Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image

PS3Blog.net | December 15, 2017

Scroll to top

Top

17 Comments

The PS3 is NOT a Toy | PS3Blog.net

Worth £425?I’m constantly seeing/hearing/reading people complaining about the price of the PS3, claiming it’s too expensive for a gaming machine. Well it’s time I explained why I feel the PS3 is worth the £425 price tag even though I will be using it mainly for games & DVDs.

When I hear someone say “I’m not paying £425 for a games console!” I immediately think they are looking at it the same way your parents probably viewed gaming when you were a kid: “Oh they will grow out of it once they become adults & join the real world”.

Gaming should no longer be viewed as “being for kids”. According to ESA (Entertainment Software Association), the average age of gamers in North America is 33 & they’ve been playing games for 12 years.

I’m 26 (27 very shortly) & I’ve been gaming since I was 6. So why do people keep saying “I’m not paying £400+ for a games machine!” actually belittling a hobby that brings them a lot of joy & actually treating it as if it’s a toy, when they are more than happy to pay similar amounts for other (more adult classified) electrical equipment that they will also use on a regular basis!

The PS3 is a top of the range gaming machine (well depending on which camp you’re in 😉 ) and if you wanted to buy a top of the range DVD recorder/PC/Laptop/mobile phone/MP3 player/TV etc, most people are quite willing to pay the asking price or close to it. These can range from £200 – £4000.

With products like MP3 players, mobile phones, PCs/Laptops they will usually last around 1-2 years before you need to replace or upgrade to a better version.

Using an MP3 player as an example, you pay £220 for the 30GB video iPod & it lasts 1-2 years before it either dies or you decide to upgrade to a better MP3 player. Let’s just say the newer, upgraded version costs another £220 so in the space of two years you could’ve spent £440 on MP3 players plus whatever it costs for the songs to go on it. This is just an example.

The PS3 should last around 5 years (yeah I know, some people are on their 3rd or 4th PS2, heck I’m on my 2nd PS2 in 6 years but the 2nd one I bought cost me £100) so that £425 you paid for the machine is all you should have to pay until the next super console is launched, possibly 5 or more years down the line. No need to pay more money to upgrade the machine every couple of years.

Now the PS3 plays PSone, PS2 & PS3 games, DVDs, CDs, Blu-ray movies, and you will more than likely be able to browse the web with it. Not bad for something that costs £425. Name one other piece of equipment that can do all that for the same price?

Now I earn a poor wage yet I still believe that £425 for the PS3 is a fair price considering what the machine is capable of even if it couldn’t play Blu-ray movies.

The PS2 cost me £299 when I bought it not long after launch so is the PS3 worth the extra £125? I think so.

Sony isn’t aiming the PS3 at kids, I don’t view it as a toy & I certainly don’t think anybody else should view gaming as a hobby for kids. It should be viewed along the same lines as DVD recorders/PCs/Laptops/MP3 players etc & I think that’s how Sony is trying to market the PS3, as part of your main entertainment hub in your home.

When I get my PS3 it will be going in my living room alongside my TV & DVD recorder & not hidden away in the bedroom or a spare room. I know people have different requirements with different views, but these are my views as to why the PS3 is worth the £425 price & why it should not be viewed as a toy.

Feel free to share your views. 😀

  • Chemical O

    I think you are your claims about how often people upgrade their high end electronics off.
    Really 1-2 years. I have had the same computer for 4 years, dont have a hdtv yet, but I doubt It will be replaced that often. Yes I like smaller mp3 players with bigger capacity but dont get one every other year, and doubt most people do. I think that is more perception than anything else.

    I understand what you are saying about belittling gamers and gaming in general, but the simple fact most people buy console for games. With the ps2 you bought it for the games, and were happy that you got a cheap dvd player. With the ps3 its the other way around, 600$ just seems too high to me for a “game” system. I dont want blue ray or care that much about it, neither do I care about having a multimedia hub. I want games, and 600 bucks just seems to high a price for it.

    By the way Im 30 years old, have an xbox 360, xbox, ps2 and gamecube. Dont plan on getting a ps3 at least not till some BIG price drops, I got my ps2 last at $129;
    Honestly I shelled out $400 dollars for the xbox 360 and at the time 6 months back, part of thought it was too much, their is just no way i can pay 600 bucks for a console.
    Yes, I know about the 500 dollar version, but I would not buy the “cheaper” version of either console.

  • I am 24 (since April) and I played games since I was round about 4 (cant tell exactly when my brother got the VCS2600, but it was around 86). Back then, I didnt play very much, but later on, I was 5 at that time, he got an C64, there was my real gaming life started. I learned to read and to type while I was still in Kindergarten!! Then the Amiga 500 came, I got a Mega Drive for Christmas (that was about 92) and in 94 we got our first PC… A Pentium 60 with freakin 8megs of ram, 2x CDROM and whopping 428Megs of HD! From there on in, I got known to other sorts of games than jump and runs or beat em ups… Man, I still love Wing Commander 3!

    Now guess what. That PC (including the Monitor, which is mandatory, if you dont have one… And any normal guy has a TV, if even not it is an HD) cost more than 3000DMs. About 1500€ THAT TIME! If you include inflation, its more likely to be 2000€ or even more. That beast (for its time) lasted for 2 years or so, till it was upgraded. And the spiral went on and on…

    Now what I want to say is. I got my PS2 in 2001, when it still cost about 800DMs (400€). But I got it cheaper (cash and carry markets… My mum’s self employed 😀 ) and it still works, though the laser and the AV cable did suffer (my bro’s dog ate the cable…). I bought the Network adapter, fitted a HD in it, so I now can play it with the games installed to it… Pretty easy and neat, no need to switch DVDs!

    So, thats 5 years ago… A bought alot of games and other things for it and I can still use it and have fun. If I still had my (built in 2000) old pc, I wouldnt be able to play any newer games. Thats why i upgraded 2 years ago for heck of a lot of money…

    Ok, other consoles deliver similar optional things besides gaming as the PS3, but if the PS3 didnt have a BD Rom, I wouldnt be nearly as psyched. I still dont have an “extra” DVD Player, as my PS2 does this job very well, albeit a bit loud… (Hifi to the maxx solves that problem). That way, I dont need to spend another 200 bucks on other things I really dont need. I finally can listen to MP3s without firing up my PC (ok, my mediastation pc is running 24/7…) or even watch AVIs…

    In other words. The PS3 helps you SAVING money!

  • I have to disagree with you Chemical O. I know a lot of people who are constantly upgrading their PCs to play the latest games. I’ve upgraded my mobile phone every year for the past 5 years (as have a number of my friends). If an mp3 player lasts more than 2 years then that’s great but people do upgrade their equipment every few years (be that 2/3 years or even 4) with the PS3 you don’t need to upgrade until 5/6 years into it’s life.

  • observer

    “I’m constantly seeing/hearing/reading people complaining about the price of the PS3, claiming it’s too expensive for a gaming machine.”

    I’m also seeing/reading/hearing:
    – There are major yield problems with Cell and probably Blu-Ray too
    – PS3 is a major hassle to develop for. Most developers hate it and are flocking to other platforms
    – PS3 game development is ridiculously expensive and problematic. Publishers are flocking to other platforms
    – The PS3 hardware is really poor and buggy. Even Sony has posted notoriously slow read speeds
    – Online gaming won’t really be free or any online services will be really terrible
    – Blu-Ray has already lost to HD-DVD and online distribution. It is already a disaster like Betamax
    – The excuse that Blu-Ray storage will provide a benefit for games is an outright manipulative lie
    – Sony execs are extremely arrogant, hate their fans, and are all-round bad people
    – Every time someone buys a PS3, a cute kitten will die

    The journalists that make these points so loudly know what they are doing. They aren’t trying to be fair or present impartial reporting. They are clutching at anything that will make the PS3 look bad and they will twist, bend, and manipulate whatever news they can dig up to achieve this means.

    Lots of journalists repeatedly quote the $200 price difference between the $400 xbox and the $600 PS3, but they wouldn’t dare acknowledge any of the glaring counter points:
    – The $500 PS3 is obviously a much more fair comparison given that all the extras in the $600 PS3 aren’t in the xbox at all.
    – Online gaming or full backward compatibility is included in both editions of the PS3.
    – The $300 360 is more crippled compared to the $500 PS3. Lots of functions such as game downloads and backwards compatability simply won’t work at all with the $300 without the hard drive.
    – Wi-Fi requires a $100 add-on for the 360 where it’s included in the PS3. Some people don’t need this but lots of people require this. For that crowd, the price difference mostly disappears.

    The journalists are completely aware of these counter points. They are intentionally cherry-picking the anti-PS3 points and silencing the pro-PS3 points. They are rooting for the 360/Wii and trying to bring down the Sony giant.

  • Chemical O

    Wifi only comes standard in the 600 dollar ps3

    As for upgrades, I agree that people do upgrade frequently, I was only disputing his timeline of 1-2 years. I mean I dont know anyone who gets a new computer/mp3/tv orwhatever every year.

    But on a more general note, I still think the price tag is too high for what most people primarily want, which is a “game console”. The ps2 sold/shipped 100 mill units, it was not the most powerful system, it had the biggest and best (disputable) library of games. No offense to anyone here, but of course people who write/post on blogs are probably gonna be more tech savvy. These people probably want a multimedia hub, blue ray, the works. But im thinking if sony wants to sell 100 milliion again, the price is too high. Most of those 100million bought it for games, not anything else, the people who want all those extras and are willing to shell out for them are in the minority. Hey maybe im wrong, but i guess we will see. It also does not help that Nintendo is aiming straight for this audience, casual gamers. Plus whatever you think of the xbox 360, you have to admit it will probably have a bigger share of the market this time around.

  • Matt

    The PS3 has less games than the 360. Many analyst don’t think this is going to change.

    I don’t trust the PS3 as a BD player (PS2 SUCKED as a DVD player, 3 year old tech). We don’t need 25g disc for games. Why do I need a BD player? With ICT (or whatever it is called) the $500 PS3 is a bad choice for a BD player. You HAVE to have HDMI.

    I and everyone else shouldn’h have to rationalize a console purchase. The fact you have to go through a list to justify it is silly. If you don’t own an HDTV you should buy that first. You watch more TV than game (I hope). The PS3 on a SDTV will not look much better than Xbox 1.

    Why does the media hate Sony? They must have a reason right?

    Why should I go through the 1st year growing pains that the PS3 is going to endore? How many must own/play games will their really be?

  • Why does the Media hate Sony?

    It’s as simply is that. Sony is the biggest Player in the field and as Sony doesnt even comment on that crap, that MANY so called journalists post even puts more fuel to this hayfire. The 360 is out in market, so “making up” things can easily be outdone, because anyone whos good enough can prove it. Sony articles sell VERY GOOD. Everybody (who cares) is interested in EVERY FREAKIN BIT of info, and therefore posting some crap that someone heard from someone else gets so much hits, its ridicules.

    And I REALLY have to disagree with you about the must have of an HDTV. First of all, yes, it looks better, no doubt, but now look at DVDs. If you have a good dvd player and play back dvds they look pretty good, dont they? Comparing PAL to 720P/50 in terms of resolution, its just a freaking 33% improvement.

    AND NO, you DONT NEED HDMI! The Filmindustries already made an agreement (positively commented on by both MS and Sony, more precisely Phil Harrison in the Stern article), to NOT use the IC Token until 2011. By then, HDTV will nearly be standart and the old analogue tv will be obsolete. And only again some years from that on, the next next generation of games consoles will be there. Now tell me again, do I really need HDMI? NO I DONT!

    The thing is, why we justify our decision to buy the PS3, that so much crap is being said about it. I dont know who comes up with that crap (ok, I know someone, The Inq for example).

  • I have interest in a few PS3 titles announced. But they won’t be out till far after the launch. The fact that the PS2 has lost its rumble is something that upsets me.

    I agree 100% that the PS3 is a great value for what it offers, if it delivers. Sony is very impressionable. The input they recieved from last year’s E3 is what caused them to change their plans for the PS3 for this E3. The PS2 was supposed to be similar to a computer well. Sony ran similar campaigns for both. I’m taking an I’ll believe it when I see it outlook on the PS3.

    As I said, I agree that the price is a good value. But I’m not interested in paying $600 for what it offers. All I wanted was to play games. If the PS3 is gonna require all this just to play games, then I’m not sure the PS3 is for me. I don’t need another PC, I don’t need Blu-Ray, and I don’t need motion sensing. WHAT I need is a games console that adds on what the PS2 started. I’d hate see Sony lose the lead because Ken Kutaragi has a technology fixation.

  • The PS3 has more to offer and really does have inbould next-gen features. You pay for the Cell, Blu-Ray, RSX, and i dont care i luv the games and the standart features. And its true you pay for quality.

  • If all you want to do is play games, then the PS3 Jr might be a better option for you. In my mind, the PS3 Jr is for gamers, while the PS3 Sr is for gamers who are also into multimedia, HD movies, etc.

    As far as the PS2 sucking as a DVD player: that’s true now, but not when it was released. When the PS2 came out, the DVD quality wasn’t bad compared to other DVD players out there. It just wasn’t great either. It was middle of the road.

  • My PS2 is my main DVD player at home. It does the job for me.

    I’m glad that nobody seems to think the PS3 is a toy though…

  • lordxixor101

    Though, I see the arguments that, for some people, the PS3 might be a good value, but I agree with what Phaethon0017 says. Honestly, one of my favorite parts of the PS2 is that there are so many used and discounted games on the system. You could easily never spend more than $15 on a game, and be perfectly happy. Sure, it’ll be like that one day on the PS3, but unless you want the BlueRay, sorry $600 in the US (or even $500) is a lot of money to pay.

    I think more importantly, there is usually a backlash against the new price when it’s higher. Fans are always skeptical of getting the new console for whatever reason. The difference here though is that Wall Street Analysts and Video Game Media is pushing at how this is way too high of a price.

    I remember when the Super Nintendo was about to launch at whatever price it launched in the states. Even though the price seemed high ($250 I believe at the time), video game magazines pushed that you really needed to get the system. There are very few systems that the media doesn’t push that you really need to have. This is shaping up to be one of them, that’s why it’s so noteworthy. This is really a problem. Sony might survive t his and crush this generation again. But, they might not, and 1 year ago, the thought that the PS3 wouldn’t win it’s generation would have been just insane.

  • I think that parts of the media itself is why other parts aren’t pushing the PS3. With much of the media having an anti-Sony bias, lots of bad-mouth articles get published, often that are glaringly false. A small retraction get printed later, sometimes. What’s the overall impression that’s left in people’s minds?

    Buzz begets buzz. If a couple media outlets out there wrote a couple articles that backed the PS3, then others would follow and all of a sudden everyone would think the PS3 is a must-have. But in this climate of Sony hatred, it’s not happening. If I were really paranoid I’d say Microsoft was behind it all, but I don’t really think so. It’s just working out for them.

  • Oh, BTW, I bought my PS2 at launch and it’s still working fine. I don’t use it as a DVD player, though.

  • Matt

    My Ps2 won’t play a movie more than 30-40 mintues before it freezes. Plays games fine, but movies no. I bought a DVD player two weeks after my Ps2 and it works fine to this day. Much better player.

    I don’t know if anyone can remember the Dreamcast launch, but the media was all over them just like they are with Sony. Much of the attention was deserved because EA was not onboard and their previous system was a failure. I didn’t buy it for this reason. I know a lot of people who didn’t buy it for that reason. Ultimately it killed the system. Back then I didn’t go online to read about gaming. It was more word of mouth then and most people didn’t like the system for some reason.

    Sony is going to take a hit on the PS3. How badly depends on their launch and games. Also how much the public is willing to play games. I am not suggesting they are going to stop production or not sell millions of units. Sony needs a relatively clean launch to save face though.

    I am still waiting on some news from THEM (should be some time in August)

  • The thing with Blu-Ray is that it’s not proven, and its by far not as necessary a replacement as DVD was over VHS. DVD had very little competition when it first surfaced, and it could be seen that it would be a welcome replacement for the entertainment industry. Sony is betting the farm.

    Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are splitting a small market down the middle. HD-DVD has the lead in image quality using VC-1 compression while Blu-Ray uses the old MPEG-2. It is gaining Hollywood support as Blu-Ray is losing momentum. A clear cut winner cannot be seen as clearly as it was with DVD vs VHS. Many believe that DVDs still look good, so they’ll opt not to pay $500 for an HD-DVD player or $1,000+ for a Blu-Ray player.

    Those without an HDTV altogether I can imagine must be incredibly angry at Sony. Although you can argue Blu-Ray’s purpose is to expand game content, remember this fact. The majrority of games, 3rd party Multiplatform games will ALWAYS be required to fit on DVDs. Whether its two or three, it doesn’t matter. It can fit on a DVD. I really can’t imagine paying $100-200 more just because I was too lazy to swap a disc. Another thing, filling a disc with anything other the HD FMVs costs money.

    Games haven’t hit anywhere near 8gigs and they already cost $10-20million to create. Imagine what it’d cost to fill a disc with 25gig worth of game content. I don’t think even Sony would try to do this. Sony’s primary stance with placing Blu-Ray inside of the PS3 is to dominate the Movie Industry, not expand game content. Sure, Square Enix will be able to fit their cinematics on Blu-Ray, but they could do the same with multiple DVDs.

  • Questworld

    I think you put too much emphasis on the added value to what is suppose to be a game machine first and foremost, regardless of what spin or evolution the brand has gone through. Sure a $20,000 dollar Playstation system with the added value of being a sports car sounds like a deal when everything is added up but most people would really just like that core component that’s relevant to playing videogames. And frankly, this whole thing would be easier to swallow if we can at least guarantee that such additives as a Blu-Ray player will actually the supported standard in the future. The additions of such complex and newly developed (and untested) devices as Blu-Ray and Cell processors seem unnecessary for games if similar technologies can be utilized but for cheaper costs (to us). Apart from greater storage, what do they offer that other methods can’t do at a better price? And how many games will actually utilize the storage space or that power? Less than two percent I think and we don’t even know if the games will be all that either. And for a system that’s suppose to be future proof, I hope we don’t get the usual DRE’s and problems that plagued the PS2 ’cause for this price it better last up to the future and not break down. That’s a premium I’d pay for. As of right now though, personally, I can’t say the added value means anything to me so I doubt I’d ever be convinced to buy a PS3 at the current asking price. Depending on the games, I’ll choose to wait after a significant price drop (about $200 is my limit).