- Status
captaincharisma
Distinguished
- Oct 13, 2004
- 1,844
- 0
- 20,060
or they will do like they did with other so called price cuts. just sell a 120GB version of the console at the same price of the current 80GB model and phase it out
Vettedude
Distinguished
- Apr 10, 2009
- 11
- 0
- 18,560
[citation][nom]Antilycus[/nom]Not going to happen, Sony is still losing Millions onf the PS3 production.[/citation]
That was a while ago. Sony moved the Cell to 45nm I think (of was it 65?) which cut costs a lot. Last I heard they were close to breaking even on each individual system.
That was a while ago. Sony moved the Cell to 45nm I think (of was it 65?) which cut costs a lot. Last I heard they were close to breaking even on each individual system.
antilycus
Distinguished
- Jun 1, 2006
- 397
- 0
- 18,930
Vettedude, if that were true, then why would they want to continue to lose money on it? That article, saying that it was about 20 bucks a system they were losing was during January 2009. So lets say they are generating a $5 profit. dropping the price another 100 bucks, is going to mean they'll sell for a $95 loss. Lets say that magic were to happen and sony where to magically start selling 8 million systems at the new price. That would be $760,000,000 (million) LOST. Think of it as if you were running Sony. The PS3 has done nothing but costs your company BILLIONS of dollars and you have yet to see a single cent of profit from it. Just getting to a positive on the production costs would seem like a god send. Dropping it another 100 dollars would be a STUPID business decision.
[citation][nom]vettedude[/nom]Why don't they cut the price by $50 and slap an Emotion Engine in there?[/citation]
It would be nice for consumers if Sony gave at least their higher sku backwards compatibility. They won't though because then they'd have to differentiate the fabrication, which costs money. Right now the hard-drive is the only difference, if I remember correctly. Really all PS3's should be backwards compatible, but apparently its not to be.
It would be nice for consumers if Sony gave at least their higher sku backwards compatibility. They won't though because then they'd have to differentiate the fabrication, which costs money. Right now the hard-drive is the only difference, if I remember correctly. Really all PS3's should be backwards compatible, but apparently its not to be.
[citation][nom]Antilycus[/nom]Vettedude, if that were true, then why would they want to continue to lose money on it? That article, saying that it was about 20 bucks a system they were losing was during January 2009. So lets say they are generating a $5 profit. dropping the price another 100 bucks, is going to mean they'll sell for a $95 loss. Lets say that magic were to happen and sony where to magically start selling 8 million systems at the new price. That would be $760,000,000 (million) LOST. Think of it as if you were running Sony. The PS3 has done nothing but costs your company BILLIONS of dollars and you have yet to see a single cent of profit from it. Just getting to a positive on the production costs would seem like a god send. Dropping it another 100 dollars would be a STUPID business decision.[/citation]
There's more to the business model than how much Sony makes off of the sale of each PS3 unit. I'm sure you've heard of the razor model which consists of losing money on the console but making a profit on the game/disc licensing to offset the loss. Historically, this model does work (as it has for the PS and PS2) but is contingent on the principle that mass adoption of the product (console) will lower manufacturing overhead costs in a timely manner to place production in to profitable operation. Material expenses would follow also in time as the technology involved matures and becomes more commonplace. Other cost savings such as scaling back features and combining chipsets are also commonplace in the quest to lower production costs of any product.
Granted, mass adoption (at the forecasted level) has not occured which is why Sony is having so much difficulty with the PS3 and lowering its production costs. I bring this up only because of the narrow analysis you provided in your comment above but I'm hoping I've shed some light on the issue.
There's more to the business model than how much Sony makes off of the sale of each PS3 unit. I'm sure you've heard of the razor model which consists of losing money on the console but making a profit on the game/disc licensing to offset the loss. Historically, this model does work (as it has for the PS and PS2) but is contingent on the principle that mass adoption of the product (console) will lower manufacturing overhead costs in a timely manner to place production in to profitable operation. Material expenses would follow also in time as the technology involved matures and becomes more commonplace. Other cost savings such as scaling back features and combining chipsets are also commonplace in the quest to lower production costs of any product.
Granted, mass adoption (at the forecasted level) has not occured which is why Sony is having so much difficulty with the PS3 and lowering its production costs. I bring this up only because of the narrow analysis you provided in your comment above but I'm hoping I've shed some light on the issue.
This is a little too late. I have waited so long for the PS3 to drop in price I may just end up waiting for the next round. Sony really killed themselves with this machine. It has been proven many times that price is one of the largest concerns for a new consul. I believe that is the major reason that the Jaguar never went any ware. Why get the 600 dollar system when there is another at 150 right next to it. The Wii has done so well not just because of the new controller scheme but because it is so cheap. I have a 360 and a Wii but not a PS3 even thought I wanted the PS3 more than the other 2 because it cost the same for the 2 systems.
[citation][nom]bill gates is your daddy[/nom]"and the start of the back to school shopping season," adding that this will, "naturally be a positive for the industry."There you go...tell little Billy and Susie to F'off wanting school supplies or new school clothes. Why should any child today need school supplies when an outdated console is more important. I personally am not shopping for game consoles when I am shopping for my children getting ready to head back to school.Corporations have lost all contact with reality.[/citation]
Sadly, I know families that give their sons/daughters PS3s, HDTVs, Gaming PCs, etc. just for doing their homework. I know people now, and I knew other kids when I was one. Guess parents are just desperate to get their kids to do their school work here in the home of the lazy, USA.
Sadly, I know families that give their sons/daughters PS3s, HDTVs, Gaming PCs, etc. just for doing their homework. I know people now, and I knew other kids when I was one. Guess parents are just desperate to get their kids to do their school work here in the home of the lazy, USA.
kewl munky
Distinguished
- Aug 4, 2008
- 20
- 0
- 18,560
I've been thinking of finally buying a PS3 being that I now have an HD tv and that there are more games out and soon to be out that I've been waiting for. If they cut the PS3 another $100 Sony will seal the deal with me for sure. Hell, they'll be able to compete a lot better with the 360, unless Microsoft does some sort of price cut. But I don't believe they can go much lower anytime soon.
If Sony was planning a price cut it would have to be one of the best kept secrets imaginable or else it would completely destroy and potential sales between now and the supposed drop date. I was considering a PS3 for my home theater projector and was reserved to the fact that Sony wasn't going to drop the price in a reasonable time frame. I don't necessarily believe this article but for $100 I'll wait it out just to be sure. I'm not really missing out on anything because I probably won't play many games anyways but really how many times have I heard about a price drop? Crossing my fingers...
The PS3 is a good price now, the problem is consumers are stupid.
You can buy a $#itbox 360 that's unreliable, and costs money to use online, or a Wii, which is a joke, and really no one is going to buy instead of a PS3. They'll buy it with one, or would not have considered a PS3 in the first place, being a different type of consumer.
So, really, Sony's problem is they overestimated the intelligence of the average buyer, who would understand the value of their console and online community and services, and would understand the initial cost of the console is really very little compared to the ending cost of a game system when you factor in game purchases.
Still, the console is far from a failure and has sold double figures in millions, and is hardly suffering from bad economy of scale and still sells enough software vendors will write for it. For all the people who haven't bought the system, who are interested in it, just ask yourself a question. Would Sony prefer to sell you a system they will lose money on, or would they prefer to sell you a system when they can make a profit, or break even? Clearly, they'd rather make their move when it's not so painful to, although I'm sure they'd lower their price if the console sales fell below 'critical mass' levels, which they are not even close to.
So, they'll lower the price when they can without hurting themselves too much. They have time, the console still has a long time left in it's life cycle, and its not like they have serious competition when they do decide to make a move. One is slow and a shameful excuse for a modern gaming machine, and the other is a unreliable piece of crap, made by a monopoly that names search engines after cherry varieties, and charges money to use their online services.
When Sony can afford to sell a lot of machines, I think they can considering their weak competition. I don't think they want to sell too many right now, but that will change when component costs go down.
You can buy a $#itbox 360 that's unreliable, and costs money to use online, or a Wii, which is a joke, and really no one is going to buy instead of a PS3. They'll buy it with one, or would not have considered a PS3 in the first place, being a different type of consumer.
So, really, Sony's problem is they overestimated the intelligence of the average buyer, who would understand the value of their console and online community and services, and would understand the initial cost of the console is really very little compared to the ending cost of a game system when you factor in game purchases.
Still, the console is far from a failure and has sold double figures in millions, and is hardly suffering from bad economy of scale and still sells enough software vendors will write for it. For all the people who haven't bought the system, who are interested in it, just ask yourself a question. Would Sony prefer to sell you a system they will lose money on, or would they prefer to sell you a system when they can make a profit, or break even? Clearly, they'd rather make their move when it's not so painful to, although I'm sure they'd lower their price if the console sales fell below 'critical mass' levels, which they are not even close to.
So, they'll lower the price when they can without hurting themselves too much. They have time, the console still has a long time left in it's life cycle, and its not like they have serious competition when they do decide to make a move. One is slow and a shameful excuse for a modern gaming machine, and the other is a unreliable piece of crap, made by a monopoly that names search engines after cherry varieties, and charges money to use their online services.
When Sony can afford to sell a lot of machines, I think they can considering their weak competition. I don't think they want to sell too many right now, but that will change when component costs go down.
kewl munky
Distinguished
- Aug 4, 2008
- 20
- 0
- 18,560
[citation][nom]ta152h[/nom]The PS3 is a good price now, the problem is consumers are stupid. You can buy a $#itbox 360 that's unreliable, and costs money to use online, or a Wii, which is a joke, and really no one is going to buy instead of a PS3. They'll buy it with one, or would not have considered a PS3 in the first place, being a different type of consumer. So, really, Sony's problem is they overestimated the intelligence of the average buyer, who would understand the value of their console and online community and services, and would understand the initial cost of the console is really very little compared to the ending cost of a game system when you factor in game purchases. Still, the console is far from a failure and has sold double figures in millions, and is hardly suffering from bad economy of scale and still sells enough software vendors will write for it. For all the people who haven't bought the system, who are interested in it, just ask yourself a question. Would Sony prefer to sell you a system they will lose money on, or would they prefer to sell you a system when they can make a profit, or break even? Clearly, they'd rather make their move when it's not so painful to, although I'm sure they'd lower their price if the console sales fell below 'critical mass' levels, which they are not even close to.So, they'll lower the price when they can without hurting themselves too much. They have time, the console still has a long time left in it's life cycle, and its not like they have serious competition when they do decide to make a move. One is slow and a shameful excuse for a modern gaming machine, and the other is a unreliable piece of crap, made by a monopoly that names search engines after cherry varieties, and charges money to use their online services. When Sony can afford to sell a lot of machines, I think they can considering their weak competition. I don't think they want to sell too many right now, but that will change when component costs go down.[/citation]
Well if you're going to bring up issues that are from the early days let's do the same with the Play Suck 3. Overpriced and hardly any games where most of the good games are on the 360 as well. Now today there is a good library with some great exclusives as well.
One thing that makes me laugh is that people knock the 360 for having to pay for xboxlive. I take month breaks from my 360 but it's still worth $50 a year. You get a great amount for it. You get achievements, party chat, millions of things you can download like extra game content, movies, music, and tv shows. You constantly hear about what's new with xboxlive but the last time I heard something about the PS3 network was that Home project and that was a good year or so ago.
And on a side note Microsoft lost money on every 360 sold when it first came out. I admit that they made some cheap hardware choices but I think they finally made it worth the money just like the PS3 is finally down to a reasonable price.
Well if you're going to bring up issues that are from the early days let's do the same with the Play Suck 3. Overpriced and hardly any games where most of the good games are on the 360 as well. Now today there is a good library with some great exclusives as well.
One thing that makes me laugh is that people knock the 360 for having to pay for xboxlive. I take month breaks from my 360 but it's still worth $50 a year. You get a great amount for it. You get achievements, party chat, millions of things you can download like extra game content, movies, music, and tv shows. You constantly hear about what's new with xboxlive but the last time I heard something about the PS3 network was that Home project and that was a good year or so ago.
And on a side note Microsoft lost money on every 360 sold when it first came out. I admit that they made some cheap hardware choices but I think they finally made it worth the money just like the PS3 is finally down to a reasonable price.
hillarymakesmecry
Distinguished
- Feb 24, 2009
- 293
- 0
- 18,930
Does anyone really care about Madden anymore? I've got like 5 outadated copies. Is it worth paying for an upgraded roster every year? Get it every 3-4 years and you'll never notice a change.
[citation][nom]hillarymakesmecry[/nom]Does anyone really care about Madden anymore? I've got like 5 outadated copies. Is it worth paying for an upgraded roster every year? Get it every 3-4 years and you'll never notice a change.[/citation]
I'll make this quick. I totally agree with you and I apply that logic to all sports franchises.
With the advent of DLC, I don't know why sports games don't just issue updated rosters in the form of DLC and work on updating the main game engine every 2-3 years and release a new game accordingly. Its obviously not an easy transition but I would expect at the very least that they offer updated rosters in DLC form to see if consumers would bite.
I'll make this quick. I totally agree with you and I apply that logic to all sports franchises.
With the advent of DLC, I don't know why sports games don't just issue updated rosters in the form of DLC and work on updating the main game engine every 2-3 years and release a new game accordingly. Its obviously not an easy transition but I would expect at the very least that they offer updated rosters in DLC form to see if consumers would bite.
crisisavatar
Distinguished
- Mar 20, 2009
- 30
- 0
- 18,580
[citation][nom]td854[/nom]Sadly, I know families that give their sons/daughters PS3s, HDTVs, Gaming PCs, etc. just for doing their homework. I know people now, and I knew other kids when I was one. Guess parents are just desperate to get their kids to do their school work here in the home of the lazy, USA.[/citation]
Could you be more of an idiot ?
On another note I + 1 the notion of the costumer not being "knowledgeable" enough to clearly see the ps3 as the better console. I also don't think the current ps3 pricing is that bad but I do think software prices are out of control.
The day games drop to at least 40 USD is the day I think consoles will start winning. As it stands a large group of people limit themselves to getting the must haves every x months instead of getting a variate of stuff they would enjoy and this in my eyes leads to the the non big titles to not make a decent enough profit and push out even more crappy titles after bitching about "high development costs" when they themselves are the ones limiting the product in both frontiers ( price and content ). Thankfully we are here to fund the idiots indefinitely until they get a model that is more advantageous for both parties. This is like DVD and UMD for the psp all over again, do they honestly think watching a movie in a 4.1" screen is worth the same as in my 47" hdtv ? it doesn't even compute,
get it together rip off industry.
Could you be more of an idiot ?
On another note I + 1 the notion of the costumer not being "knowledgeable" enough to clearly see the ps3 as the better console. I also don't think the current ps3 pricing is that bad but I do think software prices are out of control.
The day games drop to at least 40 USD is the day I think consoles will start winning. As it stands a large group of people limit themselves to getting the must haves every x months instead of getting a variate of stuff they would enjoy and this in my eyes leads to the the non big titles to not make a decent enough profit and push out even more crappy titles after bitching about "high development costs" when they themselves are the ones limiting the product in both frontiers ( price and content ). Thankfully we are here to fund the idiots indefinitely until they get a model that is more advantageous for both parties. This is like DVD and UMD for the psp all over again, do they honestly think watching a movie in a 4.1" screen is worth the same as in my 47" hdtv ? it doesn't even compute,
get it together rip off industry.
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question Lenovo Yoga book 9i vs. Asus Zenbook duo
- Started by szcad
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
Question Question about if an older model laptop with upgraded parts will work as well for video editing
- Started by Reese Miller
- Replies: 3
-
Question Transferring iPhone 8 (iOS 14.5) to new 15: Upgrade 8’s iOS & best method of transfer
- Started by autozonejawana
- Replies: 0
Facebook
Twitter