| Latest news |
|---|
PS3 will cost £425 in UKDela @ May 19, 2006 08:06 | 10 comments
Sony unveiled two models of the PS3 console at E3 this year, but well informed retailers have suggested Sony will not release the lower spec console in the UK at all. The more expensive model has a 60GB HDD compared to the 20GB HDD in the €499 model. In addition to lower storage capacity it also lacks Wifi capabilities, High Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI) support and doesn't include a card reader. A direct conversion of €599 to GBP is £405.
The PS3 will cost £140 more than Microsoft's Xbox 360 console and it has been reported that Microsoft told retailers that that the cost of an Xbox 360 plus HD-DVD peripheral will be less than the price of a PS3 around Christmas. "£425 is definitely not a mass market price, no," Maguire admitted. "But you think about the price, think about the price of just a Blu-Ray player. It will be cheaper than a Blu-Ray player just by itself. So fundamentally we're going to be great value just from that point of view without even looking at the games side."
Maguire mentioned the Blu-ray functionality about four times to Eurogamer, but admitted that it'll be up to Sony to communicate this message to consumers who might not be that knowledgeable when it comes to next-gen disc formats. Sony's use of Blu-ray to justify the price tag of the PS3 is being criticised by gamers who are upset that the console war and next generation DVD format war have been forcefully tied together - members of the Blu-ray camp are not shy about admitting how much relies on the PS3 as Blu-ray players will cost about $1,000. HD DVD players are available for several hundreds less.
Source: |
Eurogamer has revealed that the 60GB version of the PlayStation 3 will cost £425 in the UK when it is launched on November 17th. The details came directly from Sony Computer Entertainment UK's managing director, Ray Maguire, who has followed in line after Sony executives and said the price is a bargain because the machine includes a
 |
|
Comment by: kivandrew (May 19, 2006 09:43) Well that price is still good. And everyone who goes that the ps3 is too expensive, the answer is no! If you look at inflation and then see the prices of all the consoles before the ps3, you will see that even the neo geo was more expensive (without inflation, it was stil more expensive). Here's some graphs that will explain this more:
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/archives/images/relative_prices.gif
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/archives/images/absolute_prices.gif |
|
Comment by: arcanix (May 19, 2006 13:05) Quote: They always try to justify ps3's price with the same argument: "it's cheaper than just a regular bluray player!". So what, nobody is buying a bluray player, everybody wants just the console. I'd rather buy ps3 with a dvd-drive at the same price as xbox 360, rather than one with a bluray drive. |
|
Comment by: anubis66 (May 19, 2006 13:20) @kivandrew. that for those links. i posted them in a thread but i dont think ppl loked at them. mayber here they will.
and i wouldnt buy a ps3 with just dvd. because hey all the games are in bd-rom so what will you do? plus with hdtv's getting cheaper and bluray becoming popular it may be well invested. the picture quality is lifelike. and all that sapce for uncompressed video and endless room for games to be built on. |
|
Comment by: arcanix (May 19, 2006 14:01) Quote: Don't be a smartass. If ps3 would have dvd-drive, then the would be on dvd too.
Quote: True, I already have one.
Quote: You can't tell at this point that will bluray be a success.
Quote: It's amazing at first, but you'll get used to it quite soon. Although comparing to dvd the difference is like night and day.
Quote: Uncompressed video? Not going to happen. It's going to be mpeg4 avc standard, which is far from uncompressed. Actually it's just vice versa, since it's highly compressed video. |
|
Comment by: damo_red (May 19, 2006 16:42) another point worth thinking about is the quality of the blue ray player in the ps3.
there are standards of dvd players, some a good some are shit. the ps2 dvd player was lame with poor video quality and funcions compared with a good standalone DVD player.
who knows what the ps3 blueray player is going to be like. very likely its going to be a cheap ass one so its not a great investment. just a "it will do job" untill the technology comes down.
i personally buy consoles for games, i would rarther invest £2,000 on a entertainment system. and at the moment im pushing towards HD DVD but like most people will wait and see which one will be market leader. |
|
Comment by: Xsilver (May 19, 2006 21:43) November the 17th! That my girlfriends birhtday i wonder if she'll want a........... actually better not i like nuts just where they are. |
|
Comment by: Cinnjerm (May 19, 2006 22:11) "there are standards of dvd players, some a good some are shit. the ps2 dvd player was lame with poor video quality and funcions compared with a good standalone DVD player."-
Wow, one step ahead of me. I was actually thinking this myself. Ive always thought that electronics with multiple purposes was lame cuase it seems they always do everything bad as opposed to a stand alone one which would do one thing really good. Oh well,im not buying so it doesnt matter. |
|
Comment by: limelight (May 20, 2006 17:20)
I buy a game system for GAMES, PERIOD. I dont care about format wars and NEITHER SHOULD THE CONSUMER. DVD IS FINE!!!
And I'll play nes over the latest xbox360 eye candy any day. |
|
Comment by: mrmathers (May 21, 2006 18:05) okay so fair enough Blu-ray wil be far superior 2 dvd and allow next gens the capabilities required to expand the games market. however, i have one issue with what maguire said. comparing the price of ps2 to Blu-ray machines is all well and good when it comes to the nerds who quite happily accept that a ps3 is good value when compared to a Blu-ray machine. but what about the parents who got little johnny a ps2 for xmas in 2000 for a whopping £300? And now they're guna spend over £400 for, a least to them, something exactly the same? it plays games doesnt it? plays dvds? whats the difference to the stupid ass american consumer who arent technicly minded? i think sony have shot themselves in the foot, and though while i am glad they r using Blu-ray to allow for better games, economically it is a blunder. unless the price crashes within a year theres no way i can afford one being a student and im sure i aint the only one who feels like this. to me it deosnt matter if Blu-ray costs $1000 because i wudnt want a Blu-ray anyway. im happy with dvd thanks, so comparing it to Blu-ray of which i have no interest is no good for consumers like me! |
|
Comment by: hughjars (May 23, 2006 10:49) The US market proce of $599 'translates' to approx £320 at today's rates, not £425.
The UK rip-off continues.
(and why would anyone want a non-HDMI HD DVD anyway? Component connections are dying out as HDMI replaces them on the latest TV's aren't they?) |
 |
RSS Feeds: