samhain81 wrote:Back when the PS3 was first showcased at E3 2006? It was criticised for being this hugely priced peice of hardware, especially when compared to the significantly cheaper 360.
EVERYONE complained about its price, which I will never understand. It was dearer for a reason. If you factor in everything it came with, the price was fairly justified. Lets have a brief look at the two systems specs at the time of their launch.
Bluray Player (standalones retailed for around £300-350 alone, at this point, so thats £300 of the price essentially in the drive alone. )
60gig HD (3x the size of the 360's)
Controller charge function via the USB ports
Built in wi-fi
Backwards Compatible Hardware/Software Emulation (Yes, the EU were slightly shafted here with software emulation instead of the NTSC hardware emulation, but still, every NTSC console owner could play EVERY ps1, and ps2 game. )
HD-DVD Drive/Player - Still retailing for £200+ but still cheaper than Blu Ray Players
20gig HD (3x smaller than the launch PS3 HD)
No wi-fi (Separate wi-fi component was sold at £39.99)
No charge function via usb (A Play n Charge kit was sold separately for £19.99)
No HDMI output - (Component provided an acceptable HD signal, but Sony was one step ahead with HDMI)
Backwards Compatible Software Emulation only - (Through irregular updates which no longer occur, original xbox games would be made available to play through the 360)
Thats all from the top of my head, but seriously, were people that blind to see what exactly the PS3 had inside the system, as oppose to the 360? In regards to the console, the ps3 definately offered more in terms of a complete system. The only thing I can say in defense of the 360 is that it had a stronger software lineup for launch, but this about hardware specs only.
What are you thoughts on this?
It was one of the worst launches in video games history. Multi-format games inferior to the cheaper competition, online setup inferior to the cheaper competition, the farce with BC, the farce with rumble being taken out of the controller, and the price was ridiculous.
There's no point listing what's in the box if that tech isn't relevant to people. Someone with a certain budget to spend on a next-gen games console isn't going to go massively over that budget because it includes, say, a Bluray player or something else that they don't particularly want. If I go into a shop with £30 to buy a kettle I'm not going to spend £50 because it also trims my eyebrows. It's irrelevant hardware because I don't want it to do that. Funnily enough I hear the same a lot with the Vita-"yeah but there's a lot of technology in it for the price", fine, except I don't want that technology and I can't afford the price.
Also, if you've two competitors in the market, it seems remarkably daft to launch at so high a price that consumers can buy *both* of your competitors consoles for the same price as your one.