Sony PS3 - It never deserved its launch criticism

[nakamura]

For me also the jump to dvd from VHS was far bigger than the jump from DVD to Blu Ray. In fact, I still don't have a Blu Ray player now.

[Megamixer]

For me also the jump to dvd from VHS was far bigger than the jump from DVD to Blu Ray. In fact, I still don't have a Blu Ray player now.

Same. DVD brought an end to a lot of the technical issues/irritations faced by owning VHS tapes such as gradual quality degradation, messed up tape and the rewind/fast forward process. This plus the obvious leap in quality. Obviously we knew no different when DVD didn't exist (unless you had Laserdisc or VCD of course) but there's no denying that DVD vastly improved the experience (aside from unskippable copyright warnings of course!).

Blu-Ray and HD-DVD were just better picture quality and since DVD never looks 'bad' to me, I currently see no incentive to upgrade. I bought a PS3 for the games and as was already said on the previous page, as a gamer I'm interested in what I can play on the console and not the extra media capabilities which have been left untouched by myself.

I still maintain that a new console should launch with both a fully-loaded media centre version and a stripped back games machine which at most should allow movie playback and online access. This way, the people who want all the extra stuff can buy the more expensive model but gamers can also pick up a cheaper version that plays the games. As it is at the moment, gamers are sometimes forced to pay more for features they don't want.

[DreamcastRIP]

... I dont know anyone at all that bought that thing on or even near launch day. The response was something like "At that price? You gotta be kidding me. I'll buy such-and-such for the 360 instead"

I suspect some of those who believe $599/£425 for PS3 wasn't overpriced for a games console are among the same people who believe £280 was a good value launch price for the PS Vita Wifi+3G handheld console.

It wasn't OVERpriced though was it, as they were selling at a loss. You could say it was too expensive for some, but at the end of the day they weren't ripping people off.

And the Vita isn't good value, it's just what it costs. Too rich for me, fair enough but others can justify that kind of money to themselves.

Also I recall the PS3 had a horrible launch, with units available everywhere and not that many getting sold.

I recall PS3 'slim' reportedly been sold at a loss (at least for a time) but I certainly don't recall reports of the original 60GB launch model ever being sold at a loss at that £425 price point.

I guess the real point is that regardless of what one or two individuals here think the majority of consumers worldwide seemingly considered PS3 to be overpriced for a games console at launch (especially so when considering what the competition were offering at the time) and stayed away in their droves.

In my opinion, Sony launching PSP Go for £250 (iirc), PS Vita Wifi model for £230, PS Vita Wifi+3G model for £280 was comically unrealistic pricing. It's common knowledge that PSP Go spectacularly bombed at retail and that PS Vita, even more so the Wifi+3G model, has sold abysmally so far. Consider the dramatic reversal in fortunes of 3DS following its price cut (plus a couple of Mario games) for what the majority of consumers consider a fair price point for a gaming device.

Yep, I commented in an earlier post on all the PS3s left gathering dust worldwide on store shelves at launch.

[nakamura]

I also remember grumblings that Sony were selling the 60gb machines at a loss too. Not totally sure mind but I do remember it cropping up.

Either way, £425 did not sit well with the current exchange rate at the time. IIRC the dollar was almost two to the pound at the time.

[DreamcastRIP]

I also remember grumblings that Sony were selling the 60gb machines at a loss too. Not totally sure mind but I do remember it cropping up.

Either way, £425 did not sit well with the current exchange rate at the time. IIRC the dollar was almost two to the pound at the time.

Now I think about it more I do vaguely recall it being said Sony were selling PS3 at a loss from the get go BUT that was when factoring in their very sizeable contribution toward R&D costs for the Blu-ray Disc media format. Many, myself included, think that was somewhat inappropriate given that Blu-ray obviously wasn't solely intended just for PS3. Strip out the R&D costs of Blu-ray and the development costs of PS3 would naturally be one hell of a lot less.

Regarding exchange rates, I humbly refer you to that article I linked earlier in the thread. While it was indeed true that UK consumers appeared to get ripped off even more relative to what those in the USA were paying for PS3 (£425 at the time was the equivalent of over US $800!) the fact is that Sony came up with the European and UK SRP for PS3 based not on the value of the USD but on the conversion rate between the Japanese Yen and the Euro, and subsequently the GBP.

[AmigaJay]

It wasn't OVERpriced though was it, as they were selling at a loss. You could say it was too expensive for some, but at the end of the day they weren't ripping people off.

And the Vita isn't good value, it's just what it costs. Too rich for me, fair enough but others can justify that kind of money to themselves.

Also I recall the PS3 had a horrible launch, with units available everywhere and not that many getting sold.

Lol just because they sold at a loss doesn't mean it wasn't overpriced! It clearly was as being the most expensive console in history says it all, I think people are arguing two different points, as an media machine it was no doubt good value at the time, as a games console only it was overpriced..

But even so consoles are better value than the rip offs that are mobile phones with there massive profit margins...

[Freestyler]

I remember DVD Players being sold for a grand! Now Amazon has them for £9.99
I remember Blu-Ray Players being sold for a grand! Now Amazon has them for £49.97

Early adoption (of anything) equals sucker potential.

[stvd]

I don't know which model it was but a while back I watched a video of a guy who
stripped down a PS3 and totalled up the cost of all the components and it came to a
lot more than the retail price.

As for Bluray - I still don't see the need for it.
It seems that watching sub standard films in bluray makes them "better"!

[gman72]

It seems that watching sub standard films in bluray makes them "better"!

With varying degrees of success blu-ray makes the visuals better, sharper and colour better defined. It's a nonsense to assume that blu-ray makes a movie "better". I've seen improvments on even old black and white movies given the blu-ray treatment, it's an advancement in technology and with all advancements in tech some people are slow to catch the momentum.

[DreamcastRIP]

... As for Bluray - I still don't see the need for it.

Your use of the word "need" is an interesting one, i.e. it's not clear what you're trying to say.

For instance, did consumers 'need' to view movies via DVD relative to VHS?

Viewing and listening to movies on Blu-ray Disc, when at their best, is a major step up from DVD (including upscaled DVDs). Are you denying this is the case or suggesting something else altogether?

[The Laird]

I agree with the statement that the difference between Blu-Ray and DVD is slight while the jump from VHS to DVD was massive.

No comparing the 2 for me.

[RichL]

Funnily, I found my receipt out last night from 2007 from the launch night. 60 gig PS3, Resistance and Motorstorm!

[stvd]

... As for Bluray - I still don't see the need for it.

Your use of the word "need" is an interesting one, i.e. it's not clear what you're trying to say.

For instance, did consumers 'need' to view movies via DVD relative to VHS?

Viewing and listening to movies on Blu-ray Disc, when at their best, is a major step up from DVD (including upscaled DVDs). Are you denying this is the case or suggesting something else altogether?

Well, I suppose, nobody needs anything (except food, water & love)!
I think DVD was a huge step in quality from VHS. You couldn't deny the difference.
But I don't think that the step from DVD to Bluray is as big a jump.
There is a difference but I just don't think it's on the same scale as the jump to DVD.

I'll admit the only film I've watched in both formats is The Dark Knight and to be honest after the initial
"wow, nice picture", I soon forgot what the format was and watched the film. There was no difference
to my enjoyment of the film. So, in that sense, I didn't need Bluray.

[DreamcastRIP]

Fair enough, that's your opinion. For me the improved audio and visual qualities of movies on BRD, generally speaking, greatly enhances the movie watching experience. Like that recent survey quoted in the Apple thread, I'm one of those who has probably used their PS3 more for viewing movies than for gaming. *

I'm no 'snob' in this regard either as I only bought a LaserDisc player a couple of years ago and enjoy movies on that too.

* movies on BRD and (upscaled) DVDs as opposed to viewing movies illegally downloaded from torrent sites.

[AmigaJay]

Thing is, the 'step' from DVD to bluray was one generation of video format, Dec 1996 DVD, to June 2006 Blu ray....the 'step' from VHS (oct 1976) to DVD (dec 1996) was infact 2 generations of formats with twice the length inbetween upgrades (20 years) with laserdisc and videocd released inbetween, so of course there will be a bigger difference between VHS and DVD, but for those used to laserdisc and videocd to a lesser degree, DVD wasnt all that a greater upgrade and probably closer to what people know are experiencing with DVD to bluray...