Ps3 price drop

crazy_asylum · Post by **crazy_asylum** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:01 pm

Now don't get me wrong, i hate the ps3 as much as anyone but recently i was watching the news and discovered that Sony has given up on any chance at making money by dropping the 60 gig Ps3 to $500 and introducing a new 80gig Ps3 at $600. I guess competing with failing 360's is harder than i thought (no offense to 360).

I guess no console company, except for Nintendo like making money. seeing as Microsoft just gave up 1-1.5 billion to keep people with the faulty 360's and Sony going from loosing 100-200 to loosing 200-300, im not sure of the exact numbers.

I don't really think this will bring to many people to buy the Ps3 in the next few months as the price will drop making it a waste of money to buy 1 from now till the drop.

Twisted Warthog · Post by **Twisted Warthog** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:25 pm

Ugh.... How many people are going to freaking post this. WE KNOW!

crazy_asylum · Post by **crazy_asylum** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:28 pm

Oh i hadn't noticed, but anyways if you read you get some of my options about it

cowsgoquack101 · Post by **cowsgoquack101** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 12:07 am

Yeah, Nintendo likes making money that's why they give me hardware not much better than my 6 year old xbox...

Ecksem Diem · Post by **Ecksem Diem** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 2:39 am

cowsgoquack101 wrote:Yeah, Nintendo likes making money that's why they give me hardware not much better than my 6 year old xbox...

That somehow implies that it actually is better than your six year old Xbox in some fashion.

lifeisbetterwithketchup · Tue Jul 10, 2007 10:17 am

Ecksem Diem wrote:
cowsgoquack101 wrote:Yeah, Nintendo likes making money that's why they give me hardware not much better than my 6 year old xbox...
That somehow implies that it actually is better than your six year old Xbox in some fashion.

I can tell where this is going, and let's stop it here.

ON TOPIC: $500 PS3 eh? Well, this will hopefully mean that the 360 will drop in price in response. Once the premium hits $300, I'm buying one. I doubt Nintendo will drop the price anytime soon (at least while stock is still scarce).

Post by **bicostp** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 1:54 pm

guess no console company, except for Nintendo like making money.

People seem to overlook the fact that video games are Nintendo's only cash cows. Sony's got PCs, semiconductors, professional audio/video equipment, and of course consumer gadgets, and of course Microsoft's other ventures need no introduction. If Nintendo didn't make cheap hardware and sold it for a large profit they would be bankrupt in a matter of years. (I'm surprised they've held on as long as they have, since the Gamecube was third in sales last generation, and the N64 sold less than the Playstation. It must be the DS.)

They will have to upgrade the Wii in the next few years; 720x480 won't cut it for much longer. It's already getting more difficult to see standard definition TVs, and I bet within this decade the only ones you'll see are the cheap $50 Chinese things at Wal-Mart. If nothing else they should have added HD capabilities to the Wii; they can't live on gimmicks and Mario forever. (Yeah the controller's a cute toy, but I think releasing the Wii without HD is a lot like if they released the N64 as a 2D system.)

Speaking of inexpensive hardware... If you match features (HDMI and HD video disc), the new PS3 prices work out cheaper than a 360 Elite with an HD-DVD drive. (That's probably why they didn't integrate the HD-DVD drive in the Elite; it would have been at least as expensive as the base PS3. Yay smoke and mirrors!) Yes, $500-$600 still seems expensive, but you get what you pay for. There's a reason you can buy a Kia for 10 grand but Ferraris have 7 digit price tags.

lifeisbetterwithketchup · Tue Jul 10, 2007 4:24 pm

bicostp wrote:People seem to overlook the fact that video games are Nintendo's only cash cows. Sony's got PCs, semiconductors, professional audio/video equipment, and of course consumer gadgets, and of course Microsoft's other ventures need no introduction. If Nintendo didn't make cheap hardware and sold it for a large profit they would be bankrupt in a matter of years. (I'm surprised they've held on as long as they have, since the Gamecube was third in sales last generation, and the N64 sold less than the Playstation. It must be the DS.)

Gamecube made the most profit last generation. And DS (and the various Gameboys before it) certainly isn't hurting Nintendo. Nintendo may not always be the most popular, but they know how to turn a good profit.

jones · Post by **jones** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 5:05 pm

lifeisbetterwithketchup wrote:Gamecube made the most profit last generation. And DS (and the various Gameboys before it) certainly isn't hurting Nintendo. Nintendo may not always be the most popular, but they know how to turn a good profit.

And why does that matter to us consumers again?

I don't own any stock in Nintendo, Sony, or MS so I don't really see what I gain from them profiting off of me on my console purchase. As long as they are a successful company and they can absorb the per system loss anyway (which all of these companies can it seems).

I like the fact that Sony and MS are giving us a lot of "bang for the buck" so to speak. Maybe they're not making money on the hardware, but software is (and always has been) the source of greatest profit. Look at the attach rates for each system for a good barometer of what success is for these companies.

Selling hardware is great, but if you don't have any games then who cares? Sony and Nintendo are in the same boat on this front at the moment. They have a few really solid titles and a bunch of mediocre ones. Nintendo is in a better position at the moment, because they are making money on each console but at a certain point that becomes irrelevant and the games are what matters. Nintendo and Sony both need to step up in this department if they are to succeed in the long run.

Anyway, as far as the price drop of the PS3 is concerned? I think we all saw it coming. It came a little sooner than I thought though. I figured it would happen for sure by the holiday season. Maybe they figure they can try to get some sales in before Halo 3 and GTA 4 come out. Hard to say. At any rate it's a good move.

Lucky for me I won't be buying one anytime soon, because they still don't have any games I give a crap about and this probably won't change until Gran Turismo 5 comes out (probably not until late next year if we're lucky). So that means there will probably be another price drop before then. To me it's most appealing feature is still the Blu-ray playback, but that's not worth 5 bills to me.

One other thing though... What are your thoughts on the $600 80GB feature? I mean an extra $100 for Motorstorm and 20 extra GB? Why?!?

lifeisbetterwithketchup · Tue Jul 10, 2007 5:29 pm

jones wrote:
lifeisbetterwithketchup wrote:Gamecube made the most profit last generation. And DS (and the various Gameboys before it) certainly isn't hurting Nintendo. Nintendo may not always be the most popular, but they know how to turn a good profit.
And why does that matter to us consumers again?

It doesn't; I was responding to this.

bicostp wrote:I'm surprised they've held on as long as they have, since the Gamecube was third in sales last generation, and the N64 sold less than the Playstation. It must be the DS.

He was wondering how Nintendo had managed to hang around all these years, and it's because of knowing how to turn a profit, and the ridiculous popularity of their handhelds.

As for the 80GB PS3, that's basically (I think) a marketing ploy to get the people who want "the best" to shell out an extra $100. They are still selling the console at a loss, and this helps them out with that. But that doesn't matter to the consumer either.

Reaperman@home · Post by **Reaperman@home** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 5:38 pm

oops, didn't see the thread here before starting my own.

Just like to add in the permanant thread that walmart.com has the $500 60gb ps3 with a bonus bluetooth remote and a mailaway for 5 blu-ray movies (here)

the 5 movies are available on all blu-ray players, but they certainly do make the ps3 price just a little more attractive.

if they're really losing as much money per system as they're letting on, they could be trying to make up for their poor sales by winning the video format war with ps3, rather than the video game war. If they were trying to win gamers instead of general consumers, a better choice may have been to release a high quality, all new, piece of software as a pack-in instead of the movies.

jones · Post by **jones** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 5:47 pm

lifeisbetterwithketchup wrote:
jones wrote:
lifeisbetterwithketchup wrote:Gamecube made the most profit last generation. And DS (and the various Gameboys before it) certainly isn't hurting Nintendo. Nintendo may not always be the most popular, but they know how to turn a good profit.
And why does that matter to us consumers again?
It doesn't; I was responding to this.
bicostp wrote:I'm surprised they've held on as long as they have, since the Gamecube was third in sales last generation, and the N64 sold less than the Playstation. It must be the DS.
He was wondering how Nintendo had managed to hang around all these years, and it's because of knowing how to turn a profit, and the ridiculous popularity of their handhelds.

As for the 80GB PS3, that's basically (I think) a marketing ploy to get the people who want "the best" to shell out an extra $100. They are still selling the console at a loss, and this helps them out with that. But that doesn't matter to the consumer either.

Ah, now I understand why you brought it up. People bring that stuff up a lot in these "console war" discussions and I never quite see it's relevance. In this case it made sense though, because it does show how Nintendo has managed to stay "alive" thus far since all they have is the video game business. I would agree that their handhelds are a very large part of the reason why they are still hangin' in there.

Good point on the 80GB. It does definitely seem like a good way to make people think they're getting more than they really are while Sony manages to lose a few less dollars in the process. The 80GB just doesn't make any sense. With MS I could see the point in having a 20GB and a 120GB (although I do have to say that the 120GB does seem to be a bit ridiculous). I think I could download every demo and trailer that comes out for the next year and still have room left without deleting anything!

Kind of overkill me'sa thinks, but what the heck. I could have at least understood Sony having a separate SKU if it would have had a 120 instead of the 80, since it would have actually seemed like you were actually getting something substantial for the bill.

You're probably on the money with it though. A good way for Sony to lose a few less dollars on the console and make the consumer they got something worthwhile in the process.

Also note the fact that the price drop is only in effect for North America only with the price in Canada being $549. So our friends in Europe and Asia seem to be getting left out in the cold on this one.

teraflop122 · Post by **teraflop122** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 5:48 pm

I am getting so very tired of people shouting about console manufacturers losing xyz dollars per console. How many times must those of us in the know correct this common misconception: profit almost never comes from consoles. Companies make their profit from game licenses. The consoles are a business expense. That is how it works. That is why- in the end- Sony and Microsoft PROFIT from their video game ventures. They aren't propping their consoles up with electronics sales from other departments or any such sillyness.

Sony decreased the cost of PS3's so more people could buy them. Those new people will then need to buy games for their PS3. More games sold = more income from license fees. Any slack in game sales would need to be picked up by console sales and pricing, which is one reason why the PS3 started out so expensive.

vskid · Post by **vskid** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 5:54 pm

Reaperman@home wrote:if they're really losing as much money per system as they're letting on, they could be trying to make up for their poor sales by winning the video format war with ps3, rather than the video game war. If they were trying to win gamers instead of general consumers, a better choice may have been to release a high quality, all new, piece of software as a pack-in instead of the movies.

Thats a nice point, I personally would not get a PS3 unless I wanted a blu-ray player, and thats just because its cheaper and can do more, but I'm going to wait to see which format wins and for prices to drop.