Poll: PS3 price drop

[D_987]

If they dropped the price I would certainly buy one - but bearing in mind they are still losing money - along with the fact they lost a very large sum last year; I doubt it'll happen.

 

[Jumplion]

The first thing Sony should do is stop making more PS2's and put PS2 playability back into the PS3. This will force the consumer to purchase the PS3. This will eventually be profitable for Sony.

Why do you think they cut PS2 compatibility? To cut the price. $50 off the price tag I believe. Plus, why would Sony divert attention away from one of their only profitable consoles? Sure, it sounds great on paper, but it doesn't make much sense in practice, at least not yet.

 

[ae86gamer]

I'd say it would increase sales, I might buy a PS3 if the price drops.

^This. I'd buy one if it was cheaper, but I can't because they're too expensive and it doesn't seem like they'll drop the price any time soon.

 

[IamQ]

If they dont drop the price, then Activision might not be able to support them anymore, and THAT means I won't get brutal legend or the next CoD!

 

[Generator]

Not too sure if it would help or hurt Sony, but I would probably buy one if there was.

 

[Frank_Sinatra_]

From what I've heard they don't plan on dropping PS3 prices majorly until Blu-Ray prices drop. Basically what I was told, you're paying for the Blu-Ray and not the PS3. That's what a guy told me.

The guy told you wrong.

They don't plan to drop the price because a $50 drop would cost them 350 million in profits, a $100 drop would double that loss.

This is basic economics people. Microsoft can afford to drop the price every month and soon sell the damn console in a vending machine because they are financially backed by Bill Gates, and Live Subscriptions. If Sony charged for online or increased the price of the games to offset the loss of the console going down in price it would be okay.

But look at those numbers, that's a big ass loss and people would STILL complain. Sony can't do right in peoples eyes even if there consol costed $50 and cured cancer.

Like you've said before, the PS3 doesn't have an unreasonable fan base it has an unreasonable hate base.

Really if you look at it to get the 360 to do what the PS3 has standard, the PS3 is actually a cheaper system.

 

[Drakulla]

The first thing Sony should do is stop making more PS2's and put PS2 playability back into the PS3. This will force the consumer to purchase the PS3. This will eventually be profitable for Sony.

Why do you think they cut PS2 compatibility? To cut the price. $50 off the price tag I believe. Plus, why would Sony divert attention away from one of their only profitable consoles? Sure, it sounds great on paper, but it doesn't make much sense in practice, at least not yet.

But Sony didn't cut the price of the PS3. Its still the same price. Sony took the PS2 hardware out of the PS3 and put in emulator software but never dropped the price. They then took the emulator software out of the PS3 so the consumer would have to buy a PS2 again.

We are past the PS2 era, that's why Sony created the PS3. If they want the PS3 to sell, then they need to focus in its sales. They need to take away the choice of buying either a PS2 of a PS3. Put the PS2 emulator back in the PS3 and tell the consumer that if your PS2 dies, then you have to purchase (upgrade to) a PS3. It may sound dirty because its forcing the consumer to buy a PS3, but that would mean more people are not just buying but going to buy a PS3.

If the PS2 is outselling the PS3 and you need to sell more PS3's this console generation, then stop pushing the PS2.

 

[Cowabungaa]

People like me, who really want one, would be able to get it. there's thousands like me.

And I'm one of them. I'd love to have a PS3, mainly for the Blu Ray player since I just bought a shiny new HD tv but there are plenty of games I'd like to play as well. But I simply can't fork over 400 euro's to buy one. 300 Euro's would suit my budget a lot better.

 

[Jumplion]

But Sony didn't cut the price of the PS3. Its still the same price. Sony took the PS2 hardware out of the PS3 and put in emulator software but never dropped the price. They then took the emulator software out of the PS3 so the consumer would have to buy a PS2 again.

Um, yes. Yes they did. They cut the price of the PS3, like, 3 times in one year in 2008 I believe. One for MGS4's launch with the bundle (600-550 $50 off), one with cutting Backwards compatibility (550-500 $50 off), and once for cutting HDD memory (500-400 $100 off)

Of course, some of those are rough estimations about how much was cut off and what for, but there is no doubt that around the time the PS3 lost backwards compatibility it also lost a bit on it's price tag.

I'm pretty sure it's not the same price, at least I think $400 is different than $600. Could be wrong though, we might still be back in 2006.

 

[Vash108]

I think it would help and it would push more units.

 

[GonzoGamer]

It depends. It might make them money if the manufacturing becomes cheaper with the new tech and even if not, it depends on how many units they move because of it.
I already bought mine over a year ago so I wouldn't mind seeing a price drop at this point. Get more Warhawk players in there: that game (and the expansions) should really (at this point) just be bundled with every system: as a free download. Tons of people still play it, does anyone still buy it?

 

[sirdanrhodes]

I wouldn't buy one, friend brought his down, I couldn't tell the difference between the PS3 and 360, apart from the PS3 lines look SLIGHTLY less jagged.

 

[squid5580]

Drop the price of the games by 10 bucks and leave the console as is. It would be more incentive to buy both games and consoles if games were cheaper vs just a cheaper console then spending 1/2 of said price on one game.