![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
If the PS3 is $400 is MS screwed?
- Thread starter laxmiddi44
- Start date
- Status
Netrat33 said:
I agree, but I still don't think it weill convince developers to only make games for the PC and 360 which is sort of what I'm getting at. They need for larger developers to release blockbuster IPs exclusively for the 360 to make a dent. Also as I said, they need to do more things like what Capcom is doing for Lost Planet. Also I'm not so sure about downloadable content...it's fine now...but if Sony has a decent online service then MS will once again be just on-par...they should be setting themselves apart from Sony.
DubOSv10 said:
If Sony's service is just decent, then it won't be any where near the features and capabilities of Live. How does that make Microsoft on par? It would possibly make Sony on par(just by having an online service), but Microsoft would still be very distant from Sony in the online space.
Axoman said:
Oh, I guess I should've said "a service that is as good as XBL"...Even somewhat as good as XBL (and say Sony added some interesting features exclusive to Sonys service)...the point is...Microsoft cannot just be on par with Sony...they have to exceed them (in more than just the online service).
time will tell the ps3 fate. MS is holding no punches this time and is on a mission to beat sony this time.
i've heard RUMORS (just rumors) that MS is trying hard to get a EDITED
GTA is what i meant to say.
MS is not playing this time around so sony needs to watch the moves they make this time. it wont be easy for them.
it is interesting times for consoles.
i've heard RUMORS (just rumors) that MS is trying hard to get a EDITED
GTA is what i meant to say.
MS is not playing this time around so sony needs to watch the moves they make this time. it wont be easy for them.
it is interesting times for consoles.
ne0-reloaded
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2003
- Messages
- 1,216
i think people forget that this is the playstation 3 we're talking about. the same console that set history 2 generations in a row. like someone said, even if MS is the better console, sony is gonna win on name alone. the thing MS have on it's side is it's very very deep pockets. ive had my 360 since jan 1, and im pretty much bored with it. it's more of a "status symbol" than anything. so people would say "wow you gotta 360."
i for one cant wait for the ps3, cause the xbox is boring as fuck to me. i hope MS and nintendo does really well, because competition means lower prices and better games for me.
i for one cant wait for the ps3, cause the xbox is boring as fuck to me. i hope MS and nintendo does really well, because competition means lower prices and better games for me.
Filter said:
Wait a minute, you see statements like this just sort of irk me. These statements mean that either the poster [filter] is making up complete fabrications or that the poster [filter] is listening to someone making up complete fabrications while not attempting to research it themself.
I guess simply put...God of War is developed by Sony Computer Entertainment: Santa Monica and published by SCEA...That means that it is a first-party game. Which means that not only is it a Sony Dev House...but that Sony owns the rights to the title. So basically Sony would have to licsense out the title (which makes a lot of sense). I suppose next Microsoft will be trying to acquire Mario...well it's just a rumor!
Come on man.
But in the US, Price, Price, Price is the ultimate factor. a PS3 for $400...awesome...will it happen..unlikely simply due to blu-ray. I mean starting blu-ray players are $1000! I think they just need to drop blu-ray on the PS3 and price will be competative. But right now *eatting popcorn* we'll all have to continue to wait more.ne0-reloaded said:
ne0-reloaded
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2003
- Messages
- 1,216
DarkLegacy said:
why do people keep bringing up the xbox sales? in comparison to sony it was a blood bath, and in comparison to nintendo, MS squeeked by. sony had 100 mil+, xbox had 21 mil+, and nintendo had 19 mil +. xbox, sales wise at least, was competing with the gamecube, not the ps2. and u better believe that the same people who bought the ps1, were the same who bought the ps2, and theyll swallow the ps3 whole, no matter if it sucks or not!
Netrat33 said:
Thats sonys plan thou, to sell the ps3 as ablu-ray player below cost to hook even non gamers onto it because blu-ray is cheaper than HD, PLUS, its cheaper than other blu-ray players, its a Win(Format War) Win(Blu-Ray/HD Players Vs PS3) Win(Avarage joes will buy it for movies, but use it for gaming)
Triple Win IFFFFFFFFFFFFF(big if here) if they manage to get all 3 things down well
ne0-reloaded
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2003
- Messages
- 1,216
Netrat33 said:
price is important, but so is brand loyalty (this board proves that over and over again). even IF the ps3 is 5-700. it'll sell like a motherfucker. because its the PLAYSTATION 3!!!!! and i think that's what people are forgetting. the ps name is fuckin huge. 100 mil off the ps1, 100 mil off the ps2. many made the arguments that the xbox is better, but it's not the playstation name. the same way windows is synonimous with computers, the playstation is synonimous with video games, and that synoniminity (is that even a fuckin word?) will play a big role.
most people i know (not that it'll make a diff at all) are desperately waiting for the ps3. why? not because its better, not because of exclusives, but because it's the ps3
off topic, i hope to god the make ff7 for the ps3. watching advent children made all warm and fuzzy on the inside. even if it's kingdom hearts graphics, and id buy it no matter what the price is
If the PS3 debuts at $400 MS will not be screwed. They already have a fair sized, and growing, install base. I don't think many people will give a damn about Blu-Ray at the moment considering it's new and its future is completly unknown. People with many thousands of dollars invested in home theaters are going to look for the best Blu-Ray player they can find, not the cheapest.
Look at the 360 around Christmas 2005 - you couldn't find any. I expect that the PS3 will be in a similar situation this Christmas, assuming that it's released in time for the holiday season. Assuming it is, it will have to compete against the 360 with a much larger game library and greater availability. If people are on the fence between the 360 and the PS3 the fact that they will actually be able to get a 360 (without preordering) will probably push them in the directions of the 360. Also, parents buying a console for their children would more than likely opt for the 360 so they can actually give their kids a gift instead of a promise to buy a PS3 as soon as it's available.
Wouldn't that be something if Sony dropped Blu-Ray from the PS3 in order to be able to better compete with the 360's pricing? Also, I can't imagine that the other companies supporting Blu-Ray would enjoy competing against the PS3 at half the price for Blu-Ray player sales. Something tells me this would cause them to be a bit less enthusiastic about putting forth so much effort into supporting Blu-Ray.
Look at the 360 around Christmas 2005 - you couldn't find any. I expect that the PS3 will be in a similar situation this Christmas, assuming that it's released in time for the holiday season. Assuming it is, it will have to compete against the 360 with a much larger game library and greater availability. If people are on the fence between the 360 and the PS3 the fact that they will actually be able to get a 360 (without preordering) will probably push them in the directions of the 360. Also, parents buying a console for their children would more than likely opt for the 360 so they can actually give their kids a gift instead of a promise to buy a PS3 as soon as it's available.
Wouldn't that be something if Sony dropped Blu-Ray from the PS3 in order to be able to better compete with the 360's pricing? Also, I can't imagine that the other companies supporting Blu-Ray would enjoy competing against the PS3 at half the price for Blu-Ray player sales. Something tells me this would cause them to be a bit less enthusiastic about putting forth so much effort into supporting Blu-Ray.
When people used to think of processors they used to immediately think of Intel. 3DFX used to be the name associated with video cards. The Playstation name can easily lose its prestige if the games are not that great or the online gaming service is greatly inferior to Xbox Live. Brand loyalty is helpful, but it only goes so far. If people think they're getting ripped off they're going to look at the alternatives.ne0-reloaded said:
ne0-reloaded
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2003
- Messages
- 1,216
dotK said:
im posting this link because it's probably the biggest AV site on the net. almost 250k members (more than 4x the amount of [H]) and the ps3 is the favored blu-ray player accoriding to this thread/poll
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=668281
ne0-reloaded
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2003
- Messages
- 1,216
dotK said:
your right, but your cpu example was/is really bad. to the average joe, they've never heard of athlon, x2, or sempron. but the pentium is synonimous with computers (i like that word). specifically because of dell and lack of advertising on AMD's part.
but what you said is true, but brand loyalty goes really far. ask a ford owner what they think of chevy trucks and ull see what i mean.
ne0-reloaded
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2003
- Messages
- 1,216
dotK said:
that non-scientific poll is more evidence than saying most AV people will buy a standalone player with absolutely no evidence or support. you didnt even provide an "unscientific poll" to back up your claims
99% of the shit said in this thread was unscientific, so whats your point?
I said they'd buy the best available. If that happens to be the PS3 then they will get that but if history is any indication of what to expect from the PS3s Blu-Ray playback I wouldn't hold your breath. Someone who has spent $8,000 on home theater so far is probably not going to look to pinch a few pennies and get the cheapest Blu-Ray player. At least, that seems to be the general trend that I've noticed with people who are into high end home AV (they go for the good stuff).ne0-reloaded said:
I can't imagine many Joe Schmoes adopting Blu-Ray very early on. DVD didn't even become popular until players were available for a cheap price.
Just FYI... Netrat33, the PC architecture (x86) is FAR different than the X360 architecture (PPE, a stripped derivative of PowerPC), and if you want to make comparisons, both the X360 and the PS3 share the PPE architecture. They are closer in architecture and power than you'd think, with the PS3 having a slight edge, whereas PC <-> X360 is NOT an easy task. The reason you're seeing a lot of (poor) ports between the two is that Microsoft devleoped XNA tools which makes the burden of programming for 2 completely different architectures a bit easier to manage. That said, the results have been pretty poor so far, with engines that have been farily unoptimized for both platforms (think games like King Kong, Oblivion, Quake 4, etc).
Stereophile
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2003
- Messages
- 5,116
I think Sony has to come in around $400-450 to compete.
Whoever said it will sell like a mofo even for $500 - 700, just because it's PS3,
is smoking rock. People around here might jump on one when they go on sale regardless of the price, but the mainstream will not pay that much for a console.
Whoever said it will sell like a mofo even for $500 - 700, just because it's PS3,
is smoking rock. People around here might jump on one when they go on sale regardless of the price, but the mainstream will not pay that much for a console.
dotK said:
I notice a lot of "if the games aren't great" type of comments...I don't think you need to worry about that. I'm more worried about 360 games not being great. Playstation 2 and Playstation 1 both have great libraries and games that are cornerstones of the industry, with developers continuing to support the Playstation (as well as some developers like Bioware most likely joining in) it'll only pick up steam as far as games are concerned.
Xbox Live is alright, but it isn't anything that won't be duplicated. Sony will have friend lists, competitor lists, voice chat, etc...so I mean as I said if Sony produces something similar to live (or unique in its own ways) than once again MS is backtracked. Sony has the brand naming, Sony has games, Sony has superior (if even slightly) hardware, etc.
The processor analogy works if you look at certain factors.
Past:
Intel > AMD - Intel had the brand naming, but they also had the product to back it up.
AMD in order to make a dent (they still aren't as big as intel, just large enough to make Intel compete with them) had to create superior products...See that's the thing, AMD created awesome product and still just made a dent. Now Intel is stepping up and realizing that this cannot continue.
Sony isn't doing that...Sony is stepping their game up...So is XBOX, the problem is, Microsoft needs to create a SUPERIOR product, not just one that is on-par with playstation. That's the difference AMD made a superior product not just one that was on par with Intel. Right now MS is playing the tit for tat game. "Well, we can have the same features as PS3 and we're gaining developer support". Thats nice but eventually the name brand will win out...This is similar to eventually the better team will win.
If Arizona State University plays on-par with the University of Arizona basketball team in the first half...chances are the bigger, stronger, battle hardened U of A team will win...ASU's only chance is to play BETTER than UofA.
If the PS3 and 360 have the same features with the same developers and equally great games the PS3 will still own the market simply because of the PS2 and PS1 that's just the way it works.
Stereophile said:
They said that about the original Playstation...and the Xbox 360 for that matter...I remember how outlandish the Playstation's pricing was at the time. "No way it'll succeed"...I also remember the switch from Cartridges to CD-Roms especially after the Sega CD had such a troublesome time (hell, remember Sony first made the Playstation as an add-on to the SNES...Nintendo ditched that idea for a reason). Huge gambles back then right? The rest as they say is....
History. It's amazing how history repeats itself...Once again, Sony is looking at the future...once again they are being doubted...
ne0-reloaded
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2003
- Messages
- 1,216
dotK said:
wheres your proof tho? u knock for having an unscientific poll, but again, you have NOTHING to support your claims. in that regards, i win, case closed.
back on topic though. i think the important thing to realize is that all this heated comp between MS and sony is good for us. unless you have some sort of financial holdings in these companies, you should be glad the sony's willing to release the console at a HUGE loss. id rather spend 400 on a ps3 than 600. even tho i like the ps better, im not gonna be upset if MS chips away at sony's market share. it'll cause them to innovate, lower prices, and be more competitive.
iori yagami
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2004
- Messages
- 213
Filter said:
lol!
sony makes gow.. so sony would make games for 360 huh?
going up against playstation is like going up against ipod.. you might get a nibble of the market but thats about it
Tough to get an unbiased opinion around these parts. I bought a PS2 on launch day. I bought a 360 on launch day. I will buy a PS3 on launch day. I haven't made up my mind about the Wii yet (still pissed the Gamecube never lived up to what I hoped it would). My point is I am not a fan of any system; I am a fan of ALL of them. I think blind loyalty to any brand is just stupid (although I do realize it is prevalent in many aspects of life).
I have no doubt that the PS3 will sell huge amounts and will be a great system, but I am not about to go throw away my 360. I will enjoy BOTH. My group of friends are not what you would consider gamers, but most now own a PS2 and a 360. At the moment my PS2 is collecting dust, but I am sure when the PS3 is released, my 360 will suffer the same fate while the "new" factor wears off.
I guess my point is that while I think the PS3 will sell loads of units (and will almost certainly "win" the numbers war), I don't think that means certain death for the MS (or Nintendo for that matter). Just enjoy all the systems that are out there and get the best of all worlds (MGS, Halo, and Mario). If PS3 retails for $400, then it will certainly sell insane amounts. I think $500 is probably the price that much of the mainstream will be turned off if it goes above.
I have no doubt that the PS3 will sell huge amounts and will be a great system, but I am not about to go throw away my 360. I will enjoy BOTH. My group of friends are not what you would consider gamers, but most now own a PS2 and a 360. At the moment my PS2 is collecting dust, but I am sure when the PS3 is released, my 360 will suffer the same fate while the "new" factor wears off.
I guess my point is that while I think the PS3 will sell loads of units (and will almost certainly "win" the numbers war), I don't think that means certain death for the MS (or Nintendo for that matter). Just enjoy all the systems that are out there and get the best of all worlds (MGS, Halo, and Mario). If PS3 retails for $400, then it will certainly sell insane amounts. I think $500 is probably the price that much of the mainstream will be turned off if it goes above.
Everyone keeps speaking about the "mainstream" you're telling me what the "mainstream" will do with absolutely no statistics to back this up. Funny how well the playstation did considering that it was out of the pricerange of the "mainstream".
If you're going to say the "mainstream" will do something, please have some sort of evidence of this.
If you're going to say the "mainstream" will do something, please have some sort of evidence of this.
No need to get so defensive man. You make me laugh.
I just did a scientific poll of my friends currently sitting in my house and 3 of 4 said they wouldn't pay over $500. I also asked "do you represent a good cross section of society" and they said "yes." So there you go. I don't think it gets more conclusive than that.
I am joking of course. I am not attacking you or the PS3, so just chill out a bit. I will DEFINITELY buy the PS3 regardless of price. When I said "mainstream" I should have said "my friends who are more mainstream than I." No one can really say what everyone will do. I am just saying from the people I know who aren't as into gaming as I am, most of them have said they wouldn't pay more than $500 for a game system. There are some who have also been unwilling to pay $400 for the 360. The original PS retailed for only $299 as did the PS2. That is quite a bit less than $500.
Like I said before, I am sure the PS3 will sell MANY, MANY units. My only point is there is a cut off where sales will decrease. People will NOT just pay any amount. If that was true Sony wouldn't sell them at a loss, they would charge the full $800 or whatever that it actually costs to produce them. Sony is not dumb. If they sell them at $400, then it is because they have done the research to know that is the most they can charge to sell the number of units they want. If they could charge more and sell the same, then they would.
Anyway, I am going to get the crap kicked out of me in GRAW.
You make me laugh.I just did a scientific poll of my friends currently sitting in my house and 3 of 4 said they wouldn't pay over $500. I also asked "do you represent a good cross section of society" and they said "yes." So there you go. I don't think it gets more conclusive than that.
I am joking of course. I am not attacking you or the PS3, so just chill out a bit. I will DEFINITELY buy the PS3 regardless of price. When I said "mainstream" I should have said "my friends who are more mainstream than I." No one can really say what everyone will do. I am just saying from the people I know who aren't as into gaming as I am, most of them have said they wouldn't pay more than $500 for a game system. There are some who have also been unwilling to pay $400 for the 360. The original PS retailed for only $299 as did the PS2. That is quite a bit less than $500.
Like I said before, I am sure the PS3 will sell MANY, MANY units. My only point is there is a cut off where sales will decrease. People will NOT just pay any amount. If that was true Sony wouldn't sell them at a loss, they would charge the full $800 or whatever that it actually costs to produce them. Sony is not dumb. If they sell them at $400, then it is because they have done the research to know that is the most they can charge to sell the number of units they want. If they could charge more and sell the same, then they would.
Anyway, I am going to get the crap kicked out of me in GRAW.
DarkLegacy
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2004
- Messages
- 1,097
DubOSv10 said:
The first Playstation did well cus it damn near pulled a monopoly the enitre gaming market. Even if you are a Sony !!!!!! or not, every long time gamer knew that. It pissed off a ton of Sega & Nintendo fans that it happened, but what could SEGA & Nintendo do at the time. Sega was coming off 2 failed systems (Sega CD, 32X) & the Nintendo Camp was sticking with the Cartdrige strategy. Even if things would of been different for the two, they didn't have the money to match Sony anyways. It was reported in quite a number of gaming magazines prior to the luanch of the original playstation on how they "bought" off a crapload of developer support. ALOT of which were exclusive. It's a common thing done in the business world. Kind of like how EA has been doing over the past few years with all the licenses they have under there belt. MS is kind of trying the same strategy now, but are in a big underdog situation. As said by a poster above, the Playstation can simply sell off of its name. I do guess that the whole (Xbox consoles get mostly PC Ports) is something Sony is trying now. If you was to take a glance at there current E3 lineup for the PS3. ALOT of those games are exactly that, PC Ports. I will still get both either way but as I said, there race will be alot tigheter this time around.
-DarkLegacy
iori yagami said:lol!
sony makes gow.. so sony would make games for 360 huh?
going up against playstation is like going up against ipod.. you might get a nibble of the market but thats about it
i actually meant to say GTA been playing god of war all week, was on my mind.
DubOSv10 said:
You're acting as if the Playstation sold well from day one. It didn't. Sales increased exponentially once the price drops and hits started coming, but it was very unimpressive at first.
Sony would be taking huge hits on costs at $400 per console. Microsoft is losing a significant amount on each X360 and the system isn't even that complicated. I'm not sure whether or not they are willing (Or even able) to take the kind of losses they would have to take to feed the demand that will undoubtedly come with the PS3.
K600 said:
Exactly...But a more recent example is the 360 with many people claiming that $400 was too much. Listen, people are going to eat them up rather they are $400 or $600 and people we eat MORE of them up when the prices drop. Hell think of how many people purchased 360 bundles for $600...sure it is a bundle but my point is that people (from guys who work at Intel to guys who work at Wal-Mart) will drop the money on the PS3.
Lord Nassirbannipal
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
- Messages
- 1,155
K600 said:
I'd say it did.
It sold well enough to kill the Dreamcast in a rather short period of time.
Alof of arguments going on here, and its hard to say what will happen and what won't.
The only thing I personally think is true, is that they couldn't release the Ps3 at $400. It would be too much at a loss for sony. They just don't have the resources that microsoft does. And as for blu ray being a defining factor as to why people would buy it.. most households still dont even have HD Tvs. Even then, most people that do have HD tvs now, can't even do the blu-ray resolutions I thought? So whats the point there?
The battle of exclusive titles will be weighed heavily this time around also. Microsoft has alot more money to piss around with then sony does. I guarantee if they want to bad enough, they can steal a few exclusives from sony. Money gets crowned king in the business world. ( most of the time )
I'm sure microsoft is holding some trick up its sleeve for when the other consoles release. I guarantee they are probably holding out on what i said above. ( previous sony exclusive now coming to xbox )
I am not a hardcoe xbox fan, I didnt own the first one, I had a ps2. I heard the xbox 360 was great from friends, and tired of console battles waiting, I bought one. Since I have bought it, and reading articles, and boards and arguments and discussion, I am glad I did. I said previously in a post i wouldnt buy a PS3. If ps3 ends up dominating microsoft on the gaming side, only then would i ever consider a ps3, but from the way things are shaping up, im heavily impressed with xbox 360 lineup, and not to mention the 360 controller is probably the absolute best controller i have ever used.
The only thing I personally think is true, is that they couldn't release the Ps3 at $400. It would be too much at a loss for sony. They just don't have the resources that microsoft does. And as for blu ray being a defining factor as to why people would buy it.. most households still dont even have HD Tvs. Even then, most people that do have HD tvs now, can't even do the blu-ray resolutions I thought? So whats the point there?
The battle of exclusive titles will be weighed heavily this time around also. Microsoft has alot more money to piss around with then sony does. I guarantee if they want to bad enough, they can steal a few exclusives from sony. Money gets crowned king in the business world. ( most of the time )
I'm sure microsoft is holding some trick up its sleeve for when the other consoles release. I guarantee they are probably holding out on what i said above. ( previous sony exclusive now coming to xbox )
I am not a hardcoe xbox fan, I didnt own the first one, I had a ps2. I heard the xbox 360 was great from friends, and tired of console battles waiting, I bought one. Since I have bought it, and reading articles, and boards and arguments and discussion, I am glad I did. I said previously in a post i wouldnt buy a PS3. If ps3 ends up dominating microsoft on the gaming side, only then would i ever consider a ps3, but from the way things are shaping up, im heavily impressed with xbox 360 lineup, and not to mention the 360 controller is probably the absolute best controller i have ever used.
mang said:
Well that's like saying "why did Microsoft choose to support 480p and 720p, most televisions can't support that"...Why are you guys acting as if having Blu-Ray on the machine means that users MUST USE Blu-Ray? Are you guys just lost or? It is there, it will drop in price as will the PS3. People will buy the Playstation 3 to play games (as they did the PS1 and PS2), some people may buy it for blu-ray but they will only add to the people buying it for games.
mang said:
Right, MAKING MONEY gets crowned king and that's why Sony has a good bit of developers behind them. 80,000,000 + users... Sure Microsoft might have a trick up thier sleeve, but I'm sure Sony (who is notorious for the trick up their sleeve) does as well. Hell, MS is a bit more showy than Sony even. Sony loves to keep things quiet and then hit us with a big one...so all of this "well MS will do this and that" they aren't the only ones capable of announcing a big move, a big game, a big service, etc..
Erasmus354
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2004
- Messages
- 9,450
That was exactly mang's point if you would have chosen to actually read and understand what he said. He was saying that bluray would not be the deciding factor in most of the purchases...which basically leaves games as the deciding factor.DubOSv10 said:
The only tricks I have ever seen up Sony's sleeves are continually trying to find new and inventive ways to screw their loyal customers. Root-kit ridden DRM, proprietary and expensive media (UMD movies), creating horribly complex hardware which stifles creativity of all but the developers with the deepest pockets and lots of time. Sony's emphasis has always been on the bottom line, screw the consumer. They could care less about doing something unique and different. All they want to do is remain king of the pile.
This means that they will be willing to get exclusives, and they are willing to add features to match the competition. But rarely does Sony ever do something overly special that brings something new to the table for the consumer....at least not without paying through the nose and out the ass for it. I see the PS3 as nothing other than Sony's push to win the next-gen format wars, not about pushing gaming towards the next-gen.
I should have elaborated my post more regarding the Blu ray statements. I was more so trying to point out that blu ray would not be the main reason of buying a PS3, as some people seem to think. I focused more on the fact of TV resolutions, after all I bought a xbox 360 and i dont have a Hd tv so i do see your point. Although i do know, current HD tvs are fairly cheap, anything supporting 1080p is not though.
to add more though, I have a feeling, I could be wrong, but most people arent wanting to move from DVD to HD-DVD / blu ray to quickly. The format battle hasn't really began. Im sure blu-ray is a better format, but whose to say that Hd-DVD doesnt take off faster, then most movies released on HD-dvd do nothing for a blu - ray capable player.
If poeple choose PS3, it would be more for games, ect.
to add more though, I have a feeling, I could be wrong, but most people arent wanting to move from DVD to HD-DVD / blu ray to quickly. The format battle hasn't really began. Im sure blu-ray is a better format, but whose to say that Hd-DVD doesnt take off faster, then most movies released on HD-dvd do nothing for a blu - ray capable player.
If poeple choose PS3, it would be more for games, ect.
I agree, most people will be buying the PS3 for games. But Sony takes a non-recoverable loss for people who buy it just for the movies. And there will be some, especially if Sony marketing emphasizes the drive and its the least expensive player on the market. Sure, standalone players will be bought by some, but why waste the money when the ps3 can do the same thing for $600 less?mang said:
- Status