Should Sony Cut the PlayStation 3's Price Again Now?
It really depends on who you talk to or when and where you think the endgame's lines are going to be drawn. Sony's been rather mendacious, and it knows this, about how it sold the PS3 in the system's first six months. Punditry about the company's arrogance aside, there's no denying Sony's game plan rested almost singularly on the popularity of its PlayStation brand. That brand of course failed to transcend the hard economic realities of foisting $500-$600 and change for extras plus higher-priced $60 games on a price-is-still-king audience, especially when one of the system's primary selling points -- Blu-ray -- was an unknown and unnecessarily inseparable component. The train bringing high-definition to the masses is coming, but it's still barely out of the station when you check sales and demographics (and that, ladies and gentlemen, is why the PS3 didn't zip off shelves at any point all last year whatever high-def enthusiasts want to bleat about the PS3's "total value").
Think about what might have been, had Sony instead sold the PS3 with an optional Blu-ray drive from the start. Such a system might have gone for as low as $400 or even $350. And let's get something straight: no game developer today absolutely needs Blu-ray's storage capacity. Nope, no more than the Xbox 360 needs an integrated HD DVD to play the same cross-platform games. Do gamers care about swapping DVDs once or twice over the course of a 40 to 60 hour game if that becomes necessary? They sure didn't mind swapping up to four CDs playing stuff like Final Fantasy VII. I don't recall a review anywhere that's ever knocked a console game for coming on more than one piece of physical media.
Sony could easily have introduced a Blu-ray integrated version for $400 (the entry level model's going price) around the holidays, or at the Winter CES, or at GDC next month. (They're certainly no strangers to juggling internal components and SKUs with all the unprecedented model shuffling that's already occurred.) No one could have predicted the significant corporate shift to Blu-ray that's just occurred, but with Blu-ray's momentum hypothetically kicking in, think about how Sony might've capitalized on the last 12 months of uncertainty by graduating (instead of bullying) toward an all-in-one player.
Imagine 12 months of a $300-$350 PS3 running terrific exclusives like Uncharted: Drake's Fortune and Ratchet & Clank Future plus all the solid cross-platform stuff, e.g. Call of Duty 4 and Assassin's Creed. Add in an external Blu-ray drive for early adopters as optional. I think such a system could have at the very least played neck-and-neck with the Xbox 360 in monthly sales last year, and produced an entirely different 2007 ouctome than the company's funereal actuals.
Back to the now: GamePro dropped Sony a line about so-called "rumors" of an imminent PS3 price drop and got this response:
"We have no plans for any pricing announcements on the PS3."
Do you believe them? Maybe you shouldn't, if history warrants credit, though I wonder sometimes if companies scrub things like planned drops when leaks occur just to spite the media. Sony certainly played a curious game with the media this last year when it flatly denied a rumored $100 price drop in July, only to officially confirm the drop 48 hours later, leading into E3.
On the other hand, someone got sloppy last July and leaked an actual Circuit City ad that spawned the $100 price drop rumor. That's not the case with this latest tittle-tattle, which doesn't even rise to the level of rumor, really. It's not based on anything tangible, just speculation off news a few weeks ago about Sony's manufacturing costs for the PS3 plummeting. Late-to-the-game punditry, in other words.
Should Sony drop the PS3's price again? That's an entirely different question. Sony's actually lost less money than you'd think by letting a kind of inverse "economies of scale" offset its low monthly sales numbers. Selling more of something you're losing more money on has the contrary effect of blowing chunks over your monthly quarterlies, after all.
Still, even with the notable bloodletting that would ensue in terms of component costs, the best reason to drop the PS3 to $300 is to eliminate the visible price delta between the PS3 and the Xbox 360. We've already talked about who's really more expensive (the Xbox 360) but most people only see the sticker price, and "total cost of ownership" be damned. Brand identity is worth something, but you only see buy decisions start to factor with price parity. You eliminate the visible delta, you quash remaining arguments for not betting on Sony (taking the brand-identity-is-king angle, anyway). And if new owners only wake to the value of the internal Blu-ray player a year or two from now, so be it, and more power to high-def sales.
PC World's Marketplace
PC World's Free Whitepapers
tech news tech blogs community & forums laptop prices software reviews downloads
But what you fail to realize is that even at a higher price point, the PS3 has managed to sell more units than the 360 did in it's first year WITHOUT any competition. And developers of BOTH first and third party titles are in deed already voicing complaints concerning the limitations of dvd's in this HD age of gaming... so aside from the fact that sales did not meet the lofty expectations of many, including Sony, your article really does lack a lot of merit.
Not a very useful analysis OSG, and also not true. The Xbox 360 sold 5 million units through 2006. The PlayStation 3 sold 3.5 million through 2007. And since you bring it up, let's factor in the more important (revenue-wise) software totals. The Xbox 360 did 26 million through 2006, compared to Sony's 18 million through 2007. The Xbox 360's total software sales in 2007? 51 million, for a total of 77 million through 2007.
Developers can voice all the complaints they like. It costs next to nothing on the dollar to bundle extra DVDs. Don't take umbrage with me for pointing that out, take umbrage with all the developers who happily released multi-CD console games for years. And even to the extent someone can muster reasons that favor single-disc games, they'll hardly defeat the argument that the Blu-ray player (like the HD DVD player, or even a hard drive) should have initially been optional.
For this being a blog, I think all the misinformation written here are somewhat forgivable. However, I will still not stop from pointing out how shortsighted the opinions that are written in this blog. Here are the things that I think are false:
1. "...no game developer today absolutely needs Blu-ray's storage capacity. Nope, no more than the Xbox 360 needs an integrated HD DVD to play the same cross-platform games. Do gamers care about swapping DVDs once or twice ....? "
- It's already made clear by some reputed game developers that 'Blu-ray is a necessity' for the future of console gaming. Some argue downloading is the solution. PS3 can also download. But downloads is not the sole solution. Blu-ray is a necessity this moment since bandwidths aren't sufficient yet for downloading games the size of 25-50GB in five minutes.
2. The PS3 didn't sell as well as the XBOX 360 (not a quo
-This is totally FALSE. The PS3 sold more XBOX 360s in its first year even with competition.
first of all "cuteshox" get your info straight, lets break it down shall we?
1) you said... "- It's already made clear by some reputed game developers that 'Blu-ray is a necessity' for the future of console gaming. Some argue downloading is the solution. PS3 can also download. But downloads is not the sole solution. Blu-ray is a necessity this moment since bandwidths aren't sufficient yet for downloading games the size of 25-50GB in five minutes."
- uhmmm name just 1 game for any of the systems that is 25 to 50 gigs in size! WOW im going out to buy it because it must last FOREVER!!! not even Crysis is THAT big! and it has higher graphical fidelity than any of the playstation 3 games! Not to mention that even at highest fidelity, a playstation game of that size would last at least 200 hours straight. so dont say we "need" that much space for games, because im STILL waiting for my 200 hour plus rpg to come around.
2) get your facts straight mr. "ps3" because any analyst will...
... tell you that the ps3 did NOT sell NEAR as many as the 360. why do you think that almost every news delivering website/station/institution of reporting fantasticness is reporting sales underwhelming for the ps3 and sales near that of the wii, which is pummeling BOTH of the other systems in sales, for the 360. you are just another ps3 fanboy trying to prove the impossible. oh and btw, i have a ps3 and i hardly play it because it sucks at everything other than playing movies.
I don't really see why sony would drop the price right now. What they should do is have different bundles, like in Japan with the 40gb and the DMC4 game all in one package. They also need to hurry up and release the dualshock3 controllers. There are no newly released games yet that would get people to want to rush out and get a PS3 right now imo.
http://www.vgchartz.com/
PS3 is playing catch up. For this generation of gaming, they will remain in dead last. They have no good exclusive. Metal Gear Solid? Who cares. Grand Turismo? If that came out tomorrow so what? We have better choices now, like PGR and Forza Motorsports. Grand Theft Auto would be a good reason to buy a PS3. Just like it was a great reason for the PS2. Too bad they don't have sole rights to that either. There truly is no GREAT reason to buy a PS3. If there was I would have paid $600 and waited in line for 12 hours the day it was dropped. Now I wouldn't even buy one for $200 brand new.
http://www.vgchartz.com/
PS3 is playing catch up. For this generation of gaming, they will remain in dead last. They have no good exclusive. Metal Gear Solid? Who cares. Grand Turismo? If that came out tomorrow so what? We have better choices now, like PGR and Forza Motorsports. Grand Theft Auto would be a good reason to buy a PS3. Just like it was a great reason for the PS2. Too bad they don't have sole rights to that either. There truly is no GREAT reason to buy a PS3. If there was I would have paid $600 and waited in line for 12 hours the day it was dropped. I bought the 360 on launch day. Same with the Wii. There were great reasons to buy. As for the PS#? I wouldn't even buy one for $200 brand new.
thats cxuz your a dumbass first of all metal gear solid is the #1 game of 2008 an last time i checked gta4 was #10 second of all the 360 is finished and you know it.. they are gonna lose all of their exclusives next year..so ps3 will b recieving mass effect 2 and 3 and gears of war 3 either for both 360 and ps3 or as ps3 exclusives
so next time get your facts rite instead of running your mouth about stuff your clueless about you dumb ass
I hope you don't mind if I comment on the nerve the people that have commented before me have.
Before I begin, I'd like to say that I own all of the "Next-Gen" consoles, so my opinion is as biased as you make it out to be.
Regarding the PS3 - I do feel that Blu-Ray is becoming a necessity. However, "becoming" a necessity and "being" a necessity are completely different things. The price? Why should it drop? My phone costs more than my PS3.
Regarding the Wii - Innovative...Too bad there's nothing in it for traditional gamers. Sometimes I feel like I just want to have a normal controller and throw out the "Wiimote".
Regarding the XBOX360 - Beautiful system. I'm enjoying Mass Effect, among other games, and it's pretty fun.
In conclusion: The PS3 doesn't need a pricecut. The XBOX360 is rolling out some great games, although I have no idea what the lineup for this year is, as all of the lineups I've seen so far are false. The PS3 has a lot of great exclusives. Hoping for a good year.
I hope you don't mind if I comment on the nerve the people that have commented before me have.
Before I begin, I'd like to say that I own all of the "Next-Gen" consoles, so my opinion is as biased as you make it out to be.
Regarding the PS3 - I do feel that Blu-Ray is becoming a necessity. However, "becoming" a necessity and "being" a necessity are completely different things. The price? Why should it drop? My phone costs more than my PS3.
Regarding the Wii - Innovative...Too bad there's nothing in it for traditional gamers. Sometimes I feel like I just want to have a normal controller and throw out the "Wiimote".
Regarding the XBOX360 - Beautiful system. I'm enjoying Mass Effect, among other games, and it's pretty fun.
In conclusion: The PS3 doesn't need a pricecut. The XBOX360 is rolling out some great games, although I have no idea what the lineup for this year is, as all of the lineups I've seen so far are false. The PS3 has a lot of great exclusives. Hoping for a good year.