In the wake of the announcement that the PlayStation 3 will cost $500 - $600, PlayStation head Ken Kutaragi has gone on record to state the pricepoint is actually far too low.
Speaking to IT Media today, Kutaragi-san said:
"This is the PS3 price. Expensive, cheap -- we don't want you to think of it in terms of game machines. Because the PS3 is like nothing else. For instance, is it not nonsense to compare the charge for dinner at the company cafeteria with dinner at a fine restaurant? It's a question of what you can do with that game machine. If you can have an amazing experience, we believe price is not a problem. When we announced the PlayStation price, it was said to be expensive. Same for the PlayStation 2. However, when released, both had sales that were unthinkable for previous game machines. This is because both offered experiences that could not be had on previous game machines. With the PS3, you can have next generation game experiences that could previously not be experienced -- things like next generation graphics and various services via the network. And, as with the PS and PS2, we believe people who like games will, without question, purchase it."
Of course, this assertion is the latest stage of Sony's distancing from the Xbox 360, a ploy that absolutely has to succeed if the PlayStation 3 is going to sell. Sony must convince consumers that its machine offers a generational leap way beyond what its competitor is offering.
Kutaragi also outlined what shipping levels we can expect from PlayStation 3 at launch. As you will have read before, SCE pledged two million units on day one, two more before the end of 2006 and a further two million by March 2007. Kutaragi commented, "Of course, this is a number that we announced having made sure we can definitely prepare it. There is the possibility of unexpected problems like earthquake or theft, so I won't say it's absolute, but if this type of trouble does not occur, there's no problem with this number".
Speaking to IT Media today, Kutaragi-san said:
"This is the PS3 price. Expensive, cheap -- we don't want you to think of it in terms of game machines. Because the PS3 is like nothing else. For instance, is it not nonsense to compare the charge for dinner at the company cafeteria with dinner at a fine restaurant? It's a question of what you can do with that game machine. If you can have an amazing experience, we believe price is not a problem. When we announced the PlayStation price, it was said to be expensive. Same for the PlayStation 2. However, when released, both had sales that were unthinkable for previous game machines. This is because both offered experiences that could not be had on previous game machines. With the PS3, you can have next generation game experiences that could previously not be experienced -- things like next generation graphics and various services via the network. And, as with the PS and PS2, we believe people who like games will, without question, purchase it."
Of course, this assertion is the latest stage of Sony's distancing from the Xbox 360, a ploy that absolutely has to succeed if the PlayStation 3 is going to sell. Sony must convince consumers that its machine offers a generational leap way beyond what its competitor is offering.
Kutaragi also outlined what shipping levels we can expect from PlayStation 3 at launch. As you will have read before, SCE pledged two million units on day one, two more before the end of 2006 and a further two million by March 2007. Kutaragi commented, "Of course, this is a number that we announced having made sure we can definitely prepare it. There is the possibility of unexpected problems like earthquake or theft, so I won't say it's absolute, but if this type of trouble does not occur, there's no problem with this number".
Read More Like This
Comments
Rustman 12 May 2006 23:18
1/14
I like games. I also like being able to pay bills and still have enough change to buy food.
If the PS3 was three times more powerful than the most powerful PC I would still not care that much for it. It still seems trapped in the "it looks pretty" camp. So what?
Although I hate the name, the Wii has a LOT more going for it in terms of potential for a different experience.
Blu-ray can eat my shorts.
If the PS3 was three times more powerful than the most powerful PC I would still not care that much for it. It still seems trapped in the "it looks pretty" camp. So what?
Although I hate the name, the Wii has a LOT more going for it in terms of potential for a different experience.
Blu-ray can eat my shorts.
PresidentEvil 13 May 2006 00:28
2/14
Rustman wrote:
I like games. I also like being able to pay bills and still have enough change to buy food.
So you are poor! That is not Sony's problem, nor the problem of us rich people.
Poor people are forever moaning about "can't afford healthcare this, and need food to live that". But if they stopped whinging and invested their time and energy in some carefully chosen stocks, and had the benefit of insider trading information... they could afford a PS3, and a Porsche.
It's Wii for you and "Wheeeee" for me.
more comments below our sponsor's message
jodo4 13 May 2006 02:36
3/14
well if the rich people are the only ones who an buy the ps3, then I'd say it is Sony's problem beause the last time I looked.... not too many peple were rich.
I dont see many PS3s out there in the future.
Sony is going to lose more on this console per unit than ever before so they're in a deep hole. They better hope to god poor people know how to use the stock market.
I dont see many PS3s out there in the future.
Sony is going to lose more on this console per unit than ever before so they're in a deep hole. They better hope to god poor people know how to use the stock market.
Bentley 13 May 2006 04:41
4/14
I'm not rich, but PS3 comes out in November.
That's PLENTY of time to save up.
If you can't save up that much money in 6 months, you need to get a better job.
It's not Sony's fault if you're some thick-headed loser who now licks toilet-bowls for kicks. You should have paid more attention in school.
Kids, if you're still in school, pay attention now and one day you too may be able to afford a PS3.
That's PLENTY of time to save up.
If you can't save up that much money in 6 months, you need to get a better job.
It's not Sony's fault if you're some thick-headed loser who now licks toilet-bowls for kicks. You should have paid more attention in school.
Kids, if you're still in school, pay attention now and one day you too may be able to afford a PS3.
ozfunghi 13 May 2006 07:47
5/14
Wow, these have to be of the dumbest and most arrogant posts i've read in a while. I went to a what some may call "elite" school of my region, i have my own company, i'm about (next month) to buy a -somewhat expensive- house. I wouldn't call myself poor, exactly. But i know about one thousand better ways to spend 600 dollars.
Your posts (to 2 previous "rich" posters) have me wonder how old you are. There are two sorts of rich people. The ones that had to work for it themselves, and the ones that get their money from mommy. Those that had to work for it, would undoubtedly understand what the other posters are trying to say. Because they know the real value of money. Which has me think, in your case, it's the latter.
Your posts (to 2 previous "rich" posters) have me wonder how old you are. There are two sorts of rich people. The ones that had to work for it themselves, and the ones that get their money from mommy. Those that had to work for it, would undoubtedly understand what the other posters are trying to say. Because they know the real value of money. Which has me think, in your case, it's the latter.
OptimusP 13 May 2006 09:54
6/14
The reply of G W****r Bush was... get this...sarcastic! And he does a good job of fooling people into believing that he's erious, love it! ^^
Anyway... Sony is now official the same (maybe even worse) as Nintendo at the start of N64/PSX generation. I hope Ken chokes on his arrogance one day.
Anyway... Sony is now official the same (maybe even worse) as Nintendo at the start of N64/PSX generation. I hope Ken chokes on his arrogance one day.
fluffstardx 13 May 2006 12:01
7/14
What makes me laugh is that they're still avoiding the real comparison to harp on about a bad one that suits them. The SNES was NOT a competitor - the Saturn was. And the Saturn was, yes, MORE expensive than PS1. And it DIED. It also competed with the N64. Which arrived LATE and MORE EXPENSIVE, and DIED.
You can see why they've avoided this.
You can see why they've avoided this.
SorelissLarethian 13 May 2006 17:46
8/14
"If you can have an amazing experience, we believe price is not a problem."
As a previous poster said... This is about games... no matter how much you are into games(and i have even worked for games) games are not an experience sorry guys. Theater is experience. Camping is experience, working, traveling, fishing, college, a concert too.
Staying home and watching tv or playing games simply isn't.
Video games are just passtime. A great passtime.. the greatest even!!! Nothing so important though that would have me pay 600+ for just the console.
For the same amount of ps3+a game i will buy a wii and spend a weekend with my girlfriend somewhere nice :)
As a previous poster said... This is about games... no matter how much you are into games(and i have even worked for games) games are not an experience sorry guys. Theater is experience. Camping is experience, working, traveling, fishing, college, a concert too.
Staying home and watching tv or playing games simply isn't.
Video games are just passtime. A great passtime.. the greatest even!!! Nothing so important though that would have me pay 600+ for just the console.
For the same amount of ps3+a game i will buy a wii and spend a weekend with my girlfriend somewhere nice :)
Master Chef 13 May 2006 19:42
9/14
fluffstardx wrote:
And the Saturn was, yes, MORE expensive than PS1. And it DIED.
the saturn died because it was was difficult to developer for and didn't get the same genius marketing as the playstation and as a result it didnt get the buyer and publisher's support
It also competed with the N64. Which arrived LATE and MORE EXPENSIVE, and DIED.
You can see why they've avoided this.
You can see why they've avoided this.
they avoided this because it a completely crap comparison. in europe the n64 failed because it was release a full 18 months after ps1 (over 2 years between ps1 japan release and n64 euro release) and just 18 months before dreamcast hit the stores in japan! - by which time sony owned the kids with is cool new brand. meanwhile n64 had really rubbish marketting (get your parents to buy you new mario, kiddies!), was expensive the publish for (cartridges, for f**ks sake!) and was - technically - s**t (RiP SGI, lol). it died because it the almost everyone already had a ps1 or saturn before we saw anything of worth come out of n64.
sony on the other hand have been showing gfx whore trailers since before 360 was even called 360 - even if they were mockups. from what ive seen this e3, I think all of last years mockups will be realiseed
the ps3 price is a big issue, but marketting can make poor people do crazy things. thats why god invented credit cards!
ann0uk 14 May 2006 11:58
10/14
Actually I bought an N64 and Gamecube at launch and I can tell you that I will not be an early adopter of the PS3 because that is too much money.
I think that when a company is at the top for too long they get arrogant, this happened with Nintendo and then Sony came along and changed things.
For the price of PS3 I can own both X360 and a Wii, and with Microsofts growing games library and excellent online service and Nintendo's virtual console and new controller I would be happy.
If history has told us anything in this market, no company stays top for too long, it always changes.
I think that when a company is at the top for too long they get arrogant, this happened with Nintendo and then Sony came along and changed things.
For the price of PS3 I can own both X360 and a Wii, and with Microsofts growing games library and excellent online service and Nintendo's virtual console and new controller I would be happy.
If history has told us anything in this market, no company stays top for too long, it always changes.
TwoADay 14 May 2006 19:14
11/14
ozfunghi wrote:
Wow, these have to be of the dumbest and most arrogant posts i've read in a while. I went to a what some may call "elite" school of my region, i have my own company, i'm about (next month) to buy a -somewhat expensive- house. I wouldn't call myself poor, exactly. But i know about one thousand better ways to spend 600 dollars.
Your posts (to 2 previous "rich" posters) have me wonder how old you are. There are two sorts of rich people. The ones that had to work for it themselves, and the ones that get their money from mommy. Those that had to work for it, would undoubtedly understand what the other posters are trying to say. Because they know the real value of money. Which has me think, in your case, it's the latter.
Your posts (to 2 previous "rich" posters) have me wonder how old you are. There are two sorts of rich people. The ones that had to work for it themselves, and the ones that get their money from mommy. Those that had to work for it, would undoubtedly understand what the other posters are trying to say. Because they know the real value of money. Which has me think, in your case, it's the latter.
I disagree. I think the people most likely to say that "it's not expensive" may actually buy it on their own, as they do have jobs. However, they also likely have parents that they are living with, and don't pay rent, utilities, and so forth. It's easy to save up that cash when you're living with your parents, not paying bills, and under 21 (and therefore don't go to bars here in the 'States, and have limited social lives)
Those of us over here in our mid twenties in my area -- Well educated, either persuing Master's degrees, M.Ds, or PhDs -- think it's entirely too expensive to shell out that much for a system that doesn't do anything out of the ordinary. Most people I've talked to in this demographic are more interested in the Wii.
tyrion 15 May 2006 07:55
12/14
TwoADay wrote:
I disagree. I think the people most likely to say that "it's not expensive" may actually buy it on their own, as they do have jobs. However, they also likely have parents that they are living with, and don't pay rent, utilities, and so forth.
Well, I'm not living with my parents and do have to pay all those bills as well as run a car. The only cost I don't have at the moment is a mortgage.
That said, I'll be buying a PS3. I've made my mind up over the weekend and I'm almost defiantly buying one. I'll be buying the "full" or "premium" one too.
Why you may ask? Well, because I don't see it as being that expensive compared to the use I'm going to get out of it. Certainly compared to a new top of the line, will last for a few years, gaming PC, the PS3 is a decent price. True that PC does more than just play games, but so will the PS3, and 360 and Wii of course.
I have high hopes for Sony's network service, they have Sony Online Entertainment looking at it and they have a decent reputation for the technical infrastructure, if not some of the game "balancing" decisions they have made. Sony also have the advantage of seeing what has worked for Microsoft and being able to put their own spin on it.
So is the PS3 cheap? No, of course not, £425 (as GameStation have it priced) is a lot of money. However, I believe it will be good value, for me at least, and will be worth the price.
You all have to make your own minds up, of course, you can't have mine - I'm using it!
wanderingsoul 15 May 2006 17:47
13/14
Any way you slice it, demographically the PS3 will have a tough time cracking almost every segment. These hypothetical numbers are all based on the launch day price.
5-10: Too young. They like the graphics but they also like cardboard boxes. Too expensive for parents.
11-18: Possible the parents may buy it for their children. Parents or grandparents with money stashed away shouldn't have TOO much of a problem, however I think these are few and far between as even a parent would probably rather spend the money on a full blown computer.
19-25: Roughly the ages of university students. I fall into this category. There is no way I can afford the PS3 because not only am I working a somewhat low paying job because Im not a graduate yet, I'm saving up to pay for my university tuition, which is quite a bundle. Couple in the possibility of car payments, the price of socializing and having a girlfriend as well as clothing costs things start to mount up.
26-40: This will be Sony's target demographic. University grads who have good paying jobs and who are tech savvy. They have the money to afford the system, and while they have a lot to do other than playing games, it wont matter as long as they buy the system (and games to help get Sony out of the red). Although many know the value of a dollar and would far rather invest for the future among other things.
I see PS3 succeeding...but only with time. We wont see the record breaking numbers of PS2 and we will see a good, but somewhat disappointing launch day before sales taper off until the first price drop. Once the price drops enough, it will sell like hotcakes but Sony will still take a massive hit by the end of this generation.
As for buying one myself, I simply cannot afford it. I find it pretty ludicrous to say "Get a better paying job." Unless I am a university graduate, there simply aren't many jobs that pay well enough so I can balance all of my expenses with a PS3 on top. After the price drop, I will seriously consider it, but not at this point. As a poster stated earlier, I too have 1000 better ways to spend $600. It's simply not worth it imo for a game system, regardless of the technological advancement the PS3 has made.
5-10: Too young. They like the graphics but they also like cardboard boxes. Too expensive for parents.
11-18: Possible the parents may buy it for their children. Parents or grandparents with money stashed away shouldn't have TOO much of a problem, however I think these are few and far between as even a parent would probably rather spend the money on a full blown computer.
19-25: Roughly the ages of university students. I fall into this category. There is no way I can afford the PS3 because not only am I working a somewhat low paying job because Im not a graduate yet, I'm saving up to pay for my university tuition, which is quite a bundle. Couple in the possibility of car payments, the price of socializing and having a girlfriend as well as clothing costs things start to mount up.
26-40: This will be Sony's target demographic. University grads who have good paying jobs and who are tech savvy. They have the money to afford the system, and while they have a lot to do other than playing games, it wont matter as long as they buy the system (and games to help get Sony out of the red). Although many know the value of a dollar and would far rather invest for the future among other things.
I see PS3 succeeding...but only with time. We wont see the record breaking numbers of PS2 and we will see a good, but somewhat disappointing launch day before sales taper off until the first price drop. Once the price drops enough, it will sell like hotcakes but Sony will still take a massive hit by the end of this generation.
As for buying one myself, I simply cannot afford it. I find it pretty ludicrous to say "Get a better paying job." Unless I am a university graduate, there simply aren't many jobs that pay well enough so I can balance all of my expenses with a PS3 on top. After the price drop, I will seriously consider it, but not at this point. As a poster stated earlier, I too have 1000 better ways to spend $600. It's simply not worth it imo for a game system, regardless of the technological advancement the PS3 has made.
Bentley 16 May 2006 17:12
14/14
ozfunghi wrote:
Wow, these have to be of the dumbest and most arrogant posts i've read in a while. I went to a what some may call "elite" school of my region, i have my own company, i'm about (next month) to buy a -somewhat expensive- house. I wouldn't call myself poor, exactly. But i know about one thousand better ways to spend 600 dollars.
Your posts (to 2 previous "rich" posters) have me wonder how old you are. There are two sorts of rich people. The ones that had to work for it themselves, and the ones that get their money from mommy. Those that had to work for it, would undoubtedly understand what the other posters are trying to say. Because they know the real value of money. Which has me think, in your case, it's the latter.
Your posts (to 2 previous "rich" posters) have me wonder how old you are. There are two sorts of rich people. The ones that had to work for it themselves, and the ones that get their money from mommy. Those that had to work for it, would undoubtedly understand what the other posters are trying to say. Because they know the real value of money. Which has me think, in your case, it's the latter.
If this fool is knocking me, I am 32, I work for myself, and 600 quid is a lot of dosh but compared to the amount of money my peers spend on drugs, booze and illegitimate children, it's a drop in the ocean. If you can find something better to spend $600 on then go ahead, but I for one will be saving up my dosh for a truly next-gen console capable of playing next-gen discs, movies, games etc. as well as all the downloadable goodies and other treats that come with it.
I know the value of money, but I also know that some things are worth saving for. I don't appreciate being called dumb, especially by people who don't realise that "I" is supposed to be capitalised, but I guess you were away when they taught that at your "elite school". I admit that I can be arrogant though. Good luck in your expensive house, show-off.
PS3: save up if you want one, and buy it.
If you don't, don't bother. Simple. But know that there will be many people having a great time on their next-gen consoles while you are sat on your pile of money in your expensive, lonely house.
SorelissLarethian wrote:
no matter how much you are into games(and i have even worked for games) games are not an experience sorry guys. Theater is experience. Camping is experience, working, traveling, fishing, college, a concert too.
Staying home and watching tv or playing games simply isn't.
Video games are just passtime. A great passtime.. the greatest even
Staying home and watching tv or playing games simply isn't.
Video games are just passtime. A great passtime.. the greatest even
What utter drivel. Experiences are relative to the individual. I personally find theatre boring, and camping I have grown out of (sick of waking up sweaty and uncomfortable surrounded by more sweaty and uncomfortable people) but I would not say that it is not an experience for those who love it. I've had at thousand great "experiences" from playing games, from the joy of playing online with a the right people, to parachuting off a building in GTA, to popping pills as PAC-Man. It's all about suspending your disbelief and enjoying it as much as you can at the time, and that is an experience as much as watching some posh tart banging out some boring pre-written lines on some stage in a dusty theatre somewhere.
For some they are just a pastime, for some a hobby, others a way of life. For me it is a hobby and I have had many emotional experiences from playing games, just as many have emotional experiences from watching a well-loved movie. I know that you're not knocking games but they deserve more respect and recognition, as do those who enjoy the experience.