PlayStation press release breaks down the real price of consoles

by Andrew Yoon { Jan 7th 2009 at 9:30PM }

SCEA has just sent out a press release detailing what readers of this blog already know. Although PS3 is an expensive machine, it's a better value than the other competing systems. In a press release called "Keeping Entertainment Simple," the company showed this chart showing all the things you get in the PS3 that you can't in other systems. Yes, it's a biased chart, but it's the kind of information that SCEA should spread in the first place. Imagine if they put this info in a retail store? Perhaps more consumers would think kindly of Sony's black box.

Tags: chart, comparison, playstation, ps3, scea, wii, xbox-360

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 5)

Neo Senku @ Jan 7th 2009 9:36PM

They should did this quite a while ago. Like before the holiday season, they might have swayed some console buyers.

Gambit07 @ Jan 7th 2009 9:40PM

Agreed.

Ian @ Jan 7th 2009 10:33PM

I second that motion!

This information should have been released 07-08...

warlock7 @ Jan 7th 2009 10:38PM

I hope people are being facetious as this sort of information was widely distributed throughout the intra-web prior to the launch of the PS3.

Ceryk @ Jan 7th 2009 11:55PM

I've been saying this since the day the PS3 came out. Even sent out an email to one of the Tech writers after they said you could buy a 360 and a Blu-Ray player for less than a PS3 and demonstrated with real world numbers that that was, in fact, untrue.

I'm a neutral, and I've been saying this for a long time. The PS3 is also a better product. It's a known fact that the 360 has the highest failure rate. Also is noisy, unless that's been changed on newer ones. Barely hear my PS3 and I sit 2 feet away from both of the systems

PSN: John-Paul-Jones @ Jan 8th 2009 12:03AM

...meanwhile the advertising team are nowhere to be found. I don't mean to rag on Sony, but there have been a barrage of Wii and 360 ads since before and after their launches, yet I've hardly seen any for the PS3.

Killzone 2 is right around the corner, and if Sony wants to rack up sales they should start showing one of their flagship titles we've been waiting for since 2005.

Little Big PSN ID: johnnynumber5 @ Jan 8th 2009 1:48AM

John-Paul Jones

I have actually seen allot of PS3 & PSN ads recently. Saw a couple different ones during some BCS bowl games, saw some during regular bowl games, ESPN NBA basketball & during the most recent UFC PPV.

It seems they have finally identified their target demographic and have me pegged. I have been seeing ads everywhere this year and during the end of last year. I guess it just depends what you watch.

Jason @ Jan 8th 2009 4:20AM

they just mentioned it in the blog they should of done it in the first place

Kspraydad @ Jan 8th 2009 10:11AM

I'm printing the chart on Avery Stickers and plastering them all over the gaming section of Futureshop/Best Buy and Walmart....vandalism ftw.

Lars @ Jan 8th 2009 1:15PM

I would often post numbers like these in forums full of MS fanboy idiots. 'course it never went well...

Back when HDDVD was still around I'd put that cost in there too, and after adding everything up the cost of an XBox with comparable features to a PS3 straight out of the box was around $1k.

I even had a friend who whined about the cost of the PS3 so I asked him to add together the cost of his system + a year of XBL (which he paid) + the HDDVD add-on (which he bought)... he wound up getting a PS3.

Polkster @ Jan 7th 2009 9:38PM

Damn right. And people called me a fanboy...

Sony delivers.

eNrique @ Jan 7th 2009 9:56PM

Just look at this:

http://www.joystiq.com/2009/01/06/xbox-360-sales-reach-28-million-17-m-on-xbox-live/#c16428111

There's a guy that will gadly pay $50 for live so he doesn't have to deal with Home, even that it's not mandatory to launch said beta app...

But well, call me a fanboy too if you want.

lee @ Jan 7th 2009 9:39PM

this is what ive been tell people for a long time

the arcade is useless unless you buy all the addons for it

which the ps3 already has included

Rodz @ Jan 8th 2009 7:51AM

Not only the Arcade, but also the PRO version. I just bought one and I spent $ 436.98 at Amazon for a 360 Pro Holiday Bundle, the Wi-fi Adapter and Live subscription.

MS made a master move selling these separated.

skin.bintin @ Jan 7th 2009 9:57PM

The thing is... with the Xbox, they are options. There is no choice with the PS3. You either pay for features you may not use, or you just don't buy one. There are a lot of gamers with no interest in online gaming, and don't have wireless internet etc etc, so why should the be paying for something the aren't using?

Although PSN is free, you KNOW it's being funding somehow. I'd imagine part of the consoles price does exactly that.

Popfrogs @ Jan 8th 2009 10:44AM

Wrong. Third party companies that have disassembled the latest PS3's still came to the conclusion that it's costing Sony about $450 per console for manufacturing and packaging. So Sony is still losing money on each unit sold. The high price is due to the high component and manufacturing costs, not some hidden PSN tax.

Lavat @ Jan 7th 2009 10:07PM

When you are comparing it between the 80g and the 360 arcade and aiming for a larger minority the Ps3 is the obvious choice. But I do not see any information about the cost it takes to run the PSN being compensated from the price of the Ps3. And predictably if there is to be a price cut for the 80g then it just makes it a even sweeter pick.

Extinction @ Jan 7th 2009 10:19PM

Live isn't really an option unless you're fine with only getting half the game you pay for.

JayFight @ Jan 8th 2009 12:03AM

from what i heard sony loses about $50 for every ps3 sold so why would they have a hidden upkeep for the PSN when they could just charge us and not lose the $50

skin.bintin @ Jan 9th 2009 6:49PM

Considering none of us are running Sony, I doubt any of us are really in a positon to state sony's costing strategy and claim it's fact ;)

Personally, I prefer the Xbox360 over PS3. My reasons are numerous.

Although the PS3 has more functions under it's skin, when you are using it it just feels so much more basic than the Xbox. Well, that's my opinion anyway.

At the end of the day, we are all gamers. Something worth celebrating ;)

Jack Tretton @ Jan 7th 2009 9:44PM

Gee, Sony must have gotten hold of December's NPD data.

To whom did Sony send this FUD-tastic chart?

Popfrogs @ Jan 7th 2009 10:00PM

Where's the FUD? These are facts.

Oh and they didn't bother to mention that you get a wireless rechargeable controller in the box with the PS3. You know, the crazy kind that doesn't eat batteries, coz it's already built in?

Devin @ Jan 8th 2009 12:10PM

Sony did not include the cost of an HDMI/Component cable (at retail price) though. This is something that needs to come with the console, or else be added to the chart as an added PS3 expense to make it a fair comparison IMO.

Still, PS3 is the better buy for people like me who want to do more than just game: like browse the net, watch BR movies, stream Netflix (for free), upgrade my HDD (for cheap) to put all my media on it, emulate games with Linux, etc.

Also, watching movies is so much better when you don't actually hear the console itself in the background...

Morisato06 @ Jan 8th 2009 12:40PM

I spent about 15 dollars on an HDMI cable on Newegg. They arent that expensive :P AND it works perfectly.

Devin @ Jan 8th 2009 2:55PM

@Morisato

Dude, I did the same thing, but what Sony put in the chart were retail numbers, not what you could get off the net....just keeping it fair that's all...

Stuart @ Jan 9th 2009 1:48PM

$15!!! I bought my 1.3c HDMI cable for $5 from Amazon. And they have dropped price fast, a couple weeks ago I bought a bundle of 3 HDMI cables for $9 (w/ free shipping)

skin.bintin @ Jan 7th 2009 9:57PM

Oh, and by the way, at many store here in New Zealand (especially leading up to christmas) and 60Gig 360 was CHEAPER than the PS3... and even the WII. That's marketing.

James @ Jan 7th 2009 9:45PM

When I saw online gaming and Wii I was expecting "LOL" instead of limited... oh well.

cegmp @ Jan 8th 2009 4:51AM

lol! good one!

Bankzy10 @ Jan 7th 2009 9:47PM

Sony should really start to market this along side the console and spread the news to people. I'm sure many people will think twice when they look at the quality and what they're get for their money. When you look at the chart you can clearly see its all built in with your price, but for the Xbox 360 you have to buy parts, which not only costs more in the long run, but make the look of the console change with the Wi-Fi adapter.

Role on Sony, spread the word =]

kentuckyfried @ Jan 7th 2009 10:15PM

Spreading this? Sony should be paying retailers to put up a big fucken sign at the gaming section of each store...

It would do alot towards dispelling the myth of the 360 as the cheapest hi-def next-gen console.

JewUnit666 @ Jan 8th 2009 10:44AM

hmm. i think i posted something close to this about a week ago and some british kid was saying that the xbox is cheaper all together, and i was wrong, well whos the twat now bitch

HanMoleman @ Jan 7th 2009 9:57PM

Uggghh....ive been saying this for what seems like an eternity to my 360 fanboy bretheren to no avail. Maybe more will get a clue...

WhiteShield @ Jan 7th 2009 9:57PM

interesting, but 360 fanboys will still say "YA WELL WE GOT GEARS 2 AND HALO!" but hopefully this won't offend any readers of 360 fanboy who read this too, because i recognize that not all 360 owners are ignorant to the ps3. then again, i'm not saying the ps3 is better either, i don't own a 360 so i can't really say now can i?

eNrique @ Jan 7th 2009 11:04PM

I own both, and I can say it:
The PlayStation 3 is waaaaaaaaaay better than xbox;
and yes you can too.

Exiled Legend @ Jan 8th 2009 1:34AM

I have both a Xbox 360 and a PS3, I use the xbox for playing games and ps3 for watching blu-ray. Now only if they could make a console with the xbox's games, online service, and controller and the ps3's blu-ray, 1080p/24.

dandan @ Jan 8th 2009 1:47PM

@Phil It is obvious that you don't own a ps3 I just read all your post on xbox3crap fanboy also the one that say fuk u sony. lol

WhiteShield @ Jan 8th 2009 9:20PM

ya, exiled legend just read your posts too, and why do you hate sony? just wonderin...

exiled360 @ Jan 9th 2009 2:43PM

just because i hate sony dosnt mean i dont have a ps3, my psn tag is exiled_legend, hit me up and i can prove it.

WhiteShield @ Jan 9th 2009 11:42PM

in no way was i implying that you didn't have a ps3, i was just wondering what was so bad about sony? but hey, before this gets out of hand, lets just drop the topic and play what we like to play, regardless of what it may be :)

HardBoiled2009 @ Jan 7th 2009 10:04PM

alot of the internet companies should have Wireless availability by now. so it's good to have wireless add on PS3 .... this is what i tell people as well i'm with all you guys and gas who tell people PS3 is better investment and if they wanna shout we got more games .. i rather Quality over Quantity

PrinceAshitaka @ Jan 8th 2009 1:18PM

a lot is ALWAYS two words. Learn it.

Roto13 @ Jan 9th 2009 1:00AM

And Spelling Nazis are ALWAYS obnoxious.

Orion @ Jan 7th 2009 10:09PM

I learned this the hard way when I bought a new Arcade and all the accessories. I'm SO glad I got the PS3 now. The wifi might actually WORK, imagine that! :D

Tom @ Jan 7th 2009 10:13PM

I like and have both consoles. But, this is silly.

a) this shows "worst case" -- a person buying an xbox arcade and upgrading it all the the way. People who want to do that probably wouldn't buy an arcade model to begin with.

b) yeah, wifi is extra, but what if you don't need it? All my stuff is hard wired.

c) gold is $50/year, in theory. You can get a 12+1 (13 month) for around $40 easily. That is $37/year. I'd rather pay for xbox than get sony's online free. Not to mention the better media capabilities (music, netflix, etc.)

Bottom line is: costs are somewhat equal, I think. If someone is going to quibble about this config vs that config for $30 difference, fine. If that price difference is driving which console you can buy, then you can't afford a console to begin with.

dylan @ Jan 7th 2009 10:22PM

I own all three, and must agree, I have never even thought about purchasing the wifi for the 360, and nearly every game I buy comes with 30 days or 3 months of live free, I have had live for 2 years and only paid once. PS3 online is like trying to drive while wearing and eyepatch and getting hit on the head with a hammer when compared to the 360, and no amount of money saving/spending will change that.
Uncharted and Pain are fun tho, and I enjoy watching Blu-Ray.

DrunkRaba @ Jan 7th 2009 10:31PM

How long do you plan on having your 360? because that $37 a year you can tack right on to the console price. Plan on having it ten years? There is an extra $370 I shouldn't have to pay for something I already pay for, the internet. Firefox doesn't charge me extra just to use the internet, and when you the customer on Live are generally doing part of the game hosting online, exactly why should you then be paying for that privilege? So that $370 on top of your already $299 makes your console a cool $659. And that doesn't even include a wireless controller?

It's great that you are willing to pay for Live, I used it for over a year before my 360 died. What exactly is better about it?

The huge amounts of lag encountered in popular games? PSN has that.

Ads Everywhere so long as you are connected to online, PSN and XMB doesn't have that.

The only thing I have seen that can be said is a great feature to Live is that it is at least universal across every game. Which means, auto match-making. Wee, I really don't care for it, I have always preferred the lobby system.

Like it or know it or not, but Live is just as and usually more laggy than the PSN plus I don't get hardly any downtime. I think I couldn't access the PSN about 4 times total from launch, and I use the thing every day. And those delays were generally about an hour or two max.

Really, tell me, what exactly it is that you feel is worth paying for that the PSN and PS3 don't offer for free?

Extinction @ Jan 7th 2009 10:39PM

"I'd rather pay for xbox than get sony's online free. Not to mention the better media capabilities "

1) PSN does 99% of what Live does plus things Live doesn't and never will. Live doesn't offer enough of what PSN doesn't to be worth ANY cost.

2) PS3 has better media capabilities. For starters, to use netflix requires a Live subscription on 360, but on PS3 it requires a one-time fee of $30. PS3 actually lets you copy files to and from the system to and from USB/flash cards (which 360 doesn't even have) and from CD/DVD/Bluray as well as network shares, plus you can upgrade the harddrive with standard 3.5 inch SATA drives. PS3 has animated thumbnails for video, lets you set thumbnails for audio files, edit metadata, uses an online CD track listing database (360 uses a locally stored one, wasting space) PS3 lets you delete (and copy) multiple files at a time via a checkmark list (360 only lets you delete them one at a time, or all files on the drive) PS3 has more codec support, 360s DIVX support is sub-par (according to the president of DIVX) versus PS3's DIVX-certified support. PS3 supports video streaming via the web browser as well so you can use youtube/hulu/etc. On PS3 when you click a file it plays, to delete it you press triangle for more options. On 360 when you click a file, it brings up a menu with play being an option. That's one more step than there should be. PS3's on screen remote has every feature the actual remote has, 360s is limited to about 8 features and you still can't fast forward/rewind within an audio track. PS3 lets you stream content to PSP. And if you install linux you can even install XBOX media center, VLC player, etc. PS3 lets you select the codec and bitrate to rip audio cds to,

360 is rated as one of the worst DVD players on the market, even worse than the $20 ones you get at walmart. PS3 is rated as one of the best.

I can go on and on, but the point is 360's media capabilities are a complete joke compared to PS3's.

Extinction @ Jan 7th 2009 10:40PM

"nearly every game I buy comes with 30 days or 3 months of live free"

Lies. The most MS gives out now is 48 HOURS

Rodz @ Jan 8th 2009 8:03AM

Not only the Arcade, but also the PRO version. I just bought one and I spent $ 463.97 at Amazon for a 360 Pro Holiday Bundle, the Wi-fi Adapter, The "Quick charge kit" and Live subscription. I bought all this because I also have a PS3 and I want to have the same experience I have with it in the 360: Wi-fi adapter, rechargeable controller battery and the ability to play ANY game online.

It's the facts. Face it.

| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Most Recent | Next 50 Comments