Sony PS3 to be delayed to 07, and Cost $900 to make?

[Raiders Army]

sega!

[General Mike]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

The other thing the PS2 had going for it was backwards compatibility which the Dreamcast did not.

PS3 doesn't have full backward compatability?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by General Mike

PS3 doesn't have full backward compatability?

This is the great part - it has backwards compatibility, but neither unit has a Memory Card slot in which to plug your PS1 and/or PS2 memory cards. At best, you'll have to buy a separate adapter to do that.

And when the best-case scenario requires you to spend extra money to play your old games on TOP of the cost of the console, you know you're in for a really good time.

At worst, the emulator or whatever will only read the compact flash/SD/memory stick slots as being equivalent, which means if you don't buy the $600 unit, backwards compatibility will be a joke.

[SackAttack]

Dola,

re-reading that last line, it seems a little too assertive. Basically if they go the worst-case scenario, then that other stuff is the case. I really don't think they will, but who knows?

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by General Mike

PS3 doesn't have full backward compatability?

That was in reference to the PS2 beating out the Dreamcast. That being said, the 360 is not really fully backwards compatible. For instance, there are probably more games you can't play on the 360 than you can.

Edit--It's ridiculous that Barbie™ Horse Adventures™ Wild Horse Rescue™ for the Xbox is playable on the 360 but Madden 2006 and NCAA Football 2006 for the Xbox are unplayable on the 360.

[Bee]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

This is the great part - it has backwards compatibility, but neither unit has a Memory Card slot in which to plug your PS1 and/or PS2 memory cards. At best, you'll have to buy a separate adapter to do that.

And when the best-case scenario requires you to spend extra money to play your old games on TOP of the cost of the console, you know you're in for a really good time.

At worst, the emulator or whatever will only read the compact flash/SD/memory stick slots as being equivalent, which means if you don't buy the $600 unit, backwards compatibility will be a joke.

Granted I don't follow these things very much, but why would you need a memory card to play PS1 and PS2 games? I would have assumed the emulator would save game data to the PS3 hard drive.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Bee

Granted I don't follow these things very much, but why would you need a memory card to play PS1 and PS2 games? I would have assumed the emulator would save game data to the PS3 hard drive.

Your current game saves. If you've spent 75 hours working your way through all the Gran Turismo races, why would you want to have to do it again?

[stevew]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Your current game saves. If you've spent 75 hours working your way through all the Gran Turismo races, why would you want to have to do it again?

Ouch, that would be heinous.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

That was in reference to the PS2 beating out the Dreamcast. That being said, the 360 is not really fully backwards compatible. For instance, there are probably more games you can't play on the 360 than you can.

Edit--It's ridiculous that Barbie™ Horse Adventures™ Wild Horse Rescue™ for the Xbox is playable on the 360 but Madden 2006 and NCAA Football 2006 for the Xbox are unplayable on the 360.

Well, I assume the PS3 would have to go through the same crap X360 has had with emulating games and some will be emulated quicker/better than others. They switched video cards. Microsoft used to be with Nvidia and now is with ATI and Sony vice versa. We'll see how Sony handles it.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well, I assume the PS3 would have to go through the same crap X360 has had with emulating games and some will be emulated quicker/better than others. They switched video cards. Microsoft used to be with Nvidia and now is with ATI and Sony vice versa. We'll see how Sony handles it.

I'm pretty sure that certain games are not yet backward compatible on the 360 purely from a marketing perspective, i.e. situations like Madden - EA wants consumers to feel compelled to buy the new 360 version of Madden rather than just playing their existing origina Xbox versions.

[dervack]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

That was in reference to the PS2 beating out the Dreamcast. That being said, the 360 is not really fully backwards compatible. For instance, there are probably more games you can't play on the 360 than you can.

Edit--It's ridiculous that Barbie™ Horse Adventures™ Wild Horse Rescue™ for the Xbox is playable on the 360 but Madden 2006 and NCAA Football 2006 for the Xbox are unplayable on the 360.

Madden and NCAA are an EA thing. I would imagine that EA would not like it if Madden 2006 for Xbox was BC for the 360, otherwise, why would someone but the 360 version then. As for all the other EA Sports games, they come out with new versions every year, and that's why I would imagine they didn't want their previous efforts to play on the newer system, especially if the newer version is stripped down more than the previous version. The EA and 2K sports titles are the least of my concern for backwards compatibility. Conker's is #1 on my list of games that should be BC. It's a 1st party title. All of those should automatically be.


Edit: Err, what dawgfan typed faster than me.

[stevew]

I never bought an Xbox. I hoped for a lot more from the backwards compatability, because I wanted to get a lot of the older titles in addition to new ones. I'll wait for a price drop before i get one, as it's just not a must buy, in part cause of this.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I'm pretty sure that certain games are not yet backward compatible on the 360 purely from a marketing perspective, i.e. situations like Madden - EA wants consumers to feel compelled to buy the new 360 version of Madden rather than just playing their existing origina Xbox versions.

Supposedly, that was not an issue. Need For Speed Underground 2 came out on both the Xbox and Xbox 360 and the Xbox version was compatible with the 360. This was an EA Game. Additionally, they were supposedly going to work on getting the most popular (i.e. best selling) games backwards compatible. I would hazard a guess that Madden was one of their most popular games of 2005.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Bee

Granted I don't follow these things very much, but why would you need a memory card to play PS1 and PS2 games? I would have assumed the emulator would save game data to the PS3 hard drive.

That also assumes the emulator is fundamentally changing the code to look for a hard drive instead of a memory card.

Remember that 99.999% of PS2 games are incompatible with the PS2 hard drive.

The big thing is game saves, as Troy pointed out, but there's also the question of whether the emulator will fundamentally change the save pointer of the game from memory card to hard drive, or whether it's going to be strictly a vehicle for playing the game on the platform, and leaving it unchanged otherwise.

It's going to be an issue, I'm sure of it.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Supposedly, that was not an issue. Need For Speed Underground 2 came out on both the Xbox and Xbox 360 and the Xbox version was compatible with the 360. This was an EA Game. Additionally, they were supposedly going to work on getting the most popular (i.e. best selling) games backwards compatible. I would hazard a guess that Madden was one of their most popular games of 2005.

Maybe, but I'm suspicious. In their rush to get a 360 version of Madden ready, EA had to drop some features present in prior versions. Not being someone that follows Need For Speed, I'm not sure if there was a similar situation there or not.

[dervack]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Supposedly, that was not an issue. Need For Speed Underground 2 came out on both the Xbox and Xbox 360 and the Xbox version was compatible with the 360. This was an EA Game. Additionally, they were supposedly going to work on getting the most popular (i.e. best selling) games backwards compatible. I would hazard a guess that Madden was one of their most popular games of 2005.

Need for Speed Underground 2 is only on the Xbox. Need for Speed: Most Wanted is on both Xbox and the 360, and is not BC.

[dervack]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Supposedly, that was not an issue. Need For Speed Underground 2 came out on both the Xbox and Xbox 360 and the Xbox version was compatible with the 360. This was an EA Game. Additionally, they were supposedly going to work on getting the most popular (i.e. best selling) games backwards compatible. I would hazard a guess that Madden was one of their most popular games of 2005.

FWIW, EA Games and EA Sports are almost completely seperate from each other too.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by dervack

Need for Speed Underground 2 is only on the Xbox. Need for Speed: Most Wanted is on both Xbox and the 360, and is not BC.

Argh. I thought it was one of em. There was a title near release that came out on the Xbox as well as 360 and was playable on the 360. Now it's going to drive me crazy figuring out which one it was. I thought it was NFSU2.

[Raiders Army]

My bad. It was Tony Hawk's American Wasteland that came out on the Xbox and the 360 and was playable on the 360.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Argh. I thought it was one of em. There was a title near release that came out on the Xbox as well as 360 and was playable on the 360. Now it's going to drive me crazy figuring out which one it was. I thought it was NFSU2.

NFSU2 is backwards compatible with 360, but never had a 360 version of its own.

NFS: Most Wanted, on the other hand, had both Xbox and 360 versions, and only the 360 version is playable on 360.

[Easy Mac]

Rumor has it that Sony is planning to make it illegal to sell used games by putting it in the licensing agreement for each game.

hxxp://www.gamesradar.com/gb/ps3/game/news/article.jsp?articleId=20060524153157765035&sectionId=1006

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Rumor has it that Sony is planning to make it illegal to sell used games by putting it in the licensing agreement for each game.

hxxp://www.gamesradar.com/gb/ps3/game/news/article.jsp?articleId=20060524153157765035&sectionId=1006

If that turns out to be true, it'll add to my reasons to not buy a PS3.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by sabotai

If that turns out to be true, it'll add to my reasons to not buy a PS3.

Yep, I agree. If this is true, it's a deal-breaker.

[Airhog]

Hmm, it seems to me like this can, and will be challenged in court if it happens. When I purchase a product, I can do what I wish with it. It is not illegal to resale something I have bought. Therefore I fail to see how legally Sony can prevent me from selling it.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Airhog

Hmm, it seems to me like this can, and will be challenged in court if it happens. When I purchase a product, I can do what I wish with it. It is not illegal to resale something I have bought. Therefore I fail to see how legally Sony can prevent me from selling it.

They're getting around it by saying you're not purchasing the "product", but the right to use the "product", which means you have a licence to play, but the copy isn't yours. Therefore, you don't have the right to resell like you normally would with virtually everything else you buy.

It's rather poor of Sony to do this, but they're gonna get away with it. I hope someone does challenge it, though.

[Deattribution]

There are also rumors that the PS3 causes cancer and eats small children for power.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Deattribution

There are also rumors that the PS3 causes cancer and eats small children for power.

Well, if it eats small children for power, I'll buy it. Saves me some electric bills. :-)

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Airhog

Hmm, it seems to me like this can, and will be challenged in court if it happens. When I purchase a product, I can do what I wish with it. It is not illegal to resale something I have bought. Therefore I fail to see how legally Sony can prevent me from selling it.

I agree with the sentiment, but precedent has already been set in the software business.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I agree with the sentiment, but precedent has already been set in the software business.

Microsoft has to be laughing at every new news story to come out.

This only works for Sony if MS and Nintendo follow suit.

If MS and Nintendo do nothing, Sony is out on a limb with a higher priced system and no ability to trade in your games. Good luck with that Sony.

[MizzouRah]

More reasons to upgrade my pc.

[Airhog]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I agree with the sentiment, but precedent has already been set in the software business.

But thats not comparing apples to apples. It's not easy to copy a console game and play it on your console, it takes specialized hardware. And that should account for something, at least in my mind. Then again, I am not a lawyer

[stevew]

I'm pretty sure the "no trade in" rumor is several years old, and essentially bullshit scare tactics. But, sadly I could see Sony doing something this stupid.

[sterlingice]

Yeah, I'm sure noMonSe would start rumors like that to scare off people who are dumb enough to believe rumors.

SI

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Yeah, I'm sure noMonSe would start rumors like that to scare off people who are dumb enough to believe rumors.

SI

Sony needs to be in full blown PR mode right now. If this is just a rumor, they need to jump out and say so no matter how old the rumor is.

This is the same company that put installed a rootkit on their music CD's.

This is a perfect example of a company that just doesn't get it.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

More reasons to upgrade my pc.

Yep. Consoles suck.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Rumor has it that Sony is planning to make it illegal to sell used games by putting it in the licensing agreement for each game.

hxxp://www.gamesradar.com/gb/ps3/game/news/article.jsp?articleId=20060524153157765035&sectionId=1006

Okay. Easy Mac, I'm going to pick on you because I'm in a foul mood and you're regurgitating the same crap I just ripped on Games Radar for a few hours ago.

Is Sony the fourth shadow branch of government? Do they have the ability to unilaterally change the marketplace?

Funny, because that's what "illegal" suggests to me. It suggests to me that they're trying to say "It's against the law for you to trade that in" and "It's against the law for you to buy that back," neither of which are within the realm of their ability to accomplish.

Now, did you mean "Sony has recently filed for a patent preventing games from being played on more than a single console, and are our sources reporting that Sony is warning used games shops that pre-played games will not play on new consoles"?

Oh, wait a second. That's completely different from "illegal," isn't it?

I have no issue with the news story. What I have an issue with is the retarded, moronic use of the word "illegal."

If you can't use the word properly, don't use it at all.

Sony may make it "impossible" for a used games market to exist. They certainly aren't going to make it illegal.

[Godzilla Blitz]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Okay. Easy Mac, I'm going to pick on you because I'm in a foul mood and you're regurgitating the same crap I just ripped on Games Radar for a few hours ago.

Is Sony the fourth shadow branch of government? Do they have the ability to unilaterally change the marketplace?

Funny, because that's what "illegal" suggests to me. It suggests to me that they're trying to say "It's against the law for you to trade that in" and "It's against the law for you to buy that back," neither of which are within the realm of their ability to accomplish.

Now, did you mean "Sony has recently filed for a patent preventing games from being played on more than a single console, and are our sources reporting that Sony is warning used games shops that pre-played games will not play on new consoles"?

Oh, wait a second. That's completely different from "illegal," isn't it?

I have no issue with the news story. What I have an issue with is the retarded, moronic use of the word "illegal."

If you can't use the word properly, don't use it at all.

Sony may make it "impossible" for a used games market to exist. They certainly aren't going to make it illegal.

If Sony were to use a numerical licensing system with a purchase agreement stating that licenses are non-transferrable, wouldn't that in Sony's eyes make it essentially it a breech of contract and hence "illegal" to sell or otherwise transfer a used PS3 game? And wouldn't that be Sony's intent behind such a licensing system?

If Sony were to add a restrictive purchase agreement, I would think they would make legal claims in order to enforce such a licensing system. The illegality of transferring ownership or bypassing the license would be a strong deterrent to circumventing the system. You might argue the legality of purchase agreements and say that Sony's legal position is untenable, or you might argue how enforceable the policy would be, but I think Sony would be in fact arguing that it would be illegal to trade/sell used PS3 games.

Assuming the rumor has any substance, of course. Microsoft would be laughing their asses off all the way to the bank if Sony did this.

[Marc Vaughan]

Now, did you mean "Sony has recently filed for a patent preventing games from being played on more than a single console, and are our sources reporting that Sony is warning used games shops that pre-played games will not play on new consoles"?

That simply put won't work and imho they wouldn't even try it - Sony can't restrict games to being played on only one console ... imagine little Johnny not being able to take his latest game to his mates house (thus its harder for people to be exposed to games and sales affected) or worse someone who has had their console fail (we get through on average 2 of each console a year at SI simply from them being over-used and left on too much, robustness winners include a N64 which is still going incidentally) and now finds their replacement can't run any of the $3,000 worth of games they own

This is simply scaremongering, if they do something it'll be legal-mumbo-jumbo to stop shops not consumers imho, only thing is that will still leave ebay ..... as such I don't think they'd do it.

I've argued in the past that the second hand market is actually GOOD for the games industry, something which is rarely mentioned.

For instance you have 2 little johnny's each with $20 and an old game, new games are $30 each so without the trade in/second hand market none of them can afford a game and so they waste the money on non-game related stuff (note buying games is not wasting your money chaps ).

However with the second hand market one of the little johnny's trades in "Simple Shooter 36" for $10 and has enough with his trade in to purchase a spanking new copy of Football Manager, Johnny 2 see's "Simple Shooter 36" priced second hand at $20 and can afford it so purchases the game.

Here you can see that a sale has been made for a full-price title which otherwise wouldnt have happened - this is what occurs in 90% of cases with trading in games (ie. someone does it to get a full-price title), as such I for one thing that the second hand market is good for the games industry.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Godzilla Blitz

If Sony were to use a numerical licensing system with a purchase agreement stating that licenses are non-transferrable, wouldn't that in Sony's eyes make it essentially it a breech of contract and hence "illegal" to sell or otherwise transfer a used PS3 game? And wouldn't that be Sony's intent behind such a licensing system?

Couple of problems with that.

Number one: In some states, forcing a consumer to enter into a contract without actually being provided said contract for perusal is illegal. Prior case law exists on this front, at least in California; it is illegal to sell software containing a EULA without making that EULA available for consumer inspection prior to purchase.

Number two: minors can't legally sign contracts. As a result, how are you going to enforce "breach of contract" if a minor attempts to trade a game in? Simple answer: at the consumer level, you can't. More to the point, how do you prove whether the purchaser was an adult or a minor? If a minor, you can't hold the parent responsible for a contract which the minor legally couldn't sign.

Given that, you're looking at enforcement at a retail level instead, and it's a fairly safe bet that suing your retail partners is a great way to convince them that carrying your product is too much of a hassle and drive them into the arms of your competition in the process.

Even if you successfully strongarm specialty retailers into not carrying your preowned software, you aren't the only game in town. That's just going to encourage them to try to sell more Wii's or Xbox 360's, since those are platforms on which they'd be able to sell the more profitable pre-owned games.

But that's getting away from the legality of it.

You might argue the legality of purchase agreements and say that Sony's legal position is untenable, or you might argue how enforceable the policy would be, but I think Sony would be in fact arguing that it would be illegal to trade/sell used PS3 games.

Sure, they're arguing it. Have you read the article, though? Games Radar, at best, is reporting Sony's claims that they will "make it illegal." At worst, they're attributing to Sony the ability to write the law in their favor. The former is laughable on Sony's part, but the latter is just pisspoor journalism, because Sony can't "make" it illegal to do anything. They can pursue a business model that they feel the law supports, but they can't unilaterally "make" it illegal for retailers to sell preowned PS3 games.

Assuming the rumor has any substance, of course. Microsoft would be laughing their asses off all the way to the bank if Sony did this.

Publicly. Privately, I think they'd be quite interested in the outcome. Microsoft has been a big fan of licensing of that nature for some time, and I imagine they've had their eye on a similar scheme, but since they aren't the 800 lb gorilla Sony is in the gaming industry, they wouldn't be able to make something like that stick.

If Sony succeeds, expect Microsoft to follow with all due speed.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

That simply put won't work and imho they wouldn't even try it - Sony can't restrict games to being played on only one console ... imagine little Johnny not being able to take his latest game to his mates house (thus its harder for people to be exposed to games and sales affected) or worse someone who has had their console fail (we get through on average 2 of each console a year at SI simply from them being over-used and left on too much, robustness winners include a N64 which is still going incidentally) and now finds their replacement can't run any of the $3,000 worth of games they own

That's where you're wrong though, Marc.

In this case, the opposite of what I argued earlier is true. Sony certainly has the technology to restrict games to a single console.

Check the patent.

The question is whether or not they'll use it. They certainly can do it. I agree with you that it would be a terrible business decision, particularly given the price of entry and, as you mentioned, the whole idea of replacement.

But there's certainly nothing stopping them from implementing the technology if they choose to do so. They're on record as saying they have no intention of using the technology mentioned in the patent with the PlayStation 3, but if they chose to go this route at all, the technology would be a much more enforceable route than resorting to EULAs.

This is simply scaremongering, if they do something it'll be legal-mumbo-jumbo to stop shops not consumers imho, only thing is that will still leave ebay ..... as such I don't think they'd do it.

You don't point the gun if you're not willing to pull the trigger. Retailers know that. To that end, while I don't know if the rumor of Sony making these threats is true - remember, there were rumors that they were threatening retailers who didn't take down Dreamcast and Xbox displays in 2000 and 2001 - it's one of those things where threatening their retail partners without having the heavy stick to back it up would be yet another unsound business decision to go with several they've already made this generation.

I've argued in the past that the second hand market is actually GOOD for the games industry, something which is rarely mentioned.

For instance you have 2 little johnny's each with $20 and an old game, new games are $30 each so without the trade in/second hand market none of them can afford a game and so they waste the money on non-game related stuff (note buying games is not wasting your money chaps ).

However with the second hand market one of the little johnny's trades in "Simple Shooter 36" for $10 and has enough with his trade in to purchase a spanking new copy of Football Manager, Johnny 2 see's "Simple Shooter 36" priced second hand at $20 and can afford it so purchases the game.

Here you can see that a sale has been made for a full-price title which otherwise wouldnt have happened - this is what occurs in 90% of cases with trading in games (ie. someone does it to get a full-price title), as such I for one thing that the second hand market is good for the games industry.

Agreed. The secondhand market - borrowing, rental, preowns - has a valuable place in the industry, but because the profits aren't realized directly by Sony or the publishers, they want to root it out.

Hell, Nintendo tried to prevent Blockbuster renting NES games back in the day. It's not just Sony that would love to see the secondhand market go away.

I just think that's kind of like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[Godzilla Blitz]

Sack:
I think we're on the same page with this. I agree that Sony would likely have difficulty "making it illegal" to sell/trade/buy/use second-hand games. No argument from me on that point.

I was more questioning your criticism of the use of the word "illegal". I think the use of the word "illegal" in the story is justified. And under such a system, Sony would be trying to "make it illegal". Whether they could succeed or not is different question.

But I completely agree with you in that the article should have said something like "attempt to make it illegal", which would have been a more accurate description.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

I have no issue with the news story. What I have an issue with is the retarded, moronic use of the word "illegal."

If you can't use the word properly, don't use it at all.

Sony may make it "impossible" for a used games market to exist. They certainly aren't going to make it illegal.

[dixieflatline]

Some price info now on the Wii. From cnet:

Nintendo has announced that the price of Wii, its next-generation video game console, will not exceed $250 in the United States or $220 (25,000 yen) in Japan.

Between the fourth quarter of 2006 and March 31, 2007, Nintendo expects to ship 6 million Wii systems worldwide, the company said.

While the device lacks the same level of gaming power offered by Microsoft's Xbox 360 and Sony's PlayStation 3, its unique controller has prompted gamers to mark it as a contender.

Nintendo first demonstrated the Wii controller to the gaming community this month in Los Angeles at E3, the Electronic Entertainment Expo.

The Wii remote, which is equipped with a motion-sensor in addition to the usual controls, can be used as a direct-action implement, allowing players to swing it like a light saber, sword or baseball bat in communication with the game being played.

The Wii became the underdog hit of E3, despite criticism of its quirky name. (The device was called Revolution during development.)

Nintendo did not release pricing and availability at that time.

During E3, Sony announced that its PS3 would be available for $599 for the 60GB hard drive version and $499 for the 20GB version. Microsoft's Xbox 360 sells for between $299 and $399, depending on options, but the company has had problems meeting demand, frustrating both would-be customers and Microsoft stockholders. The company announced an increase in Xbox 360 production in March.

[Raiders Army]

Also heard that Sony is going to put in a motion sensor into the controller (somewhat like the Wii controller) and they're taking out the force feedback feature.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Also heard that Sony is going to put in a motion sensor into the controller (somewhat like the Wii controller) and they're taking out the force feedback feature.

That'd be true... came out at E3.

[Anthony]

what i wanna know is who is this little johnny Marc keeps referring to?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

what i wanna know is who is this little johnny Marc keeps referring to?

Dean Houston's favorite whipping boy.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Yep. Consoles suck.

I've had tons of fun with the Xbox and PS2, but it's getting too pricey just for a gaming only machine.

[oykib]

This might be funny for those who haven't seen it yet.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

I've had tons of fun with the Xbox and PS2, but it's getting too pricey just for a gaming only machine.

I think like that sometimes as well. But for me, it's my one single vice. I don't smoke. I rarely drink. I'm not a guy who likes to spend a lot of time in a bar. I rarely go to movies.

I believe I've now put in somewhere in the neighborhood of 130-150 hours already with the 360. Maybe even a bit more.

Counting games purchased, that puts me in the area of six bucks an hour or so. I can live with that.

All that said the original Xbox and PS2 were at $300 bucks at launch. (with the PS2 not falling in price until May of 2002 to compete with the Xbox price cut.

I don't think the extra 100 for the full blown 360 with HD support is out of line.

But Sony? Yeah, if you are getting a console strictly for gaming, the 600 dollar price point is out of line. For people like me who do not care about Blu-Ray, Sony priced themselves out of the market.

[MizzouRah]

If I ever do get another console, the 360 is definitly at the top of the list.