599 us dollars for a PS3

>599 us dollars for a PS3

When I was younger I never kept up to date with E3, looking back at this now, how the hell did they try to pull this off? please tell me they lowered the price due to back lash?

they never lowered the price. the ps3 sold like shit at first too. where I worked the wii was impossible to find, the xbox 360 sold out, and the ps3 still had consoles left

>looking back at this now, how the hell did they try to pull this off?
Ken literally came out and said "People will spend more money on the PS3 because its more powerful" and "its onlyone weeks salary" and a bunch of other really dumb things.

The PS3 sold horribly in its first two years until they lowered the price.

The ps4 is even more expensive kek, they just charged you over a period of time with online

I always forget why I went with the 360 last gen, until this pic pops up. Like holy fuck whoever wrote that presenter's script should have been hanged.

It's Ridge Racer!
What ever happened to Kaz?

they were selling it at a loss, sony was basically losing money with each ps3 they sold back then until they removed backward compatibility the production prices were lowered. thus they lowered the retail price and they started to earn money.

They eventually lowered the price and the system actually got some exclusive games worth a damn (I still love the first Resistance and Super Stardust HD but that was it for a while)

They go their clocks cleaned for years before picking their shit back up

He's the head of Sony of Japan. Not even joking.

>how the hell did they try to pull this off?
it was a blu ray player that could play blu rays, PS2 games, PS1 games, and (2 years later) MGS4
the PS3 purely survived on that.
eventually, with the Slim they matched the Xbox 360 price but they only cought up during the 2nd half of their lifecycle.

I remember my friend was an early adopter fanboy, he would just keep trying to justify his ps3 purchase

I didn't get one until years later second hand

You also forgot that Sony was arrogant and thought all third parties would automatically make games for the PS3 just because of the Playstation brand. Like they did for PS2. But to be fair, tons more third parties did make games for the early PS3 than the Wii, despite the Wii destroying the PS3 in unit sales.

This.
At the time, it was one of the cheapest blu-ray players you could buy.

Games were also $80 for some reason.

Sony just replaced it with cheaper PS3 without backward compatability

this was during an era when hardware was rapidly advancing, and people tended to buy more expensive computers, and more frequently.

don't forget the $400 upgrade if you actually want to play the games at the performance being advertised

>mocked PS3 early on
>ended up buying one years later
>ended up being my favorite console
>still using it to play Odin Sphere and Dragon's Crown well into the PS4 life cycle
>will get a PS4 once Dragon Quest XI comes out

You think PCs were cheap in the 90s? Really kid?
see
I remember blu ray players for the PC being so expensive there were people buying used PS3s to steal the drives and hackjob it into a PC

>tfw my father bought me the console on release for having good grades

what the fuck happened dude

>looking back at this now, how the hell did they try to pull this off?

They pulled it off because they were the only company that did actually aim for giving better hardware to achieve better software in terms of graphics.

Microsoft didn't care since their priority was always deadlines not quality and especially not content.

Nintendo is nintendo and they have always been about being cheap. Which isn't a bad thing but instead of using that motto to prioritize software they seems to not give a damn.

it had insides of a ps2

The funny thing is Sony's PR has barely changed much since that era other than they aren't completely straight up with the whole being absolute shits to the gamers for the whole world to see and will bother to put spin on whatever their latest bullshit is instead of being completely and utterly tone deaf. Gamer's at least managed to draw that line right when they needed to and then yet again with the Xbox One when it was MS'es turns to be blatant absolute shits in front of the whole gaming world.

Like all big publishers though they'll all still lie blatantly through their teeth just to make day one sales though.

Yeah same here and this is in spite of the whole thing with the Xbox 360 starting the whole out of the box hardware failure thing. I never had it happen but at the time risking the whole RRoD thing still seemed like a better bet than the insanely priced PS3 for it's first 3 years of console life.

Weren't most of the early PS3 games awful performance-wise?

funfact: Sony was still losing lots of money for every sold PS3 system.

>Weren't most of the early PS3 games awful performance-wise?
no.

A few of the launch games were not as good as people expected. But some of the best PS3 games came out in the first year. Its really not that different from most consoles.

It was a BluRay player in 2007, it also came stuffed with a PS2 at launch for proper backwards compatibility.

You retards forgot that the PS3 was the CHEAPEST BLURAY PLAYER at the time.

A bluray player that can also play games for $600 in a time where bluray players themselves were about $1000

>No
Dont lie, every port was shit because "the core" was terrible to develop for.

yea heavenly sword ran pretty bad and the first resistance wasn't exactly a good looking game, especially when compared to gears of war

>every port
who the fuck cares about multiplat shit?
Wow, one plays games at 25fps, and the other 24! So cinematic!
Not to mention there was plenty of multiplat crap that ran and looked worse on X360, yet people don't even want to remember that fact.

Keep some perspective. It played Blurays at a time when a quality BR player was more expensive than that and ONLY played Blurays.

That marketing strategy didn't pay off for them, but the price was justified nonetheless.

For a good year Ken was in such denial. Even said "If you can still find a PS3 in a store I'll pay you $1200."

Shit was hilarious.

>100 dollars more

What exactly were you paying for here!?!? Did 40 more GB really cost 100 dollars back then? Both vanilla consoles had B/C on them so what the fuck was the difference.

>Weren't most of the early PS3 games awful performance-wise?

Performance-wise they tried their best to show what "progressive potential" means.

Resistance was showing how 10v10 or something was possible.

MGS4 showed was convoluted but as far as fighting physics and robots there was potential there.

Then Folklore showed a mixture for graphics and jrpgs.

Regardless companies seemed to not give a fuck and proceed to say fuck everything DLC is the future and primary focus. Since they just want to milk consumers at the expense of the quality of the products.

Essentially the gold standard should be that launch titles should establish the standard that later games should aim to surpass. Ye the only one that really cares about this standards seems to be Sony but since Microsoft and Nintendo can't even be arse to give a shit Sony ends up with no real competition.