no PS3 price cut... Sony, why?
- Thread starter Simalacrum
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well, 360 Elite will cost you ?299,95. An XBox 360 (60GB) with 2 games will be ?239,95. As for the the Wii it will cost ya ?249,95. So yes the 360 could be considered cheaper, but prices can differ a bit depending on site/store.imburke said:Tony Grande said:Well Europe usually pays the most between them and the States. Usually same price between dollar and euro, with the euro being worth a lot more! So if it costs CAN$400 it costs more in Europe, but I don't know the price of a Playstation in Canada, haven't been in a while!imburke said:Europee gets the systems cheaper traditionallyXcelsior said:
how much is your 360 pro console worth, ours is 299.99, and i heard the 360 just dropped below the price of the wii over there, which here is 279.99
No, I don't have any theories, I have the actual reason: Sony is losing money on the PS3 as it is, and on top of that Sony lost money last year.Simalacrum said:
Lowering the price will let them sell more units, but how exactly will that make them a profit if they're losing too much money on each sale to make up with game sales? Keep in mind that people who are more likely to wait for a price drop are also more likely to spend less money on games.
Um, hello? It's not that damn expensive. I still don't know why people are whining over this.
i bought it when it was at RIIIIDGE RACER prices (AKA 599.99) and all you need is to save a little money up. You young whipper snappers are lucky they dropped the price as is. It's practically the same as the 360 and Wii's prices, so why the complaints?
Oh, and
i bought it when it was at RIIIIDGE RACER prices (AKA 599.99) and all you need is to save a little money up. You young whipper snappers are lucky they dropped the price as is. It's practically the same as the 360 and Wii's prices, so why the complaints?
Oh, and
Someone get the extinguisher! There's flames everywhere!SomeBritishDude said:
I think that they won't drop it because they are losing money already. If they drop it again they will lose even more money... which is very bad.
My guess is that Sony is already losing money on PS3 sales, and they don't want to lose even more money. But I think they're making a mistake. Game sales and licensing are the real money makers in the video game business. They should be doing whatever is necessary to move consoles.
Theories aside, here is the reason: Sony belives that the net profit at the current price point is better than the net profit would be if they dropped the price. It's really that simple.
Well of course Sony is "money hungry", at the rate they're going, they'll be bankrupt in two years. They started out FY 2008 with $10 billion and and ended it with $6 billion cash on hand. That's a remarkably small number for a company their size. Sony is having trouble getting additional loans and many of the loans they took out to fund the PS3 development are coming due. They're on a very thin margin as it is, cutting prices would be incredibly foolish.
The only consoles in the last 10 years that at launch were sold for less than they cost to make were the gamecube and the wii.pantsoffdanceoff said:
I just went into a Gamestop, the wireless setup complete is $50 US, the wired set up is 40.imburke said:
You need to relax, you rant far too much. Secondly, I may have jumped the gun to a logical conclusion that may be incorrect. All reports that the PS3 is making a loss are from the last fiscal year. There have been no reports this quarter on the PS3's profit/loss ratings; for all we know, the PS3 could very well be in profit. Sony claimed that they would be entering profit by the end of the fiscal year, back in 2008. The new fiscal year started in April 2009 - come and gone. Considering in 2007, the PS3 cost $805 to manufacture and sold at $499 ($306 loss per unit) and in 2008, it only cost $448.73 ($48.73 loss per unit), they could very well be in profit already and if not, be entering it this fiscal year. My point was a price drop would not enable a profit per unit sold scenario, my second point was if they could lower manufacturing costs enough later this year to enable a price drop and remain in profit - it would suit them to do so for Christmas considering their games lineup. So I apologise for making the mistake of assuming but just chill.HyenaThePirate said:
The smaller Cell and RSX chips are much cheaper to produce. Downsizing them to a sub-65nm Cell and sub-95nm RSX chip would help cut costs even more. Also the redesigned PS3 would use cheaper materials and manufacturing. The PS3 Slim would technically be smaller, cooler (thermally), more efficient, less power-hungry (thus smaller components such as cooling fans) and cheaper to produce.randomsix said:
The PS3 price tag will just be a lot higher than the PS3 because its price correlates more with demand rather than with manufacturing cost.
You're right, I should chill out. I'm sorry. I just tend to get over-excited when people make claims they cannot back up or prove... wait.. are you still trying to justify your statement with hopes and opinions?crazyjackal said:
Maybe instead of telling me to chill out, you should "chill out" on making statements as fact when they are not. Then we can avoid little misunderstandings like this...
Again, can you prove any of this? Can you at least point us to something Sony has released about the manufacturing process being cheaper and the smaller cell and rsx chips being cheaper to produce? The difference between your assumptions and his is that his assumption that as technology shrinks in size (but retains or even improves quality), the trend is that it usually gets more expensive. Realistically, the PS3 slim will probably cost more than the PS3 fat, because it will be newer to produce, therefore the manufacturing process will change, the parts will be more delicate and consumers would prefer IT to the old big fat version because people like products that take up LESS space, not more, which is one of the big criticisms of the old Xbox when it came out, even though it was equal to or superior to the PS2 in many ways.crazyjackal said:
But until I see something that explains the costs of manufacturing the ps3 slim, and more to the point, the retail price of it, I'm not going to be able to say how much Sony will make or lose.
Why do people keep winging that the PS3 is too expensive? Seriously I got it when it came out (preorded) and I payed $1000 for it (please note I was a student not working at the time) and it was worth every cent IMO. If you arnt willing to save up and pay for what is an entertainment system, not just a gaming console, then buy something else. I'm honestly over the kiddy winging, your either willing to buy it at the cost their selling for it, get it during a sale or dont get it at all.