-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
EGM asks about PS3 price drop possibility
- Thread starter fse
- Start date
Property of Jumpship
Banned
Rhindle said:
IAWTP. :lol
I kinda pity these guys, to be honest...irfan said:
Do you think it was Kaz who specified such a high price? I doubt it. Even if he had some input, I'm sure it was limited. His job is to push and support the price, however. What do you expect him and the other PR folks to say? "Yeah, you're right...it's way too expensive"? This is one hell of a difficult sale for them to make, but they have no choice buy to try anyways.
How on earth could you even think that? PSP is an awesome machine now more than ever. The amount of great software is just incredible. It's as if the haters having bothered looking at the library since last summer.sinseers said:
What's wrong with enjoying it, honestly? There's no way you could play Loco Roco and not smile unless you are a cold, heartless bastard.
dark10x said:How on earth could you even think that? PSP is an awesome machine now more than ever. The amount of great software is just incredible. It's as if the haters having bothered looking at the library since last summer.
What's wrong with enjoying it, honestly? There's no way you could play Loco Roco and not smile unless you are a cold, heartless bastard.
To be perfectly honest, I really dig the PSP. But since people wanna hark on a certain company (Sega) and the spreading of themselves too thin, I can't help but wonder if that's what is going on here and now with Sony. Do they have enough bank and backing to sustain a currently successful console in the PS2, a portable system AND a next gen system at the same time when the Playstation division is the ONLY division (Remember Sony aint just a console maker) in the company showing profits? Only time will tell. Not to mention the fact that there are rumblings underground of a PSP2? Now I know some of you really love Sony but does this concern you in the least at all? I can see this possibly going one of two ways...
Scenario A - PS3 launches with huge initial success (Which is most likely) but sales taper off within the next 6 months to a year due to it's asking price. Now this would put Sony in a bit of a pickle cuz the rest of the company is nerarly falling by the waistside. What do you do? Drop the PS3 price by $100.00 (angering shareholders even more), drop support for the PS2 (meaning heavily trying to convince all developers on current PS2 projects to move them over to the PS3) which I think is the least likely choice or phase out support on the system that has the least amount of history going for it which of course would be the PSP (Angering consumers). Any of these 3 choices would only be taking up to allocate resources towards the PS3's quest for market leadership but not without a big cost in either developer relations or consumer loyalty.
Scenario B - PS3 launches with huge initial success (Which is most likely) and demand for the system remains so high that Sony decides to leave the console price as is for over a year ( Just like the PS2). This would be ideal for them cuz they wouldn't have shareholder breathing down their necks. But where does that leave you and me? Well let's say everything goes Sony's way (That means the PS3 is thriving, Blu Ray takes the crown and the PSP overtakes the DS). We as consumers would now be faced with fact that next go round (Meaning next next gen) we have given them the greenlight to price their console at no longer at a loss, but at a profit comin out the gate. Do you seriously think they haven't considered that? You'ld better think again.
Sony (and any business for that matter) would do anything not to have to sell anything (especially someting as costly as a PS3) at a loss anytime. Their two primary concerns right now are getting they shareholders of their backs and getting PS3s in your house (Everything else I'm betting is expenable). Those are 2 totally different ends of the spectrum. This is going to ba a very interesting year and a half.
Get creative - I don't care. Just something less pat and more imaginative than the boilerplate stuff he's constantly spewing. The question wasn't great, but doesn't mean he can't have fun with it. The guy reads and speaks like he has very little fire for the job he's doing.kpop100 said:
Azelover
Titanic was called the Ship of Dreams, and it was. It really was.
He said one thing there, to look at what Sony has traditionally done with the pricing. And going by it I understand that they'll keep the price unchanged until 2008, with maybe at best introducing a more gimped configuration for less money meanwhile, but maintaining the price they've already stabilished for the current versions. Sony has the tradition of dropping the price point in pairs of calendar years, with the exception of 2003 which was supposed to be temporary due to their online pack. They've made serious price drops in 96,98,2000,2002,2004 and 2006, there are small variations but overall the significant ones are done in pairs, even with the PSP. What I get from Kaz there is that they plan to keep the tradition, or strategy, which comes in handy when you take significant losses initially, we should probably not take an early price drop for granted.
sinseers said:
Wait, what exactly are you bitching about? They will support the PS2 but they aren't going to be putting a lot of man power behind it kind of like the PSone. The key is as long as its out their for third parties to support with a God of War II on the horizon. I see quite a few developers just shifting focus onto the PSP as an alternative to the PS2 in the future. I would think Sony being a much larger company and more accustomed to dealing with a large variety of products can handle multiple consoles. Much more then Sega and with the continuing updates for PSP I think it shows.
I don't know what to tell you if you are seriously upset about console makers not wanting to sell their consoles at a loss. It's not really a sound business plan to begin with and more of a desperation act to break into the industry. I can't think of any other home electronics that follows that model so I can't see how you feel you have the right to it.
AdmiralViscen
Banned
Ponn01 said:
Wowww... Trying for a promotion in the SDF?
AdmiralViscen said:
Then I guess you are pissed that Nintendo has consistently never sold their consoles at a loss. Or are you one of those that were always proudly exclaiming Nintendo always made a profit off their consoles and are just double talking here to try and get a cheap jab in?
AdmiralViscen
Banned
Ponn01 said:
When did I mention Nintendo?
If Nintendo was going to make a bleeding-edge console that cost $800 to manufacture, I would sure as hell hope they were still using the sell-at-loss setup.
I really don't understand why you're comparing this to other consumer electronics items. Other pieces of consumer electronics don't require you to buy proprietary, exclusive software that is licensed by the manufacturer of the hardware. There is no analogy to be made there.
And to act like a consumer is wrong or misguided for wanting a lower price.... Yea, that's crossing the line in fandom.
Ponn01 said:
So now I'm bitching? Well like I said in my thread only time will tell what will come of this. I for one am not RICH so I can handle a $200-250 dollar price tag. With 500-600 or 300-400 for that matter I DAMN SURE DO feel like I a have the right to question EVERYTHING for what is supposed to be a gaming console. But hey...that's just me. Now unless you're some business exec or got some shares in Sony or whoever, I don't see why you wouldn't want to question their strategy as well. After all we are consumers. What the hell do I ,as the consumer, care that selling at a loss ISN'T a model that other home electronics companies follow? I DO however care about about how much I would have to shell out to purchase a said product. That's what consumers do.
AdmiralViscen said:
Unfortunately for your statement I did not say that bolded part at all. I said
...as in regards to selling items at a loss. Said nothing about wanting a lower price. If you are going to argue or try to jab at me then at least be courteous enough to argue the point and not your twisted version of it.
As for the REAL point which you touched on. Do you think just because a company's consumer electronic product runs licensed software that they are somehow required to sell at a loss? Are you using some kind of double standards here saying "oh nintendo can do it because their systems are at a magical price level but if you add in pricey components then you should automatically sell at a loss" ? What kind of business model is that?
Hadareud said:
The poster I replied to cares. And to an extent everyone does, because it determines how much you are going to buy one at. For refrence this is what the poster I replied to said.
Sinseers said:
Then you couldn't handle the PS2's launch price, the Xbox or the Xbox 360's launch price either. Guess what, you are not part of the launch price target along with the majority of the other mass market. Suck it up and wait.
AdmiralViscen
Banned
Ponn01 said:
So telling someone they don't have the right to something that they think they have the right to isn't telling them they are wrong or misguided?
K.
I'm talking about it from the consumer perspective. $200 = OK, $500+ = Hmmm...
You're talking from the corporate perspective, because you apparently work for Sony and are more worried about their profit margins than consumer preference.
Sony has PROVED that the razors-and-blades setup works for video game consoles. Unless you want to tell me why that's magically changing, we don't have much to talk about.
Again, YOU mentioned Nintendo, not me. Who's twisting??
THE ONE THAT HAS CAUSED THE INDUSTRY TO MORE THAN DOUBLE IN SIZE SINCE 1995.
Ponn01 said:
...Sony sold 20 million PS2s at their original price point, 80 million after they dropped to $200 or less. Tell me again, which is the majority of the mass market? The $300+ crowd or the ~$200 crowd?
But now this is turning into a typical PS3 pricing argument, which I don't get involved in these days.
wipeout364
Member
Actually the more I think about it the more the price seems reasonable when you consider what the system is. Bluray players just launched in Canada for 1300 dollars. When compared the the Xbox 360 (which I own BTW) it is supposed to have Blu ray playback, 60 gig harddrive, proper backward compatiblity, HDMI output. I get the impression that it is a more powerful machine than the 360 when deveoped for properly. Really it is a good deal for what it is.
The problem is it is a luxury item and an expensive one and requires a significant amount of disposable income. I think BluRAY playback is the problem leavin that out would have reduced the cost but would have significantly reduced Blu RAY penetration into the market. It is a gamble for SONY that I don't know will pay off.
I'll be getting one but not at launch.
The problem is it is a luxury item and an expensive one and requires a significant amount of disposable income. I think BluRAY playback is the problem leavin that out would have reduced the cost but would have significantly reduced Blu RAY penetration into the market. It is a gamble for SONY that I don't know will pay off.
I'll be getting one but not at launch.
AdmiralViscen said:
For the third, and ****ing last time i'm asking you to stop twisting what i'm saying and ignoring what i'm telling you. This is what I said..AGAIN...
I said I don't know how he feels he has the right to the business model. As a consumer, you have no ****ing rights to set price. Why? BASIC ****ING PRINCIPAL OF CONSUMERISM!! If you don't feel the price is a balance of features and benefits of the product to you then you don't buy it. It's that ****ing simple, what is so hard to grasp about this? You keep shortening what you are saying as you get further and further backed against the wall, first it was just an ad hominem attack on my character, then it was...
and now we are down to just..
Here's some advice, pick one and stick with it. If you are wrong stop waffling and playing word games. I never said he was wrong for wanting a lower price. I said very clearly as quoted several times now, I did not see how he felt he had a right as a consumer to require a company to sell a system at a loss. If i'm wrong, why don't you try to prove THAT instead of twisting what i'm saying and playing word games.
I'm talking from the reasonable perspective. Who the hell doesn't want to pay the least amount possible for a console. I'm not going to go out demanding a company sell their products at a loss like its my right though. Thats what I was pointing out.
And yes, I work for Sony *rollseyes* OHHH BURN ON ME:lol pathetic.
Sure, ITS CALLED A ****ING $800 PLUS SYSTEM TO MAKE. They are using brand new barely out the door tech in the system. That's the "magical" difference.
I mentioned it as an example. I never said you mentioned them. But you are cleverly avoiding respoinding to that example. Good job.
Sure, and it helped them break into the industry. There are differing reports if they actually even sold the PS2 at a loss. And if they did it wasn't by much. Again though, there is a HUGE difference in pricing and what they are doing now that they are a leader in brand recognition. They are moving in a different direction just like Nintendo. The difference there being Sony is a huge CE company with hands in alot of jars and they are moving in a direction to combine those things. This is a totally different tangent you are going down though.
I believe I already said the $200 or less crowd was the majority, hell you even bolded it. Are you even reading what i'm posting?
YOU ****ING STARTED IT! Worse yet you dragged it way off my original point so don't even try to play that card.
TanOOkiSeong
Member
$599 isn't a great deal until the system has had a least six months to get "clean." You thought the 360 launch was buggy? The PS3 weighs in at three more pounds than the 360 (more electronics) and it's a fact the system will be the most complex of the 3. Even the PS2 had problems with its DVD drive which was a more mature technology when it launched than Blu-Ray will be.
I expect SERIOUS problems with PS3's breaking down in the beginning, especially with the pressure on Sony to get out as many systems as possible (at the moment PS3's launch window is absolutely vital to the system's success).
In the future when the system is simplified and the tech is figured out, perhaps it'll be a better deal. But $599 is a huge risk for a system that WILL be buggy to start off.
I expect SERIOUS problems with PS3's breaking down in the beginning, especially with the pressure on Sony to get out as many systems as possible (at the moment PS3's launch window is absolutely vital to the system's success).
In the future when the system is simplified and the tech is figured out, perhaps it'll be a better deal. But $599 is a huge risk for a system that WILL be buggy to start off.
All launches are buggy, none have escaped it. Not one single console, well...maybe not for nintendo . Doesnt mean there is not a lot of quality hardware still in the in the bunch. Fanboys hype it up like the end of the world, but a few months later after launch everyone forgets it. I know many people with launch day 360's still working fine. I still have my psp and ps2 that are both launch day hardware, that both work as good as the day I got them. Buy a warranty and get over it.
. Doesnt mean there is not a lot of quality hardware still in the in the bunch. Fanboys hype it up like the end of the world, but a few months later after launch everyone forgets it. I know many people with launch day 360's still working fine. I still have my psp and ps2 that are both launch day hardware, that both work as good as the day I got them. Buy a warranty and get over it.TanOOkiSeong
Member
Bad_Boy said:
Don't expect to get your launch PS3 back for a longggg time if its broken at launch.
PS3 is also $600+tax, PS2 was only $300+tax; the risk increases with the price.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
TanOOkiSeong said:
food at McDonalds is also plus tax, so the risk increases with the price!
TanOOkiSeong
Member
davepoobond said:
$600+8%tax = $648
$300+8%tax = $324
Just illustrating the point the tax plays a significant role. As where in a $200 v. $300 purchase the tax isn't as significant.
Your analogy sucks.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
TanOOkiSeong said:
everything has tax. of course we're gonna pay more tax on something more expensive since its a percentage tax and not a flat tax. wtf does it matter if there's tax or not? its not like you can avoid paying it no matter what you buy.
kpop100 said:
The PSP thing was part of my intial post. That was part of the post mentioning about archiving this thread for later. So if by some ungodly reason SCE flatlines after this gen we can start a thread like the one about Sega. You know the - Everbody name one big mistake made by Sony -. If you read my earlier posts though you'll see that I really do like the PSP technology. It's just that price that kept me from getting one or a DS fro that matter. I was detailing how they may end up spreading themselves thin with the PS2, PSP and the PS3 existing in the same market. Now as a consumer should I even be worried about that....probably not, but since poeple wanna talk business I figured I would throw in an educated guess as to how the climate in the Sony camp is right about now.
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
gofreak said:
"LITTLE BIT MORE...LITTLE BIT MORE...OKAY. STAND RIGHT THERE."
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
kaching said:
You know, I just realized that since I'm moving to Portland, I just might buy a PS3 after all! TAX FREE BABY!
"I LIKE WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH THIS, BENJAMIN."
Then you couldn't handle the PS2's launch price, the Xbox or the Xbox 360's launch price either. Guess what, you are not part of the launch price target along with the majority of the other mass market. Suck it up and wait.
You're right. The console of the 3 that you mentioned that I own is a XBox and nope I didn't get it at launch. $250 is as high as I go for a game system that I'm going to KEEP mind you. But since you are so forthcoming with your dollas...get at me when the PS3 launches....I'll have one for ya. And I'm sellin mine WITH THE RECIEPT so when that shish breaks down on you in about 2 weeks, you can at least have somethin to fall back on. Don't say I never did nuthin for ya man.
PS - Give em an inch....
You're right. The console of the 3 that you mentioned that I own is a XBox and nope I didn't get it at launch. $250 is as high as I go for a game system that I'm going to KEEP mind you. But since you are so forthcoming with your dollas...get at me when the PS3 launches....I'll have one for ya. And I'm sellin mine WITH THE RECIEPT so when that shish breaks down on you in about 2 weeks, you can at least have somethin to fall back on. Don't say I never did nuthin for ya man.
PS - Give em an inch....
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
sinseers said:
"ABOUT HOW LONG WOULD IT TAKE YOU TWO TO GET TO THE MOON? THERE'S SOMETHING I WANT YOU TO SEE."
Andokuky said:
I was mainly talking of Sony's shoddy hardware design starting with the having to sit your PS1 upsidedown to get the drive to read the CD and then we got the blue disc/ silver fiasco with the PS2. But you get honorable netion for the 360 yit too. Nobody is exempt its just that you can tell who has a little more experience with making consoles built to last physically.
Moderation Unlimited
Banned
wipeout364 said:
Why can't we just leave it at this?
QFMILFT
Hitler Stole My Potato
Banned
sharukins said:
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
sharukins said:
sharukins post
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
davepoobond said:
davepoobond post
"AN AMUSING DIVERSION, TO BE SURE. BUT IT WILL NOT STOP THE COMING OF THE END OF ALL THINGS."