Report: PS3 to sell for $399, cost $494 to make

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: SALvation

Originally posted by: vshah

Originally posted by: AnnihilatorX

Originally posted by: cliftonite
Well if they start releasing HD content (movies and tv shows) on blue-ray discs and the first gen players are more than the PS3, then I would think about buying the PS3.

Something that leaned me towards PS3 is their 1080p HDTV support, while Xbox360 only supports 720p

remember though that EVERY xbox game will be 720p, while only a select few ps3 games will be 1080p

Wrong. 1080p will be the standard resolution for PS3 games.

Actually, that hasn't been announced. The announcement stated 1080p standard resolution supported. That's not a pronouncement that all games will be in 1080p. Given that a tiny fraction of the HD market is 1080p capable, and even the HD amrket *itself* is a tiny fraction of the TV market, 1080p support is nearly entirely irrelevant.

Jason

Link

UPDATE - 6:22PM - We have just been updated by our away team at the SCEA conference that not only will 1080p be supported by the system, but that this is considered the standard resolution for the system. Every game for the system will be in incredible, indelible, indubitable HD.

I agree that 1080p is overkill right now though. Especially dual output with 1080p. It really seems like that and all the different connectors that Sony listed for the PS3 were just slapped on to say they have more of something than the 360.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: shud

Originally posted by: AccruedExpenditure
Nintendo will pwn all.

Any word on whether the Revolution is going to charge you to get the older games?

Yes, they are going to charge you.

 

[Safeway]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: shud

Originally posted by: AccruedExpenditure
Nintendo will pwn all.

Any word on whether the Revolution is going to charge you to get the older games?

Yes, they are going to charge you.

WHAT! Nintendo is dead to me.

 

[shud]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: shud

Originally posted by: AccruedExpenditure
Nintendo will pwn all.

Any word on whether the Revolution is going to charge you to get the older games?

Yes, they are going to charge you.

Ugh. That's kind of lame, I can just load up an SNES game that had decent sprite graphics in the day and throw every filter that an emulator has onto it and it looks damn near as good as PS1 2D games. And it's free (albeit not exactly legal...although I do own most of the SNES roms I have...somewhere).

 

[quakefiend420]

Originally posted by: Cheezeit
I wasent going to get either when they first come out

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: shud

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: shud
PS3 will kill Xbox360...but it will cost you. Games are supposedly going to be $60-$70 too.

PS2 games (and by that I mean exclusive titles to the PS2) were always leaps and bounds better than Xbox titles, except for maybe Ninja Gaiden. I also think the regular DVD format will eventually hurt Xbox360.......but it will sell a bajillion copies because people want to play Halo with thumbsticks.

Also, I think Sony has a spot for a 2.5" hdd (laptop drive) to go, they just aren't packaging one. The 20gb Xbox360 drive is pretty weak, too, but it's nice to have from the get go.

If you think that PS3 will kill *anything* with a $400 price point and $60-70 software, you're crazy. People do, believe it or not, *care* about the price they pay for games. We have these things called "budgets", you see.

Also, you're on crack if you think PS2 titles were always better than XBox titles. In *every* case where the two had the same title, the XBox version was superior.

Jason

Are you blind or just being this ignorant on purpose? What don't you understand about EXCLUSIVE TITLE that makes you think I was talking about games that were released on both Xbox and PS2? Seriously. I was talking about titles exclusively released for PS2 and I don't know how I could have been any more obvious. Please read before you accuse me of being on crack.

And by "kill anything", I meant as far as gameplay and graphics are concerned. Not about price, which is why I included the qualifier "it will cost you". Again this seems to be something you skimmed over.

You are misrepresenting the truth. The handful of exemplary PS2 exclusives (Metal Gear Solid 3, Final Fantasy X and X-2, possibly FF12 when/if it ever releases) were truly excellent, yes, but for the most part PS2 games are clones of each other, very generic, and largely mediocre. Just because the few you remember were great doesn't make the overall library anything special.

Like PS1 before it, PS2 has HUNDREDS of games, with maybe a few *Dozen* being worthy of a purchase and keep. XBox, probably a bit fewer than half are worth the purchase and keep, while GameCube easily has the highest ratio of *quality* titles of any of the current generation systems. I have *yet* to play a bad gamecube game (and I own about 30 of them, with about 40 XBox games and 35 or so PS2 games).

The point is that the PS3 is *anything* but a sure winner this time around, and Kutaragi's idiotic dismissal of all of Sony's competitors is historically a sure-fire formula for getting your ass handed to you.

Jason

 

[shud]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: shud

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: shud
PS3 will kill Xbox360...but it will cost you. Games are supposedly going to be $60-$70 too.

PS2 games (and by that I mean exclusive titles to the PS2) were always leaps and bounds better than Xbox titles, except for maybe Ninja Gaiden. I also think the regular DVD format will eventually hurt Xbox360.......but it will sell a bajillion copies because people want to play Halo with thumbsticks.

Also, I think Sony has a spot for a 2.5" hdd (laptop drive) to go, they just aren't packaging one. The 20gb Xbox360 drive is pretty weak, too, but it's nice to have from the get go.

If you think that PS3 will kill *anything* with a $400 price point and $60-70 software, you're crazy. People do, believe it or not, *care* about the price they pay for games. We have these things called "budgets", you see.

Also, you're on crack if you think PS2 titles were always better than XBox titles. In *every* case where the two had the same title, the XBox version was superior.

Jason

Are you blind or just being this ignorant on purpose? What don't you understand about EXCLUSIVE TITLE that makes you think I was talking about games that were released on both Xbox and PS2? Seriously. I was talking about titles exclusively released for PS2 and I don't know how I could have been any more obvious. Please read before you accuse me of being on crack.

And by "kill anything", I meant as far as gameplay and graphics are concerned. Not about price, which is why I included the qualifier "it will cost you". Again this seems to be something you skimmed over.

You are misrepresenting the truth. The handful of exemplary PS2 exclusives (Metal Gear Solid 3, Final Fantasy X and X-2, possibly FF12 when/if it ever releases) were truly excellent, yes, but for the most part PS2 games are clones of each other, very generic, and largely mediocre. Just because the few you remember were great doesn't make the overall library anything special.

Like PS1 before it, PS2 has HUNDREDS of games, with maybe a few *Dozen* being worthy of a purchase and keep. XBox, probably a bit fewer than half are worth the purchase and keep, while GameCube easily has the highest ratio of *quality* titles of any of the current generation systems. I have *yet* to play a bad gamecube game (and I own about 30 of them, with about 40 XBox games and 35 or so PS2 games).

The point is that the PS3 is *anything* but a sure winner this time around, and Kutaragi's idiotic dismissal of all of Sony's competitors is historically a sure-fire formula for getting your ass handed to you.

Jason

Yeah, PS2 had a lot more games. I agree. But Xbox still had a mountain of generic, nameless racing and FPS games that nobody gave a hoot about.

Along with the MGS and RPGs/strategy games, PS2 also had Devil May cry series and God of War. There's more I could list, but I have to eat lunch.

Ninja Gaiden was AWESOME. But that's the only non-sports and non-FPS game I own for Xbox. I'd love to own a traditional or strategic RPG for Xbox but...well, that speaks for itself.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: shud


Yeah, PS2 had a lot more games. I agree. But Xbox still had a mountain of generic, nameless racing and FPS games that nobody gave a hoot about.

Along with the MGS and RPGs/strategy games, PS2 also had Devil May cry series and God of War. There's more I could list, but I have to eat lunch.

Ninja Gaiden was AWESOME. But that's the only non-sports and non-FPS game I own for Xbox. I'd love to own a traditional or strategic RPG for Xbox but...well, that speaks for itself.

True, there were certainly a ton of generic racing and fps games for XBox. Same was true for PS2. There certainly isn't the level of RPG support for XBox 1 that there is for PS2 (and IMHO, 80% of the games "worth owning" for PS2 are the RPG's), but there are a handful. The KOTOR series was *great*, as is Jade Empire.

In any case, Sony's exclusivity with a number of key developers really is melting away. Square's now going to make games for 360 in addition to PS3, as is Konami. In fact Konami has announced some *exclusive* 360 titles (sadly not MGS, but oh well), and I'd bet that if the sales of the 360 system end up justifying it you'll see cross publishing of once "exclusive" titles like MGS as well.

While the "winner" of the next console "war" (why do they call it a war for crissakes?) is far from decided, it's already clear that Sony *will* lose market share this time around. Discounting competitors like Microsoft and brand equity players like Nintendo is just *stupid*, and yet Sony's doing exactly that.

Jason

 

[shud]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: shud


Yeah, PS2 had a lot more games. I agree. But Xbox still had a mountain of generic, nameless racing and FPS games that nobody gave a hoot about.

Along with the MGS and RPGs/strategy games, PS2 also had Devil May cry series and God of War. There's more I could list, but I have to eat lunch.

Ninja Gaiden was AWESOME. But that's the only non-sports and non-FPS game I own for Xbox. I'd love to own a traditional or strategic RPG for Xbox but...well, that speaks for itself.

True, there were certainly a ton of generic racing and fps games for XBox. Same was true for PS2. There certainly isn't the level of RPG support for XBox 1 that there is for PS2 (and IMHO, 80% of the games "worth owning" for PS2 are the RPG's), but there are a handful. The KOTOR series was *great*, as is Jade Empire.

In any case, Sony's exclusivity with a number of key developers really is melting away. Square's now going to make games for 360 in addition to PS3, as is Konami. In fact Konami has announced some *exclusive* 360 titles (sadly not MGS, but oh well), and I'd bet that if the sales of the 360 system end up justifying it you'll see cross publishing of once "exclusive" titles like MGS as well.

While the "winner" of the next console "war" (why do they call it a war for crissakes?) is far from decided, it's already clear that Sony *will* lose market share this time around. Discounting competitors like Microsoft and brand equity players like Nintendo is just *stupid*, and yet Sony's doing exactly that.

Jason

Yeah, Xbox360 looks like it will have a lot more support from niche console genres. That's something to look forward to.

I never said I planned on NOT owning both of these systems. I just personally feel that the hard drive and online play don't pave the way for MS to be the clear winner. PS2 did perfectly fine without a hard drive and without a centralized online gaming network. Just saying, if you think that PS3 is going to bury itself with production costs and lack of features, you might be completely off base. The PS3 is still about a year (or less, I'm not sure) off. A lot of things could change.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Like PS1 before it, PS2 has HUNDREDS of games, with maybe a few *Dozen* being worthy of a purchase and keep. XBox, probably a bit fewer than half are worth the purchase and keep, while GameCube easily has the highest ratio of *quality* titles of any of the current generation systems. I have *yet* to play a bad gamecube game (and I own about 30 of them, with about 40 XBox games and 35 or so PS2 games).

I have 60, 60 GREAT PS2 games. If you want, I can go down the line tonight and list them! Hell, my EBGames cart has 2 more games in it right this very second! Atelier Iris:Eternal Mana and Shin Megami Tetsui: Digital Devil Saga. Although, I do agree that GameCube has the highest ratio of quality, but I also believe that 'statistic' doesn't paint the entire picture. I like my GC a lot, but I'd hate to own ONLY that console, there just simply isn't enough games coming out for it at all. Every once in awhile a really epic game comes out and I plug my GC in and play it, but the gaps between these games keep getting bigger and bigger.

I like my GC/PS2 combination. I got the GC for cheap and I use it to play the Nintendo Exclusives (Anyone who misses these games is truely missing out beyond a doubt) and the cross-platform games. I then use my PS2 to play the ungodly massive number of PS2 exclusives.

Tonight, if this thread is still going, I will post my list of PS2 *worthy of keeping* list and you can try and compete with it.

The funny thing about not buying Xbox, the only 2 games I ever really wanted for it, the original Kotor and Fable, both make their appearance on the PC. In Kotors case, we got a more stable experience on the PC. In Fables case, we are getting a far more complete version of the game (they are adding all new content for the PC release).

 

[scorpmatt]

i just bought a used ps2, all the wires, 2 controllers, and 4 games for 100 bucks shipped. screw the ps3 for the moment

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: shud

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: shud


Yeah, PS2 had a lot more games. I agree. But Xbox still had a mountain of generic, nameless racing and FPS games that nobody gave a hoot about.

Along with the MGS and RPGs/strategy games, PS2 also had Devil May cry series and God of War. There's more I could list, but I have to eat lunch.

Ninja Gaiden was AWESOME. But that's the only non-sports and non-FPS game I own for Xbox. I'd love to own a traditional or strategic RPG for Xbox but...well, that speaks for itself.

True, there were certainly a ton of generic racing and fps games for XBox. Same was true for PS2. There certainly isn't the level of RPG support for XBox 1 that there is for PS2 (and IMHO, 80% of the games "worth owning" for PS2 are the RPG's), but there are a handful. The KOTOR series was *great*, as is Jade Empire.

In any case, Sony's exclusivity with a number of key developers really is melting away. Square's now going to make games for 360 in addition to PS3, as is Konami. In fact Konami has announced some *exclusive* 360 titles (sadly not MGS, but oh well), and I'd bet that if the sales of the 360 system end up justifying it you'll see cross publishing of once "exclusive" titles like MGS as well.

While the "winner" of the next console "war" (why do they call it a war for crissakes?) is far from decided, it's already clear that Sony *will* lose market share this time around. Discounting competitors like Microsoft and brand equity players like Nintendo is just *stupid*, and yet Sony's doing exactly that.

Jason

Yeah, Xbox360 looks like it will have a lot more support from niche console genres. That's something to look forward to.

I never said I planned on NOT owning both of these systems. I just personally feel that the hard drive and online play don't pave the way for MS to be the clear winner. PS2 did perfectly fine without a hard drive and without a centralized online gaming network. Just saying, if you think that PS3 is going to bury itself with production costs and lack of features, you might be completely off base. The PS3 is still about a year (or less, I'm not sure) off. A lot of things could change.

Yeah, I feel pretty much the same. I mean, I *always* end up getting all the major consoles, so I expect I'll have a PS3. If the launch price truly is $400 with no game though, I can guarantee it won't be at launch. I felt I got burned by PS2 at launch, because the titles were mediocre *at best*. It was a YEAR before the good stuff (MGS2, Final Fantasy X) started to trickle out, and by then they'd had a price drop (and an improvement to the hardware quality). I guess we'll have to see what happens.

Jason

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: Safeway
WHAT! Nintendo is dead to me.

Lol! I havn't heard any factual information on the exact price of these games. They may be something like 5 cents each or something. Or it might be some sort of subscription service.

And yea, the games may end up looking neat if you grab the rom and run 90 Eagle Eye Quad Beta X filter on it. But I deffinitely plan to at least purchase a few of them and see how they look in their original form on the Revolution.

 

[purbeast0]

there are not 60 games worth buying for ps2 ... hell there probably aren't even 60 games worth renting for ps2 or any system (other than old consoles).

you must just have a very VERY broad range of games you enjoy playing and have a lot of patience as well.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: scorpmatt
i just bought a used ps2, all the wires, 2 controllers, and 4 games for 100 bucks shipped. screw the ps3 for the moment

Excellent call There's still a LOT of life left in the current generation of consoles, and I seriously doubt any AAA titles will be found in abundance on the new generation for at least a year after their launch.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Like PS1 before it, PS2 has HUNDREDS of games, with maybe a few *Dozen* being worthy of a purchase and keep. XBox, probably a bit fewer than half are worth the purchase and keep, while GameCube easily has the highest ratio of *quality* titles of any of the current generation systems. I have *yet* to play a bad gamecube game (and I own about 30 of them, with about 40 XBox games and 35 or so PS2 games).

I have 60, 60 GREAT PS2 games. If you want, I can go down the line tonight and list them! Hell, my EBGames cart has 2 more games in it right this very second! Atelier Iris:Eternal Mana and Shin Megami Tetsui: Digital Devil Saga. Although, I do agree that GameCube has the highest ratio of quality, but I also believe that 'statistic' doesn't paint the entire picture. I like my GC a lot, but I'd hate to own ONLY that console, there just simply isn't enough games coming out for it at all. Every once in awhile a really epic game comes out and I plug my GC in and play it, but the gaps between these games keep getting bigger and bigger.

I like my GC/PS2 combination. I got the GC for cheap and I use it to play the Nintendo Exclusives (Anyone who misses these games is truely missing out beyond a doubt) and the cross-platform games. I then use my PS2 to play the ungodly massive number of PS2 exclusives.

Tonight, if this thread is still going, I will post my list of PS2 *worthy of keeping* list and you can try and compete with it.

The funny thing about not buying Xbox, the only 2 games I ever really wanted for it, the original Kotor and Fable, both make their appearance on the PC. In Kotors case, we got a more stable experience on the PC. In Fables case, we are getting a far more complete version of the game (they are adding all new content for the PC release).

I'd love to see your list. Now, as for the ebgames cart, I'm going to contend that you can't legitimately call those "worth of keeping" games until you've *played them through*, LOL.

Gamecube definitely rocks, and as I said there ARE a number pf PS2 games that are very good and worth keeping. Compared to the total number of *available* games though, it's a very tiny number. The same was true with PS1, though. There were something like 1500 games produced for PS1, but how many were *great*? Maybe 40-50, and most of those were RPG's.

I wouldn't want to be stuck with ANY single console, and it's simply because there are so many great games available that are exclusive. True that the PC will get the more complete version of Fable, but AFAIK it's not getting Jade Empire at all, and that game flat-out rocks. Also the Mechassault games were very good, as is the DOA Ultimate series. I've wasted countless hours playing that game online

Jason

 

[skace]

True, the PC most likely will never get Mech Assault, I'd be surprised if it never gets Jade Empire though. Honestly, If the only 2 games the PC didn't get from the PS2 were Devil May Cry and Disgaea then I'd pass on it also, but that obviously isn't the case. Also, I didn't say the 2 games in my ebgames cart are worth owning, well, they are, but not based on my experiences at this point in time but based on others.

And yes, I do have a huge range of games that I love to play. But that extends across all consoles equally, if Xbox had 60 games that I had to buy the console for, I'd have it yesterday. That is fact. Me not purchasing it is deffinitely not a money issue.

And just because the PS1 ratio can't match because it has 1500 games ranging from MGS to My Little Ponies isn't a bad thing. Because 50 good games is 50 good games is 50 good games. You don't have to buy all 1500 games to get the 50 good ones so the point is absolutely 100% moot.

 

[MetalMat]

Im stickin with the pc

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: skace
True, the PC most likely will never get Mech Assault, I'd be surprised if it never gets Jade Empire though. Honestly, If the only 2 games the PC didn't get from the PS2 were Devil May Cry and Disgaea then I'd pass on it also, but that obviously isn't the case. Also, I didn't say the 2 games in my ebgames cart are worth owning, well, they are, but not based on my experiences at this point in time but based on others.

And yes, I do have a huge range of games that I love to play. But that extends across all consoles equally, if Xbox had 60 games that I had to buy the console for, I'd have it yesterday. That is fact. Me not purchasing it is deffinitely not a money issue.

And just because the PS1 ratio can't match because it has 1500 games ranging from MGS to My Little Ponies isn't a bad thing. Because 50 good games is 50 good games is 50 good games. You don't have to buy all 1500 games to get the 50 good ones so the point is absolutely 100% moot.

The point is *not* moot in any way, shape or form. If you've got a pile of 1500 games and only 50 GOOD games you've got to do a LOT of digging and hoping in order to find the good games. Just reaching into the pile you've got only a 1 in 30 shot to pick a good game. Those are not very good odds, and for the average consumer who doesn't go out and read a bunch of reviews and news and so on in advance, that means 29 out of 30 times someone is gonna get screwed. That's not a good thing, and it's CERTAINLY a relevant matter.

In any case, the games I gave you as examples for good games on XBox were just a couple, and there are many more. I currently own 41 games for XBox, and every single one of them is worth owning and keeping. By contrast I've got about 36 or so PS2 games (with admittedly a couple of those still being in shrinkwrap

Jason

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
The point is *not* moot in any way, shape or form. If you've got a pile of 1500 games and only 50 GOOD games you've got to do a LOT of digging and hoping in order to find the good games. Just reaching into the pile you've got only a 1 in 30 shot to pick a good game. Those are not very good odds, and for the average consumer who doesn't go out and read a bunch of reviews and news and so on in advance, that means 29 out of 30 times someone is gonna get screwed. That's not a good thing, and it's CERTAINLY a relevant matter.

In any case, the games I gave you as examples for good games on XBox were just a couple, and there are many more. I currently own 41 games for XBox, and every single one of them is worth owning and keeping. By contrast I've got about 36 or so PS2 games (with admittedly a couple of those still being in shrinkwrap

Jason

Wow, do I even have to argue this? Do you pick your games with a blindfold on? Ever heard of reviews?

 

[purbeast0]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
The point is *not* moot in any way, shape or form. If you've got a pile of 1500 games and only 50 GOOD games you've got to do a LOT of digging and hoping in order to find the good games. Just reaching into the pile you've got only a 1 in 30 shot to pick a good game. Those are not very good odds, and for the average consumer who doesn't go out and read a bunch of reviews and news and so on in advance, that means 29 out of 30 times someone is gonna get screwed. That's not a good thing, and it's CERTAINLY a relevant matter.

In any case, the games I gave you as examples for good games on XBox were just a couple, and there are many more. I currently own 41 games for XBox, and every single one of them is worth owning and keeping. By contrast I've got about 36 or so PS2 games (with admittedly a couple of those still being in shrinkwrap

Jason

Wow, do I even have to argue this? Do you pick your games with a blindfold on? Ever heard of reviews?

did you not read what he said? he said average consumers, which I will agree to some extent. People see batman begins commercial for the video game on tv and many people will say "oh this game LOOKS cool I want to buy it!" and then go buy it. luckily for them, that game is pretty good.

but there are PLENTY of games that look great on a commercial or in ads in magazines that actually suck, and there are PLENTY of people whom buy games that don't even read reviews, especially younger kids who's parents are the ones actually buying the game.

 

[scorpmatt]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: scorpmatt
i just bought a used ps2, all the wires, 2 controllers, and 4 games for 100 bucks shipped. screw the ps3 for the moment

Excellent call There's still a LOT of life left in the current generation of consoles, and I seriously doubt any AAA titles will be found in abundance on the new generation for at least a year after their launch.

Jason

i wonder if i am one of the last people to get a PS2 on this board.... but deffinately am waiting on the PS3, I waited this long for the PS2. still don't own a xbox or gamecube

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: purbeast0
did you not read what he said? he said average consumers, which I will agree to some extent. People see batman begins commercial for the video game on tv and many people will say "oh this game LOOKS cool I want to buy it!" and then go buy it. luckily for them, that game is pretty good.

but there are PLENTY of games that look great on a commercial or in ads in magazines that actually suck, and there are PLENTY of people whom buy games that don't even read reviews, especially younger kids who's parents are the ones actually buying the game.

So now we are arguing that consoles with a smaller ammount of games and thus a better ratio to good games are better because stupid consumers have a better chance of blindly choosing a decent game. The train has left the tracks....

 

[laketrout]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Yeah, I feel pretty much the same. I mean, I *always* end up getting all the major consoles, so I expect I'll have a PS3. If the launch price truly is $400 with no game though, I can guarantee it won't be at launch. I felt I got burned by PS2 at launch, because the titles were mediocre *at best*. It was a YEAR before the good stuff (MGS2, Final Fantasy X) started to trickle out, and by then they'd had a price drop (and an improvement to the hardware quality). I guess we'll have to see what happens.

Agreed. IF its over $350 there is no way I will buy on launch. Just not worth it. Consoles systems need to maintain the $250-$350 price range, or lower of course. Too soon to jump to $400....

 

[eelw]

Yeah, the huge loss both MS and Sony are taking is foolish. MS had to take the initial $100 loss on XBox to gain a foothold in the console market. But how can MS afford to take another hefty loss in the next generation.

And Sony's CEO has gone insane in that he will believe that many PS2 owners will snatch up the PS3 on release at over $400. People are complaining that Nintendo is alienating gamers with charging for downloadable games and potentially not having HDTV support, but what is Sony doing by adding all these extra features that only a small percentage of the gamers will actually be using?

I for one will be happy paying possibly 1/2 the initial price for a Revolution that the other 2 consoles.