There it is, $500

[Kazuya]

But it's not $500, Kaz, it's $600. Anyone who buys the $500 version is missing the biggest technological advantage of the PS3, Blu-Ray playback, due to a lack of an HDMI jack.

The biggest advantage of PS3 is the playback of a format that doesn't exist yet on televisions that don't (for all intents and purposes) exist yet? How many people do you think we would have to approach on the street before we found one who could give us a reasonable explanation of what HDMI is? 500? 1000? 10,000? Seriously, some people are geeking out way too much on this thing. I was reading another board where someone asked what was the difference between the two SKUs. Some nerd gave this long-winded explanation about HDTV, HDMI, studios, content and licensing, and why the $500 version was a useless idiot pack. The original poster replied, "What's HDMI?"

The standard pack is NOT the 360 core pack and I'm pretty sure it's going to sell quite well. I own a 720p HDTV and plan on owning it for quite some time... and at this point, the $500 PS3 looks fine to me.

[reeche]

Those who bought the X360 were already predisposed to the X360. They had decided because of XBL or Halo that they were going with MS. Even if the PS3 price was lower, I think many of those would be skeptical about the PS3 (didn't like the Sony online setup, didn't like GT, etc.) or just reluctant to pay for another console at launch prices, whether those prices are $600 or $400.

Those are certainly valid points to certain parts of the market although for me I wasn't pre-disposed to X360 or any system. In fact I regularly bashed Microsoft for what I considered to be a poor launch and I tend to be console agnostic.

I do agree that I could be looking at it wrong in the sense that I've already purchased one next gen system so I'm looking at say spending $1400 total dollars instead of just $800 or $900 dollars. That's a valid point.

But I don't belive I'm looking at it that way. I'm looking at it, as I don't care about blu-ray and that drives the Ps3 system up too much for me. It's not the combined price of a second console that I belive is bugging people. It's the indivudal price of the Ps3 that is bugging people. I will easily buy a revolution at launch because the individual price of that system will not likely strike me as insane. Ultimately I don't feel people are as loyal to the Sony name as some people believe them to be. We'll see. It's all speculation anyway. We won't know anything definitive as to who is winning what until most likely this same time next year so...

[DivotMaker]

The standard pack is NOT the 360 core pack and I'm pretty sure it's going to sell quite well. I own a 720p HDTV and plan on owning it for quite some time... and at this point, the $500 PS3 looks fine to me.

It is still $100 more than a 360 Premium....

[webdanzer]

The standard pack is NOT the 360 core pack and I'm pretty sure it's going to sell quite well. I own a 720p HDTV and plan on owning it for quite some time... and at this point, the $500 PS3 looks fine to me.

It is still $100 more than a 360 Premium....

I don't know, that seems like a lot for brand loyalty to overcome, but I guess that will be put to the test and we will see.

[Kazuya]

The standard pack is NOT the 360 core pack and I'm pretty sure it's going to sell quite well. I own a 720p HDTV and plan on owning it for quite some time... and at this point, the $500 PS3 looks fine to me.

It is still $100 more than a 360 Premium....

True... as I said before, I think it will have enough perceived value, being a year newer, to pull that off... even if it does indeed turn out that the two systems end up having similar performance. It also lets you play Blu-Ray (if our eyes can stand the less than 1080p glory ), has free online play, and doesn't force you to pay for a play and charge kit. All "values" that the Core lacks.

[DivotMaker]

True... as I said before, I think it will have enough perceived value, being a year newer, to pull that off... even if it does indeed turn out that the two systems end up having similar performance. It also lets you play Blu-Ray (if our eyes can stand the less than 1080p glory ), has free online play, and doesn't force you to pay for a play and charge kit. All "values" that the Core lacks.

I am not sure about this, but if you don't have HDMI, you won't be play BluRay DVD movies. Or at least not in 1080p which Sony has been bragging about being able to pull off at 60 fps. The $500 unit seems like a huge compromise to me.

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/705/705887p1.html

They also mention there that the controllers in the $500 unit will NOT have the motion-sensing features....

As far as the online play being "free", that means nothing at this point because there is nothing being shown. Now if they manage to fulfill their claim from a month or so ago that they would blow XBL out of the water and it is STILL FREE, then I agree with you...however, I prefer to believe it when I see it. Sony is trying desperately to one-up MS and so far they have not done succeeded, IMHO...

[Dave]

They also mention there that the controllers in the $500 unit will NOT have the motion-sensing features....

WTF has gotten into these guys? If that rumor turns out to be true, then why would any developer spend any time adding motion-sensing functions to games?

As many have said, I want a machine to play videogames. I don't own a PC with Windows so the XBox Live Anywhere stuff doesn't interest me. Microtransactions can kiss my *ss. I'm not buying into either next-gen disc format until there is a winner and they cost as much as regular DVDs.

From a consumer standpoint, I don't care what the bill of materials cost for the machine is, either. My perceived value comes only from how well it plays games and I've only spent more than $200 for a machine once and I ended up selling it by the end of the first year.

And I use my iPod on a daily basis, listening to music or podcasts while driving, sitting at my work station, or working out at the gym. I'll use a game machine for a couple hours at night during the week at most.

[10spro]

Wow, can you imagine a 360 price cut just before the PS3 launch? That would have to really put a hurting on Sony sales IMO.

When MS launched the 360 ahead of its counterparts one of the strategies was to get a piece of the Apple in the gaming console that Sony owns Worldwide. With the PS3 being delayed until the end of the year, I believe MS has achieved that. Sure it took almost 6 months for everyone to get a 360 due to their faulty launch but with the latest demos and games on the marketplace, the 360 is beginning to shine.

Speaking from a strategic point of view it would be smart for MS to cut their price when the PS3 launches this winter. That would take yet another share of the BIG pie that Sony owns and at that point MS may be at an even level with Sony. It may not be a $100 cut but even if they do it by $50 and a parent is at a TRU store about to forge a $350 or $600 to get the latest console video, I would guess they would pick the $350 choice, unless money is not at issue.

I remember when I first got to the games was because of the NHL series for the Genesis, which played better than the Nintendo version. It also had the most sports which was great and SEGA became my console of choice. Fast forward to today's World and does it matter to me that Sidney Crosby's slapshot looks better in a 1300i resolution TV than my current 1080i? Is Randy Jonhson's fastball that much clearer? Will the kids really notice that? Maybe, maybe not, but like most of us here agree, the game honchos are missing the boat.

Gamers want games that are innovative and FUN, any extra gadget is welcomed but not for a price that is unreachable for many. And if this Blu-Ray thing doesn't take off, what's Sony to do? Start all the way from
scratch? It's a big gamble Sony.

[Kazuya]

They also mention there that the controllers in the $500 unit will NOT have the motion-sensing features....

WTF has gotten into these guys? If that rumor turns out to be true, then why would any developer spend any time adding motion-sensing functions to games?

Not sure what you guys are on about, but I'm pretty sure that's not true. The article mentions the rumble being removed from all controllers but that's about it. Even if it was, it' just like the 360 deal... if you don't like the wired ones, go buy a wireless...

[DivotMaker]

Not sure what you guys are on about, but I'm pretty sure that's not true. The article mentions the rumble being removed from all controllers but that's about it. Even if it was, it' just like the 360 deal... if you don't like the wired ones, go buy a wireless...

I got the information about the controllers wrong...

Even worse, it appears that rumble doesn't appear to be included with the new six axis sensing controller.

My bad on that part. At the end of the day, if someone wants to justify their decision to purchase a PS3, they have every right to do so. If MS were to drop the price of the 360 before they stated they would start using the new cooler CPU's, that would also have an impact on Sony and I have a feeling that MS' pockets are a tad deeper then Sony's at this point in time....

[wco81]

MS could lower prices this fall/winter but to do so might be a sign of weakness. If there is still strong demand, why lower prices? In fact, you might argue that MS could have charged $500 and still sold out all that they could crank out of the factories. They're going to have a better software lineup too this Xmas season.

Now in 2007, they are going to have 65 nanometer chips, which should reduce their costs. But in the fall/winter of 2007, they're expected to have Halo3 and GTA4 in Oct. So demand shouldn't be a problem then either.

But having a cost-advantage, maybe they want to put the screws to Sony. Or even if X360 sales are robust, if they see PS3 sales gaining on them or Blu-Ray gaining traction, they will take a strategic action.

Actually, E3 2007 might be a good time.

[Brando70]

I think both Sony and MS are ripping customers off with the cheapo versions of their console, and are only offering them to have a low price point for marketing purposes.

If someone buys a $500 PS3, I guess my question is why spend the extra $100 over a 360 Premium? Sony does have some nice exclusives, but is it really worth it? Is it going to look that much better than a 360?

The other aspect is the lack of HDMI. My understanding is you can't watch Blu-Ray DVDs in any hi def resolution without HDMI, because the HDMI connection is a form of copy protection in addition to being the audio-visual transmission cable. That means NO hi-def movie transmission at any resolution via component cables. Again, that may mean squat for gaming, but it seems to me if you have an HDTV, it makes no sense to not spend the extra $100 for the $600 PS3.

So it's really still a $200 difference between the PS3 and 360. The Sony probably will sell well, but for now I don't see any reason why a 360 owner should switch or own both consoles.

[Kazuya]

So it's really still a $200 difference between the PS3 and 360. The Sony probably will sell well, but for now I don't see any reason why a 360 owner should switch or own both consoles.

No, it's not. The $500 PS3 has a 20 GB hard drive. The 360 Premium has a 20 GB hard drive. The $500 PS3 has a wireless controller. The Xbox 360 Premium has a wireless controller. The $500 PS3 has no HDMI, Wi-Fi or Memory Stick/SD. The Xbox 360 Premium has no HDMI, Wi-FI or Memory Stick/SD. The difference between the two is $100.

You are comparing the two premium packs for no reason other than they are premium packs. The "crippled" features on the PS3 were never features to begin with on the 360. You might as well throw in a comparison to the NES Deluxe Set with R.O.B. the robot. It's a deluxe set too.

The Sony probably will sell well, but for now I don't see any reason why a 360 owner should switch or own both consoles.

Me either, frankly. The problem is, there are over 100 million PS2 owners and the majority of them never had any intention of owning a 360 at all. They are playing their PS2s until the PS3 comes out.

[Sport73]

The other aspect is the lack of HDMI. My understanding is you can't watch Blu-Ray DVDs in any hi def resolution without HDMI, because the HDMI connection is a form of copy protection in addition to being the audio-visual transmission cable. That means NO hi-def movie transmission at any resolution via component cables. Again, that may mean squat for gaming, but it seems to me if you have an HDTV, it makes no sense to not spend the extra $100 for the $600 PS3.

HDMI supports HDCP, which is the copy-protection scheme devised to keep you from recording an HD signal. Less than 50% of the HDTV's out there today have HDCP support, so the issue of whether HDCP will be enforced is still in question. Either way, HDCP is designed to DOWNSCALE an HD image to 480p IF the whole chain from player to display doesn't include the HDCP 'OK'.

In addition, 1080p 24fps can't really be output over Component Video according to my knowledge, at least not while retaining a true 1080p resolution.

So, you'll need HDMI, and a TV with HDMI/HDCP to view 1080p films on blu-Ray...Bottom line...forget it. HD-DVD appears to be the better standard every day. Lower production costs, and the plan to include a STANDARD DVD-compatible version on every disc is a better choice. What good is spending $20 on a Blu-Ray movie that you can't play in your bedroom, PC or car? HD-DVD will not force you to buy the movie twice.

Also, HD-DVD is said to be more open to 'ripping' to digital files for use in home server/media configurations.

[DivotMaker]

The Sony probably will sell well, but for now I don't see any reason why a 360 owner should switch or own both consoles.

Me either, frankly. The problem is, there are over 100 million PS2 owners and the majority of them never had any intention of owning a 360 at all. They are playing their PS2s until the PS3 comes out.

I don't mean to argue, but I can't help but wonder where you pulled this last statement out of? 100 million PS2 owners and the "majority" of them are waiting for PS3 and the minority of them have or are going to buy a 360? If that is what you are trying to say, I would love to know how you come to such a conclusion.....

[Kazuya]

The Sony probably will sell well, but for now I don't see any reason why a 360 owner should switch or own both consoles.

Me either, frankly. The problem is, there are over 100 million PS2 owners and the majority of them never had any intention of owning a 360 at all. They are playing their PS2s until the PS3 comes out.

I don't mean to argue, but I can't help but wonder where you pulled this last statement out of? 100 million PS2 owners and ALL of them are waiting for PS3 and NONE of them have or are going to buy a 360? If that is what you are trying to say, I would love to know how you come to such a conclusion.....

Why... out of my ass of course! It's not a factual statement or anything, just the feeling I get from hard-headed ass PS2 owners when I try to tell them about Xbox or Xbox 360. As an example, I was at the park playing ball a few weeks ago and some of the guys were talking about Live for the PS2 while we had next. I brought up NBA 2K6 for the 360 and how nice it looked, and I got responses like, "I don't play Xbox" and "I'm waiting for PS3". This is the kind of mainstream attitude that nerds like us who surf boards all day, own every console and have HDTVs don't understand. For the majority of gamers (i.e. PS2 owners) the Xbox 360 may as well not even exist, they don't know what HDMI is, and they're going to plug it straight into a 4:3 TV. It's simply not an option to them and never was. PS2 = video games like Kleenex = tissue...

[ubrakto]

I know there's a lot of PS2 loyalty out there, but god, every way I look at this, the PS3 has potential catastrophe spelled all over it for Sony. I mean look at what this thing is facing:

- Enormous price point, headlined by features (1080p and Blu-Ray) that the average consumer won't be able to take advantage of. (Isn't the market penetration on HDTVs something like 10% still. And the vast majority of those are not 1080p and many don't have HDMI support.)

- In America at least, an economic climate that is squeezing the middle-class (which is essential to selling these units en mass) out of existence due to rising energy/gas prices, interest rates, etc. Plus cost of living is increasing faster than wages. So you've got a massive demographic that may no longer be able to spend that kind of money on a luxury item that I really don't think will advance the hobby of gaming in any signifant way (like the 360, the games will just be prettier).

- Lower-price competition. When you can buy a 360 and a Wii for the same cost as the $600 PS3 system, that's pretty eye-catching. And MS could *really* put the screws to Sony if they dropped even just $50 off the price of their console when the PS3 launches. I mean really, there aren't that many must-have exlusives in Sony's pocket, and at the end of the day, the visual differences between the games on each system probably won't be much greater than the difference between an Xbox and a PS2. And if you don't have a 1080p TV, there may be almost no visual difference that the end consumer is likely to care about.

- Blu-Ray, like almost every other Sony-sponsored tech (Betamax, MinDisc), is likely to lose. This is debatable, but I think HD-DVD will have the inside track for reasons already mentioned here, and I also think there's a big chance this format war could kill both formats the same way it has done for SACD and DVD-Audio. I think MS was smart not to pin the 360s hopes on either of HD disc format.

- They've given the 360 a year of lead time to build out a game library. When the PS3 comes out, 360 titles should really be hitting their stride.

I know it's Sony. I know the PS2 was an unbelievable seller and there's a lot of brand loyalty out there, but I think Sony has bit off more than they can chew with this thing and they're asking for a big chunk of change from their consumers at absolutely the worst possible time.

Sure, a limited worldwide launch of the console will sell out on launch day and it will be difficult to find for a while, but I think interest in the thing will fade very, very quickly unless Sony changes their pricing strategy dramatically (seems a bit late for that, though) or has mutliple exclusive games that are absolute system sellers (I don't see it).
---Todd

[jondiehl]

For the majority of gamers (i.e. PS2 owners) the Xbox 360 may as well not even exist, they don't know what HDMI is, and they're going to plug it straight into a 4:3 TV. It's simply not an option to them and never was. PS2 = video games like Kleenex = tissue...

Keep sipping your Sony Kool-aid. Maybe 3yrs ago, when the Xbox was a new kid on the block, "Playstation" meant any video game. But not now. Everyone knows what a Xbox is. What game console did they play the Madden championship on at the Super Bowl? Not the PS2!

[wco81]

The other aspect is the lack of HDMI. My understanding is you can't watch Blu-Ray DVDs in any hi def resolution without HDMI, because the HDMI connection is a form of copy protection in addition to being the audio-visual transmission cable. That means NO hi-def movie transmission at any resolution via component cables. Again, that may mean squat for gaming, but it seems to me if you have an HDTV, it makes no sense to not spend the extra $100 for the $600 PS3.

HDMI supports HDCP, which is the copy-protection scheme devised to keep you from recording an HD signal. Less than 50% of the HDTV's out there today have HDCP support, so the issue of whether HDCP will be enforced is still in question. Either way, HDCP is designed to DOWNSCALE an HD image to 480p IF the whole chain from player to display doesn't include the HDCP 'OK'.

In addition, 1080p 24fps can't really be output over Component Video according to my knowledge, at least not while retaining a true 1080p resolution.

So, you'll need HDMI, and a TV with HDMI/HDCP to view 1080p films on blu-Ray...Bottom line...forget it. HD-DVD appears to be the better standard every day. Lower production costs, and the plan to include a STANDARD DVD-compatible version on every disc is a better choice. What good is spending $20 on a Blu-Ray movie that you can't play in your bedroom, PC or car? HD-DVD will not force you to buy the movie twice.

Also, HD-DVD is said to be more open to 'ripping' to digital files for use in home server/media configurations.

OK, some misconceptions here.

First, component is capable of carrying 1080p. The question is whether AACS, the DRM and copy protection system will allow 1080p over component. That is a policy issue, not a technical issue. AACS may limit component to 1080i at most.

Second, there will be a flag used called Image Constraint Token or ICT. The studios have the discretion to have ICT set on their movies. When ICT is set, the disc will tell the player to cut the resolution of the movie to 960x540 on component outputs. That is still better than 480p but it's only a quarter of 1080p. Will still look good and a lot of people who bought EDTV plasmas or faux HDTV plasmas (those 1024x768 ones) will think it looks a lot better than DVDs.

Third, Japan has a law outlawing the downrezzing of the signals over component until like 2011. That fact combined with the likelihood that Japan and US along with Western Europe may be grouped in the same region may mean ICT won't be set until 2011. Or maybe never. Studios may face a backlash if they allow at least 1080i over component and then at some date (sunset provision), they force those same discs down to 540p over component.

So there's a good chance you'll be able to get at least 1080i (or maybe 720p) through component to the end of the decade. But no guarantees of course.

FWIW, the HD-DVD drive MS plans to sell for the X360 will likely have to be played through component as well, since it will be passing compressed, encrypted streams from the drive to the X360 via USB and then having the X360 decompress and decode and then output to the TV over component.

But HDMI is guaranteed to get you 1080p indefinitely. Plus it lets you get access to new audio formats such as DTS HD and Dolby True HD. You can't get those through optical/component combo. But you will probably need a receiver with HDMI inputs.

Edit: regarding HD-DVD versus Blu-Ray, HD-DVD is attractive now because of lower production costs. But so far HD-DVD movies aren't being priced cheaper than Blu-Ray movies. Toshiba has put out a $500 HD-DVD player while the first Blu-Ray players are expected to be $1000 and up. The Toshiba player has good picture but is glitchy and really slow to load discs. It doesn't have 1080p outputs (although if you have a good HDTV, it would assemble a good 1080p image) and is missing some of the features of the format.

Blu-Ray has far more support (all but Universal) while Fox, Disney, Sony and MGM have committed only to Blu-Ray (partly on the expected success of the PS3 in spreading Blu-Ray adoption).

HD-DVD was pretty much dead. Toshiba's move to price at $500 is seen as desperation by some and if not for Microsoft's advocacy (HD-DVD uses more of their technology), some feel HD-DVD would have just folded by now because of the lack of studio support.

But now with the unexpectedly high pricing of the PS3, maybe Blu-Ray isn't in as advantageous a position.

[Inuyasha]

For the majority of gamers (i.e. PS2 owners) the Xbox 360 may as well not even exist, they don't know what HDMI is, and they're going to plug it straight into a 4:3 TV. It's simply not an option to them and never was. PS2 = video games like Kleenex = tissue...

Keep sipping your Sony Kool-aid. Maybe 3yrs ago, when the Xbox was a new kid on the block, "Playstation" meant any video game. But not now. Everyone knows what a Xbox is. What game console did they play the Madden championship on at the Super Bowl? Not the PS2!

I've noticed in the last year and a half that the mainstream media is using the term XBOX to describe videogaming. Sort of like they use to use nintendo, and later playstation years back.

[wco81]

- In America at least, an economic climate that is squeezing the middle-class (which is essential to selling these units en mass) out of existence due to rising energy/gas prices, interest rates, etc. Plus cost of living is increasing faster than wages. So you've got a massive demographic that may no longer be able to spend that kind of money on a luxury item that I really don't think will advance the hobby of gaming in any signifant way (like the 360, the games will just be prettier).

I was thinking of that. But I think higher costs may just drive people to spend more on home entertainment and less on going out or traveling or other more expensive forms of leisure, entertainment, recreation.

Movie theater attendance has been down the last couple of years. It takes at least $15 per person to see a movie and get one lousy snack. As much as we complain about $60 games, you get about a dozen or more hours of entertainment out of those games compared to 2-3 hours from a movie.

Despite rising costs in the last few years, sales of HDTVs are doing well. So are things like iPods and of course, gaming is a bigger market now than it was around 2000, just before this generation launched.

That's not to say people will choose the PS3 over cheaper consoles. Just that this middle-class squeeze may make them seek relatively cheaper diversions.

[Inuyasha]

I know there's a lot of PS2 loyalty out there, but god, every way I look at this, the PS3 has potential catastrophe spelled all over it for Sony. I mean look at what this thing is facing:

- Enormous price point, headlined by features (1080p and Blu-Ray) that the average consumer won't be able to take advantage of. (Isn't the market penetration on HDTVs something like 10% still. And the vast majority of those are not 1080p and many don't have HDMI support.)

- In America at least, an economic climate that is squeezing the middle-class (which is essential to selling these units en mass) out of existence due to rising energy/gas prices, interest rates, etc. Plus cost of living is increasing faster than wages. So you've got a massive demographic that may no longer be able to spend that kind of money on a luxury item that I really don't think will advance the hobby of gaming in any signifant way (like the 360, the games will just be prettier).

- Lower-price competition. When you can buy a 360 and a Wii for the same cost as the $600 PS3 system, that's pretty eye-catching. And MS could *really* put the screws to Sony if they dropped even just $50 off the price of their console when the PS3 launches. I mean really, there aren't that many must-have exlusives in Sony's pocket, and at the end of the day, the visual differences between the games on each system probably won't be much greater than the difference between an Xbox and a PS2. And if you don't have a 1080p TV, there may be almost no visual difference that the end consumer is likely to care about.

- Blu-Ray, like almost every other Sony-sponsored tech (Betamax, MinDisc), is likely to lose. This is debatable, but I think HD-DVD will have the inside track for reasons already mentioned here, and I also think there's a big chance this format war could kill both formats the same way it has done for SACD and DVD-Audio. I think MS was smart not to pin the 360s hopes on either of HD disc format.

- They've given the 360 a year of lead time to build out a game library. When the PS3 comes out, 360 titles should really be hitting their stride.

I know it's Sony. I know the PS2 was an unbelievable seller and there's a lot of brand loyalty out there, but I think Sony has bit off more than they can chew with this thing and they're asking for a big chunk of change from their consumers at absolutely the worst possible time.

Sure, a limited worldwide launch of the console will sell out on launch day and it will be difficult to find for a while, but I think interest in the thing will fade very, very quickly unless Sony changes their pricing strategy dramatically (seems a bit late for that, though) or has mutliple exclusive games that are absolute system sellers (I don't see it).
---Todd

This is a very good post that makes a lot of sense. In today's America, I don't think many in the mainstream are going to want spend anything over say $300 at the most $400 for a videogame system. Actually, that was never the case to begin with in the past too. Look at the jaguar or sega saturn.

I think the ps3 plan is following too close to the psp plan which would be very bad news for sony. They will of course sell it to the loyal brandname consumers and ultra-hardcore games, but to make a profit they will need to sell it to the middle class and I think it's too overpriced for that to happen. Like psp, it'll be a novelty item at first and then just become stagnant at the price.

[SoMisss2000]

True... as I said before, I think it will have enough perceived value, being a year newer, to pull that off... even if it does indeed turn out that the two systems end up having similar performance. It also lets you play Blu-Ray (if our eyes can stand the less than 1080p glory ), has free online play, and doesn't force you to pay for a play and charge kit. All "values" that the Core lacks.

I am not sure about this, but if you don't have HDMI, you won't be play BluRay DVD movies. Or at least not in 1080p which Sony has been bragging about being able to pull off at 60 fps. The $500 unit seems like a huge compromise to me.

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/705/705887p1.html

They also mention there that the controllers in the $500 unit will NOT have the motion-sensing features....

As far as the online play being "free", that means nothing at this point because there is nothing being shown. Now if they manage to fulfill their claim from a month or so ago that they would blow XBL out of the water and it is STILL FREE, then I agree with you...however, I prefer to believe it when I see it. Sony is trying desperately to one-up MS and so far they have not done succeeded, IMHO...

Didn't Sony say that online would be up to the developer whether or not it would be free? If I'm Joe Developer Inc, and I see how online gaming is growing, wouldn't I just have to have a piece of that?

[jondiehl]

For the majority of gamers (i.e. PS2 owners) the Xbox 360 may as well not even exist, they don't know what HDMI is, and they're going to plug it straight into a 4:3 TV. It's simply not an option to them and never was. PS2 = video games like Kleenex = tissue...

Keep sipping your Sony Kool-aid. Maybe 3yrs ago, when the Xbox was a new kid on the block, "Playstation" meant any video game. But not now. Everyone knows what a Xbox is. What game console did they play the Madden championship on at the Super Bowl? Not the PS2!

I've noticed in the last year and a half that the mainstream media is using the term XBOX to describe videogaming. Sort of like they use to use nintendo, and later playstation years back.

Absolutely. In fact, I can recall from various movies and TV shows in the last couple of years, seeing Xbox S-controllers, not PS2 dual shock's in actor's hands that were supposed to be playing a video game .

[wco81]

Product placement? Viral marketing?

I remember the week the Xbox debuted, someone mentioned it on some sitcom.