, nintendo fanboys, or neutral, then I herby declear myself a sole WD Fanboy and hope patiently for thei triumphant return to rule the Earth!

[GhaleonOne]

What a worthless fanboy you are then. Can't even keep the company alive and well.

[phyco126]

We'll see who's worthless when I have Vic rubbing my feet. 8)