Why are consols still so expensive

[Terzo]

[typical at reply] but u cant use a mouse and keyboard its uselss lulz stupud consoles [/typical at reply]

The thing is I know a ps3 can use a keyboard and am 99% sure it can use a mouse. I can't speak for the other consoles, but I think the issue is more in what games support mouse/keyboard, rather than the hardware itself.

 

[simonizor]

This generation's consoles are much closer to being on par with PCs than the last generation of consoles ever was. The last generation of consoles were getting spanked by PCs in terms of general performance. This generation of consoles is pretty much on par with what a PC that would cost you about the same amount to build would do in terms of graphics.

 

[Tristicus]

While I agree cost of ownership is cheaper than a (gaming) pc, the above isn't entirely true.
The initial cost doesn't factor in accessories; while they are not required many people have a need or desire for them. With the 360 you will have to spend more money for wireless capability. While the technically inclined can buy a tomato/ddwrt router or bridge a connection from another pc for low cost, the average user would have to spend a significant amount to purchase the 360 wireless adapter. There is also the cost of a Live subscription; sure you can find good deals and it's not *that* expensive but it is still more money spent.
With the Wii there are a bunch of accessories. Racing wheels, balance boards, etc.
With all three consoles you'll have to shell out a decent sum of money to pick up additional controllers; not an issue if you generally play solo but many games are geared towards multiplayer (i.e. Wii games). Then there is the popular music type games; rockband, guitar hero, band hero, dj hero, etc. While technically not a cost associated with a system, you do have to spend extra to "properly" experience those games (buying instruments).
And the ps3 and 360 are looking at an upgrade of sorts; Natal and Move. I'm not sure how popular they'll be or how much they'll cost, but it's very possible that games will come out which require the use of natal/move controllers. If you want to play such a game you would have to upgrade your console, in a sense.

I still agree this would be cheaper than maintaining a top of the line gaming pc, but it seems like consoles are evolving to be more similar to computers. I find it plausible that future consoles could allow upgrading of components.

Except for the fact that you DON'T NEED those things, and many people do without them. The base cost for a console and a PC to play the game at the same resolution and settings is different, and the PC is more, and you have to upgrade it.

Nothing more needed.

 

[Narmer]

Meh, someone is always going to complain about price.

 

[PricklyPete]

I'm sure it has already been said...but it is because you get a lot for your money. At the beginning of their lifespan, the console is worth a lot more than they charge for it. To make up for this, they charge more than it costs toward the end to some degree (this is the normal practice these days...hasn't always been this way and some consoles are not like this...the Wii for instance).

 

[Gillbot]

You can get a 360 arcade for $160 from Dell. I don't think we'll ever see the current gen hit $99 like the previous gens did.

Got my last x360 from the FS/FT for $80. Got my current x360 Arcade from the Amazon deal for $100 (AR). Aside from that, I would have never gotten one.

 

[oogabooga]

The thing is I know a ps3 can use a keyboard and am 99% sure it can use a mouse. I can't speak for the other consoles, but I think the issue is more in what games support mouse/keyboard, rather than the hardware itself.

I believe the only thing stopping full KB/Mouse support for the PS3 are developers coding for it?

They are expensive, but I love my PS3 and it makes having my HDTV worth it. I've totally bought into consumer culture

 

[Tristicus]

I believe the only thing stopping full KB/Mouse support for the PS3 are developers coding for it?

They are expensive, but I love my PS3 and it makes having my HDTV worth it. I've totally bought into consumer culture

Correct.
UT3 used KB/M.

 

[reallyscrued]

Because they will sell at that price. It doesn't matter how much it costs for the manufacturer to make it, it's economics.

Same reason why Ti-83/4 graphing calculators basically have stayed the same price. People will buy them. It sucks, doesn't it?

 

[zerocool84]

This generation's consoles are much closer to being on par with PCs than the last generation of consoles ever was. The last generation of consoles were getting spanked by PCs in terms of general performance. This generation of consoles is pretty much on par with what a PC that would cost you about the same amount to build would do in terms of graphics.

No, the console's are not close to PC's. They are when they are released as they have been for the past couple generations but it's been 4+yrs since they've been released and PC's have gone much past console power. The only reason why we don't see better looking PC games is cus practically everything is a port so the graphics are made for the lowest common denominator.

 

[jlee]

I managed to pick up an Elite package (with Pure/Batman) for $204.99 AR last fall - perfectly reasonable pricing, IMHO.

 

[BenSkywalker]

No, the console's are not close to PC's.

This is very true, Intel and AMD still have a long way to go to catch up to the raw computational power that the CPUs in the consoles have.

The only reason why we don't see better looking PC games is cus practically everything is a port so the graphics are made for the lowest common denominator.

Intel IGP or Wii? While your statement leans towards the truth, very clearly most games released for the PC are not targetting the most popular console platform nor the most popular PC platform, they are shooting somewhere in the middle(and, Metro is a console port, the most demanding PC game currently out).

 

[zerocool84]

This is very true, Intel and AMD still have a long way to go to catch up to the raw computational power that the CPUs in the consoles have.



Intel IGP or Wii? While your statement leans towards the truth, very clearly most games released for the PC are not targetting the most popular console platform nor the most popular PC platform, they are shooting somewhere in the middle(and, Metro is a console port, the most demanding PC game currently out).

PC processors are made to be more general purpose obviously. Console processors are made to be more single purpose obviously. For the single purpose console processors are great but if you had console processors try to do things that PC processors do, they'd fail and vise versa.

Also Metro 2033 is demanding cus it's a bad port. That's like saying GTA4 is the benchmark cus it's demanding. That's a bad port as well. Crysis wasn't released on console's and was the benchmark game for a long time and still looks good compared to most new games that come out.

 

[BenSkywalker]

For the single purpose console processors are great but if you had console processors try to do things that PC processors do, they'd fail and vise versa.

I'd just like to point out that while we very rarely ask our console CPUs to handle spreadhseets, we ask our PC CPUs to handle gaming all the time. I'm in agreement with you, just pointing out that one has to play its weaknesses frequently in our PCs

Also Metro 2033 is demanding cus it's a bad port.

Really? It is scaling very well on the high graphics settings with more GPU power, and on the low graphics settings with CPU power. It makes heavier use of DX11 then any game I am aware of including using Compute Shaders for graphics effects, is there any PC native game that uses as many PC specific features as Metro? If there is, I'm not aware of it. It looks to me to be one of the best cross platform titles we have seen as far as the PC is concerned.

That's like saying GTA4 is the benchmark cus it's demanding.

GTA4 just chokes on weak x86 CPUs. That isn't the fault of the port, that is a core weakness of PCs. On the flip side of that, the draw distance is limited on the consoles due to the lack of RAM, a core weakness they have. GTA4 comes across as very much being a game that was designed as the game they wanted to make, and the platforms would have to simply do the best they could with it. Given the review scores and sales of the title, I would have to say that they made the proper choice there too.

Crysis wasn't released on console's and was the benchmark game for a long time and still looks good compared to most new games that come out.

Without mods it is finally starting to show its age. We will have to see how Crysis2 does(also very interested to see how Rage ends up, the megatexturing technology seems to have a lot of promise).

 

[purbeast0]

wow another thread that derailed into a console vs pc debate...

shocker.

 

[BenSkywalker]

wow another thread that derailed into a console vs pc debate...

I brought up the relative console CPU power mainly as a value point. In terms of gaming, the consoles CPUs still have an edge over CPUs that cost significantly more then the entire console does.

 

[reallyscrued]

I brought up the relative console CPU power mainly as a value point. In terms of gaming, the consoles CPUs still have an edge over CPUs that cost significantly more then the entire console does.

Intel and AMD still have a long way to go to catch up to the raw computational power that the CPUs in the consoles have.

Yup.

In other news, a $5,000 Kawasaki Ninja 500R does 0-60 in 3.76 seconds, faster than a $60,000 M3. Cars have a long way to go.


Apples and oranges Ben.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Yup.

In other news, a $5,000 Kawasaki Ninja 500R does 0-60 in 3.76 seconds, faster than a $60,000 M3. Cars have a long way to go.

Apples and oranges Ben.

What we are talking about is someone complaining about the cost of the 500R when they are looking for something to do 0-60.

 

[Terzo]

Addressing console processors as opposed to pc processors, I think that is a moot point. I am running a relatively old system so I can't speak from experience, but most benchmarks I see point to the GPU as the limited factor in pc games, not the processor. So even if console processors are better in their specialty, it doesn't matter if the bottleneck is the GPU.

 

[reallyscrued]

What we are talking about is someone complaining about the cost of the 500R when they are looking for something to do 0-60.

No, I think what we are talking about is how consoles that have been 4/5 years in production still sell for so high, and I believe I answered correctly when I said it has to do with economics. Supply and demand determine price, not necessarily anything else.

The other reasons consoles have retained their original MSRP (the Wii for example) is that even after 6 years, Nintendo isn't about to retire it. The global economic downturn has caused this console generation to lengthen. (R&D is expensive.) No one is expecting current consoles to become obsolete so soon when their successors haven't been announced, so they have held their value.

This console generation is like what Windows XP was to Microsoft's track record of releasing operating systems. Gamers are used to revamped technologies every half a decade or so, and it's unusual that this one is being stretched out for so long.

 

[BenSkywalker]

I am running a relatively old system so I can't speak from experience, but most benchmarks I see point to the GPU as the limited factor in pc games, not the processor. So even if console processors are better in their specialty, it doesn't matter if the bottleneck is the GPU.

It does from a value proposition. The inferior for the task CPU in a PC will cost you more then the entire console(ignoring the graphics card altogether). Forget that it serves as a games machine and a HTPC, just the processor. When discussing the value end of the spectrum, I think that is certainly relevant.

No, I think what we are talking about is how consoles that have been 4/5 years in production still sell for so high

$200 drop in price in just under 3 years for the PS3, what console ever dropped in price faster? I may be missing one, but I can't think of any off the top of my head(my memory only reaches back far enough to remember Atari 2600 era).

The other reasons consoles have retained their original MSRP (the Wii for example) is that even after 6 years

The DS successor has been announced(the only active system by Nin that has been out close to 6 years), the Wii isn't at its original MSRP and the Wii launched ~3.5 years ago.

The global economic downturn has caused this console generation to lengthen.

While I agree that will happen, it is not normal to have the successor to a console announced after three years on the market.

This console generation is like what Windows XP was to Microsoft's track record of releasing operating systems. Gamers are used to revamped technologies every half a decade or so, and it's unusual that this one is being stretched out for so long.

N64- 9/96- GameCube 11/01- Wii 11/06

PS1- 9/95- PS2 10/00- PS3- 11/06

Using the shortest timespan between releases a new console would come out December 2011 from Sony or Nintendo if they used the normal timespan between consoles. I agree with you this generation is going to go on longer then normal, but it doesn't become unusually long until 2012 rolls around, it's Q2 2010. If Sony used the same gap they did between the PS2 and PS3 the PS4 wouldn't hit until 12/12 which means they wouldn't be even a month outside of their 'normal' schedule parameters until 2013.

 

[Oyeve]

I only put systems that people actually bought. ^_^

Hehe, I paid $700 bucks for my 3DO when it was fairly new. Man, what a waste of $$$. I actually played it last night. The first and original Need For Speed.

 

[Anubis]

Hehe, I paid $700 bucks for my 3DO when it was fairly new. Man, what a waste of $$$. I actually played it last night. The first and original Need For Speed.

i still play Return Fire on mine

i love that game

 

[Terzo]

It does from a value proposition. The inferior for the task CPU in a PC will cost you more then the entire console(ignoring the graphics card altogether). Forget that it serves as a games machine and a HTPC, just the processor. When discussing the value end of the spectrum, I think that is certainly relevant.

Wait, what? I think you've lost me. Are you saying that a cpu (775, 1156, 1366, am2, am3, whatever) costs more than an entire console? Even if you compare to the cost of the Wii you can get a more than adequate gaming CPU for less money (i3 or phenom 2 from the most recent generation). Sure it'll cost more once you factor in other components but I've already said as much.

 

[CountZero]

It does from a value proposition. The inferior for the task CPU in a PC will cost you more then the entire console(ignoring the graphics card altogether). Forget that it serves as a games machine and a HTPC, just the processor. When discussing the value end of the spectrum, I think that is certainly relevant.

You can't compare PC to console pricing, you can't compare PC to console CPUs. The only thing you could really compare would be PC to console GPUs and even that is grasping for straws. So why bother? Why even bring it up in a thread about console costs?