[vinster29]

I have been reading a lot of chatter on the internet about how Sony will drop the price of the PS3 in March or April of this year. My thinking is that why would Sony drop the price of the PS3 if they are already losing money on every PS3 they sell!! They would definitely have to create a cheaper version of the PS3 in order to drop the price. My question is do you guys think that Sony will drop the price of the PS3 in the next couple of months in it's current configuration?

[J7.]

All depends on sales truly. It will come April at the earliest, probably before the end of August. Most likely July-August, if they can hold out that long. They're also working on smaller chips, which could be ready late Spring/early Summer I believe.

[lilboo]

There needs to be. $400 isn't terrible, but, Wii and 360 are cheaper and it needs to be around those prices.

Regardless of how many articles and links TMK will post saying how much money they are losing per system.

[riddler]

there are alot of good titles coming out this year for the ps3 compared to 360/Wii. Also, bluray is picking up steam i believe...so a price cut my not really be needed. We'll just have to wait and see.

[niceguyshawne]

There should be a price drop sometime this year but I think it will be more toward August. I got one last fall with the $150 off Sony card deal and it really is a great system, just not quite worth the $400 price tag.

[cochesecochese]

Eventually, yes. I still stand by the idea that we'll see some games bundled into the package at the same price before we see a price drop.

[redline]

I think $400 is a fair price for the system considering it's a Blu-Ray player too. Of course with the current $300 off Sony card promo it's a steal at only a hundred bucks.

[Mr Unoriginal]

I think $400 is a fair price for the system considering it's a Blu-Ray player too. Of course with the current $300 off Sony card promo it's a steal at only a hundred bucks.

Unfortunately it seems that the American public doesn't share your opinion of the fairness of the price, or else it would be selling much better. A price drop seems necessary at this point. A lot of good exclusives have already been released for the system, I can't imagine a game that will push a hugh number of people over to the $400 PS3 camp.

[limelight022]

I think timing it around GoWIII launch would be beneficial for sony.

[nbballard]

It's a touchy subject- on one hand, the system is more expensive than the competition. It only makes sense to do a price drop so they can compete in the market.

On the other- none of the other systems offer a utility as practical as the Blu-Ray player though, a 100+ dollar feature by itself.

Honestly I think that the system might just need to be better advertised to the casual crowd prior to any price cuts. With the upcoming digital transition, I think HD TVs will become more common place, and that means users will want HD video players.

[Mana Knight]

One day, yes. Right now, who really knows. I don't expect one until April 2009 until the earliest, since Sony stated to shareholders the PS3 pricetag would stick by the end of Fiscal year (which is the end of March) and would sell 10 million or so new consoles worldwide (which it did or came VERY close to). Mostly, a PS3 price drop will NOT come until there's a reduction in PS3 hardware cost so Sony will finally profit on PS3 (PS3 is still sold at a loss).

[Malik112099]

I don't like the "sold at a loss" reasoning for the lack of a PS3 price drop. I thought it was common knowledge in the video game industry that hardware is sold at a loss to make a profit on software.

This excuse is BS for the PS3. Sony knows what the competition is and is getting left behind more and more everyday. Yes, there are great games out there but at this point a single game launch isnt enough to pull the PS3 out of the ditch - that includes GoW III and Killzone 2. I am happy I have a PS3 due to these games but if Sony wants avg joe to start snatching up PS3s they need to drop the price now so that spending $60 on a game later wont seem as bad as spending $460 for a game when it comes out.

[sbains]

PS3 price drop will come 4/1, price will drop to $299, it is possible they may have a 40GB SKU at $249

[snookie_wookums]

PS3 price drop will come 4/1, price will drop to $299, it is possible they may have a 40GB SKU at $249

Ditto

[monchiceja]

IN the February issue of Game Informer they said that the 80 GB PS3 would drop down to $299 in April but that it did not matter because they aren't any games worth playing anyways. It also said that when this happens Microsoft would drop the newest version of their 60 GB to $249 so yeah it looks like Apirl will be a good month to save up for.

[greyzieoriental]

I can't wait til next month to get my April EGM which looks like it will be covering SFIV and the price drops

[nbballard]

um.. i thought EGM was gone.

[TruthinessFC]

There's been no official statement obviously but I think Sony will sometime this year. At the latest by 2009 holiday season or so.. I think I read awhile back that David Reeves said they have broken even on each PS3 built, and they'll be using smaller Cell chips by sometime this year so it's a matter of time.

I don't like the "sold at a loss" reasoning for the lack of a PS3 price drop. I thought it was common knowledge in the video game industry that hardware is sold at a loss to make a profit on software.

This excuse is BS for the PS3. Sony knows what the competition is and is getting left behind more and more everyday. Yes, there are great games out there but at this point a single game launch isnt enough to pull the PS3 out of the ditch - that includes GoW III and Killzone 2. I am happy I have a PS3 due to these games but if Sony wants avg joe to start snatching up PS3s they need to drop the price now so that spending $60 on a game later wont seem as bad as spending $460 for a game when it comes out.

I don't see how losing 2-3 billion on the PS3 is a BS excuse. In fact, being conservative and trying to focus on making back profits seems pretty smart to me... Sony would have to lose a lot more money if they tried to keep up in price cuts, and really at this stage I think Sony cares more about money than winning a console war.

Edited by TruthinessFC, 22 February 2009 - 06:49 PM.

[help1]

Use the dell.com deal.

[optimusprime8062]

I read an article on IGN the other day where some guy was saying (I cant remember who, but it was someone important) that cutting the price of the PS3 wouldn't help them (Sony) at all and the thing to do is keep it at the same price but make it cheaper to build. He was saying they are making a smaller/less powerful/cheaper chip and that it would reduce the cost of making a PS3, BUT they would keep it the same price. Of course people will say that they will deny price cuts for X and X reasons but after reading that article I bought a PS3 (from Dell...like the above post suggest).

[Mana Knight]

I don't like the "sold at a loss" reasoning for the lack of a PS3 price drop. I thought it was common knowledge in the video game industry that hardware is sold at a loss to make a profit on software.

This excuse is BS for the PS3. Sony knows what the competition is and is getting left behind more and more everyday. Yes, there are great games out there but at this point a single game launch isnt enough to pull the PS3 out of the ditch - that includes GoW III and Killzone 2. I am happy I have a PS3 due to these games but if Sony wants avg joe to start snatching up PS3s they need to drop the price now so that spending $60 on a game later wont seem as bad as spending $460 for a game when it comes out.

Well, actually, the problem is PS3 was selling at a $240-$300 loss at launch. That was massive and contributed to Sony losing $1.8 billion, then $1.2 billion in the SCE sector. Right now they are just trying to break even or profit. Right now it's being said that PS3 costs around $450 to make. The only way they can profit for sure is if everyone who buys a PS3 buys at least two first party games, and/or lots of accessories. They have softened their losses quite a bit, but still not enough (plus it doesn't help how the currencies in many countries dropped against the yen, making Sony lose even more money). 50% of their losses in the SCE division was due to the strong yen.

It's like for an example, let's say if Sony cuts the price by $100, they now lose an extra $100 million if they sell 1 million consoles. And like I said before, the only way Sony can make a significant back is if everyone of those people purchased a decent number of 1st party games and accessories (there's the cost involved and retail loyalties mixed in, SCE doesn't get all their money back on them). Unfortunately, I definitely don't see new owners making up that $100 million loss right away.

Various SCE employees have said numerous times their goal right now is to NOT remain competitive. Their goal is to at least break even/profit, even if they have to sacrifice market share.

Sony must simply take some pain with PS3, SCEE boss David Reeves has told the Guardian, but no matter how bad the fight is at the moment for the machine, the firm’s still “fighting”.

“We simply have to suffer a little,” he said, “go down in market share and mind-share.

“It’s like Ali v Foreman - go eight or nine rounds and let him punch himself out. We’re still standing, we’re still profitable and there’s a lot of fight in us. I don’t say we will land a knockout blow, but we’re there and we’re fighting.”

Reeves was speaking after the release of dour PlayStation family sales figures for last year, in which both hardware and software sales declined against 2007.

“My objective is financial - to make a profit in our territory by the end of March, and we will,” Reeves added.

“Our priority has always been the PS3; the forecast was 10 million at the beginning of the year and it’s still 10 million. If we’d cut the price, lost another billion dollars, we might have had a huge Christmas but it would have been followed by a huge loss.

“The company could have thought: ‘Hmm, I’m not sure I want to be in this business at all.’ But we’ve shown Sony this is still a good business to have.”

There’s loads more through there. Well worth a read.

http://www.vg247.com...n-market-share/

Sony right now could careless if the competition sells 5X more consoles. As long as Sony is still selling consoles and are not taking a big loss (hopefully breaking even or profiting), they are happy. They understand the PS3 is in a difficult position to cut its costs even more (I don't want to hear the, if it had no blu-ray, it would be $300 right now. The main reason PS3 is expensive is due to its motherboard components, with the Cell + RSX making up a big chunk of it. Even without blu-ray, PS3 would STILL not cost lower than $400 to manufacturer).

MS last gen lost lots of money on Xbox and was willing to price it to be competitive (just to gain marketshare). Sony could do that with PS3, but they rather not put their company deep in the red, especially during this economy, and with Howard Stringer heavily pressuring the PS division to profit.

[Ronin317]

Judging by the deals this week...it looks like they'll drop it $50 the first week of April.

[Thomas96]

I was thinking that their might be a price drop in March 09. PS3 is long overdue for a price drop.

[Malik112099]

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH FUCKING BLAH

Sony is in the fire and crying cause they are getting burned. Drop the price to compete so you get more consoles into homes and then crank out the AAA exclusives and start trying to make ends meet. Sony is between a rock and a hard place right now and need to do something. Something is NOT making the console cheaper to produce over the next few weeks/months/years/wtf ever and keeping the price the same. For fucks sake...at least charge $20 a year for PSN so that you can make it look like you are trying. Don't worry Sony - there are PLENTY of Thomas96's, TMK's, and Smiggity's that will pay for the service no matter how much it is.

[Vanigan]

Bitter much Malik?

I can't even tell what you're trying to say in that. Perhaps you should take some time to compose yourself. It's perfectly valid to criticize Sony and the PS3, they deserve it. However, when I can't even understand the points you're trying to make because of the tone you take, it's a bit hard to address them.

There will be a price drop in the next few months, of not then, then it will happen before the holidays.

Also, there has been significant manufacturing cost reductions, as evidenced by the standalone bluray players that are rapidly dropping in price. Those same cost saving measures put into bluray players can be moved to the PS3 for significant savings, along with their move to, I think, was the 45nm chip production which will reduce the cost of the system further.

Also, they are already working on AAA games as evidenced by Killzone 2 next week, inFamous in May, Uncharted 2 this holiday season, and I think there was 1 or 2 more. Not sure if Heavy Rain will make it, probably not for 2009, most likely early 2010. Then there's also the PSN titles like Fat Princess.

Honestly I really don't care what Sony says or what TMK says, I just look at the evidence. Ignore what Sony says just like you'd ignore what MS, or any PR salesperson would say and look at the real evidence. But at the same time don't let your anger, or preferences skew your observations. If you let that happen you're just as bad as any fanboy on either side.

Sony certainly isn't in a good position. They are very much in a bad spot, but it's not doom and gloom. If they make the right moves they can still end up profitable or break even this generation, which leaves them in shape to compete better in the next gen. But, if they keep making bad decisions we'll see a full collapse, especially now that credit is hard to come by for corporations. And to be frank, any idiot who wants Sony and the Playstation to outright die and fail leaving only 1 console on the market is a fool. Competition is always a good thing for us gamers and consumers.

[Mana Knight]

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH FUCKING BLAH

Sony is in the fire and crying cause they are getting burned.

Sony's goal was to sell 10 million consoles since the start of April 2008 to March 2009. So far they already achieved that.

Drop the price to compete so you get more consoles into homes and then crank out the AAA exclusives and start trying to make ends meet.

Sony has quite a few games in development right now for PS3. Some will be AAA, some will not (just how things go). If the people buying a PS3 during a price drop only bought it to buy used games, would that technically help Sony? Not really.

Sony is between a rock and a hard place right now and need to do something.

PS3 was initially $840 to produce and now costs $450. They have definitely done something.

Something is NOT making the console cheaper to produce over the next few weeks/months/years/wtf ever and keeping the price the same.

Actually, here's how it goes. The new 80GB has a 65nm RSX, which helped reduced the cost. The cost of an 80GB HDD dropped to being about the same (if not less compared to one year ago) for the 40GB HDD. Some may wonder, why did Sony go to an 80GB HDD. Because the 40GB HDD probably isn't being mass produced right now, it only costs around $1 or so extra to use an 80GB in manufacturing costs. Right now Sony is working on 45nm Cell (which should be out mid this year), 45nm RSX, and a combined RSX + Cell on a single piece of silicon (kind of like the EE + GS). They cut out the PS2 BC which allowed for reduction of components. They went from using a higher priced blu-ray diode at the beginning (because that's all there was) to a low cost blu-ray diode. Lots of things are being done to make PS3 cheaper, but its costs are still rather high (and it helps PS3 uses good components compared to most 360 SKUs using cheap components (which helps make it cheap, but then leads to more failures)).

For fucks sake...at least charge $20 a year for PSN so that you can make it look like you are trying.

While there might be money made in that, most likely there would be a small percentage (I'd say around 20-25%) of PS3 owners who may pay that. But would it help against a significant pricecut? Not really.

Don't worry Sony - there are PLENTY of Thomas96's, TMK's, and Smiggity's that will pay for the service no matter how much it is.

I wouldn't pay for a service. Paying once isn't so bad, but paying every year is what gets me.

But like I said, depending upon how much 45nm decreases PS3 costs, that will determine if the price gets cut. If the PS3 costs can dip below $400, I think we'll see a $50 cut. Personally, I don't see a $100 cut unless a slim PS3 comes out (which reduces components, overall size, and is a complete redesign to save money). I think it MIGHT happen at the end of the year though.

[willardhaven]

At $299 I would definitely consider a PS3. I don't get why everyone hates the PS3 so much, the exclusives are good and the multi-platform games are fine with the added benefit of the best current controller.

The point of the PS3 was to help win the Blu-Ray HD-DVD war, and I think it played a part in that.

[Ronin317]

While there might be money made in that, most likely there would be a small percentage (I'd say around 20-25%) of PS3 owners who may pay that. But would it help against a significant pricecut? Not really. I wouldn't pay for a service. Paying once isn't so bad, but paying every year is what gets me.

What makes you say that only 20-25% of people would pay for the service? Not that I have numbers on Live, but online gaming is very important to a lot of people.

[Mana Knight]

At $299 I would definitely consider a PS3. I don't get why everyone hates the PS3 so much, the exclusives are good and the multi-platform games are fine with the added benefit of the best current controller.

The point of the PS3 was to help win the Blu-Ray HD-DVD war, and I think it played a part in that.

I think it will drop down to $299 by the end of the year (epescially if they come out with a slim or if the RSX + Cell are combined. T he console is perfectly fine overall (I truly love mine), just some like to hate on it because it seems to be the cool thing to do.

Well, that was part of the reason for sure. Technically, Sony wasn't suppose to drop the PS3 price in 2007 (their original goal was to hold its price tag, break even in late 2007, then probably drop in 2008). But since they really wanted to assure Blu-ray became the HD format, they went ahead with the price drop/cheaper SKU (down to $400, to match the cheapest blu-ray player at the time). Also, Sony's Electronics/Movie division chipped in quite a bit with PS3 marketing in 2007, which explains why we saw so many PS3 commercials in late 2007, price drop, and a good spike in sales. Once Sony achieved the goal of making blu-ray the HD format, they chose to not drop the price to make up for the 2007 price drop. And actually, PS3 was doing very well from January 08 - August 08 where it actually outsold 360 worldwide, but the 360 pricecut really helped the 360.

What makes you say that only 20-25% of people would pay for the service? Not that I have numbers on Live, but online gaming is very important to a lot of people.

Although there's a lot of PSN accounts created (although I mostly say a lot of those numbers comes from people who created 2nd accounts for losing password/email, sharing accounts, various foreign accounts, having a few accounts for various family members on one console, etc.), the percentage of PS3 owners actually connected to PSN is a lot lower. When going out to most stores and such, there's actually a lot higher percentage of people who don't even connect their PS3 online (some have no internet, some lack wireless router/ethernet cable, some don't see a reason to go online, some fear they'll get a virus, etc.). I'd roughly say 60% of PS3 owners worldwide go online (the number in Japan I know is VERY low). Next, the majority of PS3's userbase comes from Europe, and there are no PSN Cards or any form of pre-paid cards there. If the only way to pay for PSN was by credit card or something, that would also cut down on the amount of people who can subscribe. And there are many PS3 owners I know who said if they have to pay for PSN, they wouldn't be playing their PS3 online (it's one reason they are not paying for XBL Gold, or some are perfectly happy with XBL Gold and only use PSN because it costs them nothing).

Having a free service is one of the main promises Sony is trying to hold up on, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

[willardhaven]

TMK is right, a lot of PS3 owners are multi-platform and would only pay for one service.

Since Live is cheap and has a ton of users, they would likely choose Live over PSN.