Network now...NEWS
Analyst Urges PS3 Price Cut
By Kris Graft
October 7, 2008
See also:
Related Articles:
"With PS3 titles for this including Resistance 2, LittleBigPlanet, SOCOM, MotorStorm: Pacific Rift to name but a few of our multiple exclusives, combined with PlayStation Home and increasing multimedia features for the hardware, we expect to have continued momentum going into and beyond this holiday season."
Update: Added SCEA response.
PlayStation 3 has been fighting tooth and nail with Xbox 360 month after month in the high-def console race.
But Electronic Entertainment Design and Research analyst Jesse Divnich fears that the price disparity between the $199 Xbox 360 Arcade and $399 PS3 will be a turn-off for potential mainstream Sony consumers in the U.S. this holiday.
"We still urge Sony to consider a possible hardware price cut this holiday season," he wrote in a research note. "If September hardware sales fall below our estimate (under 200,000 units), it could be an indication that the Xbox 360 price cut played a bigger role on hindering PS3 sales than what we originally expected."
Microsoft dropped the price of its entire three-model Xbox 360 line in early September, with the low-end Arcade reaching the coveted sub-$200 price point.
Due to the price cut, Divnich expects Xbox 360 sales to rise month-on-month by 31 percent to 300,000 units during September in the U.S.
PS3 sales are estimated to have dropped 7 percent to 43,000 units per week during the month.
Sony has reiterated this year that it would not be dropping the price of the PS3 for the holidays.
Patrick Seybold, director of corporate communications at SCEA told Edge in an e-mail that he expects PS3 to maintain the momentum it has gained against Xbox 360 throughout 2008.
"As previously discussed we aren't making any price moves this holiday season. In my opinion, we have the best line up of any PlayStation generation going into this holiday and consumers will be very receptive to it," Seybold stated.
"With PS3 titles for this including Resistance 2, LittleBigPlanet, SOCOM, MotorStorm: Pacific Rift to name but a few of our multiple exclusives, combined with PlayStation Home and increasing multimedia features for the hardware, we expect to have continued momentum going into and beyond this holiday season."
Divnich added, "We should note that if Microsoft’s first-party titles perform significantly better in quality and popularity than Sony’s this holiday season, we could begin to see a considerable amount of potential PS3 owners, who may be waiting for a PS3 price cut, to choose the Xbox 360 over the PS3.
"Currently, we expect Gears of War 2 to be the single best selling SKU this holiday season."
The analyst noted that PS3 exclusives Resistance 2 and LittleBigPlanet will drive sales in the core market, but said they'd do little to reach mainstream audiences due to PS3 hardware price tags.
"The $399 price point is simply too steep to entice the casual and mainstream markets, regardless of how great Resistance 2 and LittleBigPlanet may be," he stated.
Contact Us / About Us / Advertise With Us / BeltwayBlips / TechBlips / MassiveBlips / GamerBlips / FAQ
Subscribe To Edge Magazine / Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
Subscribe To Edge Magazine / Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
Tekken 6 is now "officially" announced for the Xbox 360.
Little Big Planet is "officially" being criticized a LOT by reviewers who have played the game, because it has VERY IMPRECISE CONTROLS that are so incredibly imprecise that some people have called the game "random" at times. When a game has controls that are so inaccurate so often that they are called "random" you KNOW the game is FAR too imprecise.
The word form the Tokyo Game Show is that Little Big Planet is quite a flop.
...and honestly, the way that some people claim that this is the "multi-platform generation" where we don't see third-party exclusive games anymore obviously haven't seen the Xbox 360 lately.
Just before Tekken 6 was announced for the Xbox 360, Ninety-Nine Nights 2 was announced as an Xbox 360 exclusive game. Star Ocean 4: The Last Hope was also announced as an "officially" exclusive game for the Xbox 360. The Last Remant from Square Enix will also be released only for the Xbox 360 this year...and in case you don't remember, Infinite Undiscovery from Square Enix, and Tales of Vesperia from Namco were awesome RPG games that were released ONLY for the Xbox 360.
...And then there are the genres like Puzzle, Platform, Real-Time Strategy, and many others. Everything from Tetris, Command & Conquer 3, Universe at War, Battle for Midearth 2, Red Alert and so many others are third-party games released for PC and Xbox 360, but NOT for Playstation 3.
Until Sony gets games in every genre, it doesn't make sense to lower the price of the Playstation 3. The system could cost only $50, but if someone enjoys playing Real-Time Strategy games, they have ZERO reasons to by the Playstation 3, even though the system has been on the market for THREE shopping seasons!
Man...three shopping seasons and still ZERO games on the Playstation 3 in several genres. Who would have EVER thought the Playstation 3 would be THAT DISAPPOINTING! Sadly, it is...That's not "fanboy" talk, and that's not "employee" talk. That is the truth. Three shopping seasons and ZERO games in certain genres. Until problems like that are fixed, Sony is going to continue having problems. And releasing "Prologue" $40 expensive demo versions of games isn't what gamers want.
Man... you're the biggest troll in the history of trolling.
As a former (and possible future) 360 owner I'm ashamed of your zealotry.
Do you know what 'counterproductive' means?
As Gex4212 believes, I think the PS3 is a fantastic value, even a $399. It's compatability with the PSP is underrated. The day the PSP can make/receive cellular calls, it's on like hot-butter on popcorn. As a former PS & PS2 owner, I bought a 360 simply because I wanted to game. I don't dl movies, shows, nor do I game online much (hopefully, that will change soon). My needs are sufficiently fulfilled right now.
I think the PS3 will pick up steam this holiday but will struggle in the wake of 360 prices. Sony, eventually, will be gamers' and developers' console of choice this generation. It's just going to take until 2010 to get there. By 2012, the next generation will be the focus as the PS3 will have laid claim to this generation. It's true.
I think I heard a similar argument before coming from some analysts but also remembered and to the most part agreed that while there is a chance that by 2012 the PS3 will be on the lead it will be such a minimal advantage and nowhere near the PS2 domination last console generation. Maybe a 55% VS 45% market share (not counting the Wii here) I think the most important aspect will be the number of games consumers buy and so far the 360 has a good lead there.
We'll see what happens but if you ask me by the time Sony gets to drop the price on the PS3 to $199, Microsoft will probably have the Arcade model costing around $129 or maybe even $99. To me there is no way to know how the market will react and there wont be a clear winner this generation (again, not counting the Wii).
I will remember where I first heard it :-)
Sony won't drop price until after the Holiday Season or they risk a revolt from their shareholders. Too many people on these forums see things only from the perspective of gamers and their respective bragging rights.
Sony is a publically owned company which stated in their financial earnings reports that they were committed to profitability over market share. The PS3 hardware simply costs too much for Sony to afford a price drop given the sales and attach rate of the software for the system (it won't make up for the difference). By Spring, the hardware costs will have come down enough to justify a price drop. None of the console makers has to "win" the race to be profitable now that the gaming market has grown to it's current size.
The only thing Sony has to be concerned about is their ability to ensure that the install base remains significant enough for third party developers to justify the costs and time to develop for this system (which costs more and takes longer to develop for). There is a very real possibility that PS3 will be outsold by such a wide margin this Holiday Season that some third parties (with questionable ROI for lesser known releases) will go back to only developing for the 360.
Sony finds itself in a difficult position and this Holiday Season likely represents the defining moment of this generation. Personally, I think they'll pull through but there's no question when all is said and done that this generation can only be viewed as disastrous for Sony - in any other industry, a drop in market share of this size can only be viewed as such - even if a profit is eventually made.
Very good points, I couldn't agree with you more. Certainly a lot is at stake this holiday season for Sony, with Little Big Planet and Resistance 2 (the 2 of the most important games on the PS3 life cycle so far) if they get beaten by Microsoft by a large margin it will be a serious blow to Sony and we might begin to see a similar, but not as dramatic, shift on 3rd party support like it happened to the PSP.
Agreed.
Sony may not be losing from an equilibrium perspective but in comparison to what they had during the previous generations with the PS1 and PS2, they are losing big time. And what's ironic to me is that they don't really have a reason to. Most of the mistakes made by Sony when producing and marketing the PS3 has been their own fault, and risks not even worth taking. Now they are going to make a big mistake again by not aggressively marketing their console in time for spending-season number one.
Say what you want about the 360 as a machine, because it has some severe flaws no doubt, but MS has done numerous things right when marketing it. And in the end that's what's important, not whether it's better or not. And I'm definitely no expert but I'm pretty sure that by the end of the holiday the 360 will have won yet another duel too.
Surely share holders would rather see the PS3 marketed at a more aggressive price point to increase sales rather than just sit back and watch poor sales. I guess they could be in it for the marathon and not the sprint though. Anyway, I'm sure they know what they're doing. It seems to be only the PS3 brand that is a causing them bother.. they're creaming it in other areas.
Sony need to cut the price of the PS3 in time for christmas! For me personally, i'll be getting a 360 this christmas due to a) price b) most multi-platform games are better on 360, plus it has loads of exclusives i.e. Mass Effect, etc and finally c) XBLA.
If the PS3 were £200/£179.99 then it would be a possible purchase over the 360, but Sony are being arrogant, this mind-set will cost them in the long run.
I've got a feeling that Sony will wait until just before Christmas to drop the pressure.. I mean price. It could create a fanfare and really create a buzz.. well that or just stubbornly keep selling a few units a month for the same price. I think they'd be stupid not to drop the price this holiday season. If they want LBP to do the sales it deserves then it should consider it. You heard me Sony! ;-)
Let's not forget that the 360 is also the console of hidden costs. MS charges extra for a harddrive you have to buy from them. MS charges for online functionality which is not an issue if you are gaming daily, but it will sure scare away the casual crowd. The 360 has a scary reputation of breaking down, which causes fear from potential costs for repairs. You need to buy a proprietary headset here, don't forget rechargeable batteries there and never forget the HD-DVD flop.
The 360 is no better or worse than the PS3 in terms of the hardware. The 360 is the cheaper impulse buy. But it would be interesting to calculate the cumulative costs of the 360 over its life in an American home.
While I do agree in some things you say I have to disagree in others, for example what you mention on the 360 being a console of hidden costs I have to say that is a little exaggeration and in the end not important at all when going to the store to buy a console, to my appreciation a little as 1% or less of the people will think of cumulative costs, they will see the prices on the consoles at the store and see the games available, then make their purchase.
The argument on having to pay for online gaming on the 360 is considered by most (and by that I mean game magazines and industry people in general) as insignificant since the experience that LIVE provides as a whole is way ahead of anything offered on the other systems and thus worthy to pay for it.
The hard drive you only need to buy it if you get the $199 Arcade system which even after getting a 20 or 60 GB HDD is still cheaper than the $399 PS3, also if you get the PRO model with the hard drive included is a $100 cheaper and you are set to go from the start, hard drive and all.
On the HD-DVD area few consider it a flop, at least not on Microsoft part since the loser there is Toshiba and not Microsoft, people who bought it got a good deal at the time and even when the format was discontinued many buyers decided to keep it to take advantage of the massive discounted HD-DVD movies. The main point here is that MS gave the consumers a choice to get in the HD experience, if people wanted to only play games there was nothing to stop them, they simply choose no to get the add-on. We can't really say the same on Sony's part when the PS3 came out with no rumble on the controllers cause it was "last gen", I consider that more of a flop than the HD-DVD since early adopters got stuck with a controller that wont take advantage of many features used in recent and future games like MGS4 and "had" to spend and extra $50 for a new controller.
Finally, with the RROD, while I admit that it was an ugly chapter in the 360, with the new warranty and the publicity surrounding the cost of over 1 billion that Microsoft had to pay, several magazines (EDGE included) pointed out that consumer trust on the brand wasn't harmed by the incident and in some cases made for great publicity for the Microsoft, making them look good in the eyes of many by owing up to their big screw up.
Ok 4th, a few holes in your argument.
First,"MS charges extra for a hard drive you have to buy from them"
They don't charge "extra". The pro with 60 gigs is 100 bucks less than the cheapest PS3. You don't have to buy a hard drive if you buy the arcade unit, and with the memory card that comes with it, you can play all the major multi-platform games that are also available on the $200 more expensive PS3...and you don't HAVE TO have a hard drive.
Second,
"MS charges for online functionality which is not an issue if you are gaming daily, but it will sure scare away the casual crowd"
Sorry bro, the casual crowd could care less about online multiplayer, I think Nintendo proved that in spades with the Wii's online multiplayer, or lack thereof. And there is a free online service for the 360 that offers everything BUT online multiplayer.
Third
"The 360 has a scary reputation of breaking down, which causes fear from potential costs for repairs"
You did say potential, I'll give you that, but with a pretty solid 1 year bumper to bumper warranty and a 3 year RRoD warranty, I think "potential" repair costs is a non-issue.
Fourth,
"You need to buy a proprietary headset here"
You obviously haven't purchased a 360 ever, as the 360 comes with a headset AND component cables, neither of which come with the PS3 (shit, the elite comes with HDMI cables for crying out loud).
Fifth, “and never forget the HD-DVD flop."
You may or may not know, but HD-DVD failing was a blow to Toshiba not MS. Yeah, MS backed it, but it wasn't a MS created product, they just offered it. Plus, digital distribution has proven to be so successful with the 360 (offering more HD content than ANY digital provider in the world, not just for a gaming console, but ANY digital medium) Sony was willing to potentially cannibalize their own BluRay sales by jumping on the digital distribution bandwagon with the PS3. The best thing MS did is NOT include a dead-on-arrival technology in their system. They had their own plans...^^
Ok, so, we could calculate the cost difference, but with so many OPTIONS the 360 offers, it would be a hard comparison. Sony forces you to pay EXTRA for their proprietary high def disc player (BluRay is just a 1080p disc player, just like HDDVD but with different laser technology) whether you want it or not, not to mention also charging extra for WIFI (again, whether you want it or not) and doesn't include a headset or any HD cables. We could compare the prices with so many different options, but in the end, the PS3 still reins as most expensive in almost every conceivable way.
I owned a 360 before, so I know some of the 'issues' first hand. I hate for a reason. The headset was my first opponent, some sort of a running gag. Impressive how MS eliminated the controller cable which never bothered me and then gave me a headset cable which was totally bothering me. On top of that, the first added costs to the system were either batteries or some MS rechargeable solution. And no, my household did not have rechargeable batteries, the 80ies are over, every walkman, razor and other electrical appliance has its own proprietary solution these days; since the 90ies actually.
Off to the online, but wait, I do not play online that often. I got a PC for that. 360 was cheaper than a PC upgrade and promised good games, while my preferred online shooters and rpgs were not that demanding on my PC hardware. So my incentive to go Gold subscription was at an all time low. I never played Live regular enough to think the price was worth it. MS seemed to think the same, since they now bundled "exclusive" demos for a week with Gold, which is even stranger. Shouldn't all potential customers be advertised?
The thing had a 20GB disk which was the gentle way of saying "for real functionality, buy a larger one". So they made a 60, which I guess would be fine if the disc based HD delivery system worked. The people hailing Xbox features as their personal Jesus will most likely have to buy the largest disc available from MS.
The warranty drew close, Europe has a mandatory 2-year warranty on everything electric and I never seen MS Europe communicate anything beyond that. So when somebody made me a reasonable offer, I sold it. Another reason to sell was the lack of digital video output. Owning a PC I am sensitive to that, and connecting component cable is the highway to hell. The picture will just be blurry, no matter what you do.
So either I buy the largest version of the XboX available (which I did back then), or the whole thing isn't really that cheap. On top of that, there is other costs which will trickle down the road. Still, I did not use the money from selling my 360 to buy another upgraded version. I just tried the PS3. Why? Because I can. Sure, I wonder what will happen when the internal battery of the controller breaks, but at least my headset is also wireless and the console itself can do WiFi out of the box (monster plus). Sure, the head set sound is still an abomination to human engineering and I still do not use online that much, but overall I found the experience to be more agreeable. The PS3 has its flaws, but nothing which annoyed me to the degree the 360 did.
About the online part... if you say that you don't play online and that you have a PC for that then why argue that aspect of the 360? You get your online need for multiplayer shooters and RPGs on the PC then its good that only if you want to get only on LIVE you have to pay.
On the other hand if people care a lot for online multiplayer on their 360 then they definitely have to pay extra, but as many people have pointed out the LIVE experience and service is such that it totally justify the what you pay for the service. I have made some great friendships from people half across the world and we have a blast playing different games and that is because of the whole experience that LIVE offers and the PSN doesn't, to me if they ended up offering a service like LIVE where but you have to pay for it I wouldn't consider it a bad move on Sony's part.
As someone who actually had BOTH systems, I think you're points have several holes too.
1) You have to have a HDD if you want to install games fully to your 360 (and because of the faulty HD-DVD driver you want to I bet), or have an extensive arcade library (which you have I presume).
2) The casual crowd (not the Wii crowd perhaps) care about online multiplayer, and 360 owners care too. It's not their fault if they don't have a cheaper / free alternative on their system of choice. Oh and the silver restrictions (like Sony's Qore with some delayed demos) are disgusting, period.
3) You say 'I think "potential" repair costs is a non-issue.' I say you don't have to use quotation marks there.
4) true, true, true, moving on
5) It doesn't help that Toshiba suffered the bigger blow with the HD-DVD format. MS knows that the DVD isn't enough anymore, whatever they say about DLC.
Just for the argument's sake.
@gyak For someone who has owned both systems you seem remarkably ill informed about all matters 360, so point for point;
1. You can't install full games until the next update, coming November, and you never could use the HD-DVD drive for anything but movies (and the driver works fine). Assuming you are referring to XBLA games then your point is null and void as once you have bought an Xbox live arcade game you are free to download it as many times as you wish so, even if you only have a memory cart, you still have access to the full arcade library.
2. Xbox Live is recognised as great online service, if you can afford broadband then you can probably afford £40 a year for a superior online experience. If you don't want to pay then Silver membership offers everything but online play (waiting one extra week for game demos isn't going to kill you), and given that M$ gives 48 hours (or more) free online play with almost every live enabled release you still get to indulge in the multiplayer experience before you decide if you want to pay for it.
3. If you're a new customer then you can rest assured that the RROD is a thing of the past, the new 360s with a manufacturing date (MFR) as early as 2008-08-06 come with the new Jasper chipset. Even if you do somehow manage to get a 360 with the original Xenon motherboard (not used since May 2007) then you are covered for a full 3yrs (even in Europe) and wont have to pay anything (even shipping) to get a replacement.
4.Not much that needs saying here except to 4thVariety. If you don't like the free headset you get with a 360 because of the wire then get the wireless one. It's not like the wired headset plugs directly into the 360 leaving wires trailing across the room, it plugs into the controller.
5. Do you not think Sony are suffering for forcing Blu-Ray on all PS3 owners, why do you think they can't yet lower the price. If the PS3 had a dvd drive instead it would be a whole lot cheaper and would probably be dominating the hardware race just like in the previous two generations.
To say 'DVD isn't enough anymore' seems a little OTT as, at worse, you may have to swap disks a few times in a very large game, and given that GTA, Bioshock, Mass Effect, Gears of War, Halo and almost all 360 games, with the exception of some JRPGs, fit on one disk, where is the problem. Also, come November you will be able to install your games on a HD equipped 360.
As for HD-DVD, at least M$ gave you a choice, you didn't have to buy one if you didn't want one.
@ Nolim. Here's some more nitpicking just for you.
"You can't install full games until the next update" -- I know and this just justifies my statement above.
"you never could use the HD-DVD drive for anything but movies" -- never said anything about that, I was talking about the driver's quality (it may works for you even if it's crap).
"once you have bought an Xbox live arcade game you are free to download it as many times as you wish" -- as on PSN, but let's stay on topic. So you're one of those guys who like to uninstall / install their games between playing sessions. It works on the Wii, and it works on the 360 Arcade, no big deal -- I for myself like to have everything on my HDD at the same time, and I like to have some more space for music, pictures, FREE themes etc. But again I'm not you.
"if you can afford broadband then you can probably afford £40 a year for a superior online experience" -- always fascinated by this argument, really. To answer your implied question: yes I could afford it, and no I won't. And it's not THAT superior experience (if any).
"waiting one extra week for game demos isn't going to kill you" -- perfectly right, but you know what I'm saying... they want to sell me things and I might cancel my preorders or change my mind (honestly, the very same is true to Sony's Qore).
"the RROD is a thing of the past" -- (in best Joker's voice) "No. It's noT." You wish it would.
"[blah-blah] then you are covered for a full 3yrs (even in Europe) and wont have to pay anything (even shipping) to get a replacement" -- you know what? Just the opposite happened to me in Europe. Lesson learned, sold the ol' 360 to a venturesome friend, bought a PS3.
"If the PS3 had a dvd drive instead" -- it would be dead in the water like the 360 will be in 2-3 years. Mark my word.
"As for HD-DVD, at least M$ gave you a choice, you didn't have to buy one if you didn't want one." -- Simply hilarious. How gentle.
@gyak Sorry to hear you had a bad RRoD experience, hopefully your venturesome friend got it replaced ok. Would love to know why you think it's still a problem with the new chipsets, any facts you can post would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks for your condolence.
By 'venturesome' I meant he had to get someone to repair it for good so he lost the warranty automatically. So no replacement. "Would love to know why you think it's still a problem with the new chipsets" -- oh it's easy, half of my friends had or having the infamous plague (rrod or disc read error, you name it), the other half just waiting for the inevitable. Some of them bought the damned thing recently.
Just a few thing I would like to comment, not to convince you or anything but to express my experience with the 360 compared to the PS3.
Online, its better on the 360 hands down, my roommate has a PS3 so you can say that I own both systems, still I do want a PS3 for myself mind you, the way I can interact with people and keep in touch with the friends I made is just way better that the multiplayer experience I get on the PS3 which is just play and not much social at all. This might change with HOME, I really hope so, but until it comes out there is no way of saying.
I wanted a media remote for my 360 so I bought a used HD-DVD for really cheap and now I have a collection of over 20 HD movies all costing me less than $11 each (except the Harry Potter gift set which was the 5 movies for $60) all with shipping included, pretty good deal if you ask me, my roommate had to pay between $10 - $15 more for some of the same movies on Blu-ray. I know eventually I will have to buy them on Blu-ray but at least not the one's I already own on HD-DVD.
I live in Mexico and me and some friends have run into the RROD me only once but others more than that, sorry about your experience in Europe but here I got my new console within 2-3 days after shipping the broken one and I didn't have to pay for anything, same with my amigos.
And finally the 360 definitely will be older than the PS3 in 2-3 years but the real question will be if the blu-ray becomes as dominant as a format or will digital downloads will take away its thunder? The Net-Flix deal I believe will give the 360 more legs in the console race to compete with the PS3 in later years. Before there DVD was the choice for storage as a medium now there is digital downloads, HDDs, and so far the DVD according to analyst will be around for 5-6 years (for movies at least this is a no brainer).
This could probably be found with a little googling, but I'd really like a trusted source giving their respectively numbers for every statistic.
So, does anyone know of any site where they compare PS3 and 360 success (numbers sold, cost of manufactoring, profit per machine etc) and technical data (in comparison to each other and preferrably in a language a layman can understand) objectively? Would be greatly appreciated, as you here different things everywhere about whether the Xbox has in fact some better components and if the PS3 gains more per machine sold etc etc
Thanks in advance, and sorry if it all sounds very daft :-)
Don't think there is such a site, but I think the general consensus is that with Wifi, BluRay, and the rest of what is in the PS3, that they are losing much more per system even at the high cost of the PS3 than MS is losing with the 360. MS did release their profit numbers for a few quarters last fiscal year and the 360 was in the green, something that can't be said about the PS3. Sorry no links for proof, just what I have read. You can go http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/NPD_Seventh_generation for some solid console sales data (for US sales mostly, with a little digging, you may be able to dig up some overseas, but its mainly US sales data).
While the Elite and the PS3 are both $399, the PRO models is $100 cheaper and the machine does the same things that the Elite does, so why would a regular (non-hardcore) guy would buy the Elite? Most people will buy the PRO model and spend the extra hundred compared to getting the PS3 on an extra controller and GoW2 to play with their friends.
If we apply the same situation to a typical family the perception is even bigger since the parents will look at the arcade model and its $199 as a better proposition to get the kids a system for the holidays, and before anyone mentions the Blu-ray as a reason for a family to go with the PS3 cause it has a better value. Statistically speaking DVD sales are still going strong and with the up scaling of movies the "need" to go HD on movies is quite small. Plus with the economy the way it is parents wont be looking to buy HD movies that are $15 more expensive than the good old DVD.
Sony definitely needs to either drop the price or come out with good enough compelling reasons in a massive marketing campaign to convince people to buy the PS3 or at least make them compare the PS3 versus the Elite so the arguments in most comments can be taken into consideration.
By the way I do hope they drop the price at least by $50 since I been holding up on getting a PS3, like I mentioned in the reasons above Sony has yet to make a good argument yet to make me spend my money on a PS3, now, I own a 360 for about 2 years now and with most of my friend getting it cause it has so far more games, a more integrated and for me better online experience and is also cheaper I end up buying more games to play with friends instead of taking the plunge with a PS3. Don't get me wrong I do want to buy a PS3 since way back but the price and lack of games before held me back. I hope this holiday the situation changes.
The bottom line to me is "perception" of value and to the regular consumer specially in a moment like this in the economy, the price IS a major factor.
I can't help but think that families looking to get a console this holiday will not get a 360 simply because the Wii is looming right there, is in more demand, and comes bundled with a game that everyone and their grandmother wants. Microsoft is trying to grab that market and I am not so sure the Arcade can stand against the Wii.
You're absolutely right, if a family goes on to look for any system the Wii is the obvious choice hands down, my arguments were more towards what some people call the HD system war, this is where Sony has an uphill battle and Microsoft has the upper hand right now IMHO, the Wii has been such a smash success that Microsoft in trying to get some of the Nintendo market share going casual.
But if sony cuts the price of the ps3, people might think it was a kids toy, like the DSi.
And then do something crazy like, oh, buy one.
James, you always crack me up. Nice point though.
Count me on this potential PS3 buyer list, and I doubt I'm alone. Rather, I would imagine that there are many who have, like me, been scared off of an XBox 360 purchase by the RRoD fiasco and Microsoft's obfuscation of the hardware updates which supposedly fix it, and who have been waiting for the PS3 library to fill out and the price to drop before the console provides enough value for the purchase price. These factors are all dovetailing as we head into the holiday season, so it will be interesting to see how Sony reacts to the story's analysis as it is echoed by others.
I've got $300-350 ready to drop on a console before the end of the year (already have a Wii), and it's up to Microsoft and Sony to help me decide which new-gen console I'll be using for the next few years. I'm sure there are at least a few hundred thousand people pondering this same decision.
Don't be shocked if Sony does end up cutting the price. It wouldn't be the first time they lied about a price drop...
As MS does. Every time. ;)
Gyak, there's a difference between flat out saying there will be no price drop and just no commenting on rumors. Yes, neither of them verify a price drop, but one is a lie, the other, a no comment.
I'm in pretty much the same position and the price cut, while initially appealing, is not so tempting when you realise that the Elite is really the only model worth buying. If you'd asked me a year ago I'd have said I'd rather a PS3 because I wanted to play Assassin's Creed, and knew it would be slightly better on the PS3. Now I'm more tempted by the prospect of Fable II. Personally I've always bought consoles because of one particular game, Marioland, Duckhunt, Street Fighter II (so much better with a SNES controller than a Megadrive), Mario 64, I got a PC because I wanted to play Duke Nukem 3D, Gran Tourismo 3 and I even only bought a Wii to play Wii sports. Price cuts or no price cuts, the majority people are only going to shell out for a console with a game they want to play real bad, games are always the deciding factor.
All you get extra with the Elite is another 60 Gig of hard drive space and a colour change, which, unless you download a lot of content, prompts me to ask why you think "the Elite is really the only model worth buying". Is the 60Gig pro not enough?
Sorry, you're quite correct. You'd agree though, that buying the Arcade model is a false economy?
Price Cuts are NOT needed for the Playstation 3 at this point in time.
Here's why:
Xbox 360 Elite and Playstation 3 both sell for $399.
Xbox 360 is obviously a superior videogame system, but with the PS3 you do get the feature of having a built in Blu-ray player. Although, with the Xbox 360 you do get the feature of downloading movies in high-definition.
PS3 was released a year later than the Xbox 360, and PS3 launched at a price that was a LOT more expensive. Playstation 3 has already dropped $200 of its price.
If Sony drops the price of the PS3 to a point that is lower than the Xbox 360 Elite, it will reveal to the public what the hardcore gamers have known all along--that the PS3 gaming hardware is worth less than the Xbox 360 gaming hardware, and the only reason why the PS3 was priced higher from the start was because of the expensive Blu-ray player inside it. That would send a bad message to people with the attitude of "You pay for what you get."
Sony claims that the Playstation 3 has a "10 year product lifecycle." Many people say that statement is just another one of Sony's lies that they are known for telling. If Sony is telling the truth, they will have 8 more years to gradually reach the price points of $299, $199, $149, $129, and $99.
Kim, I'm impressed. You managed to not come off like a MS employee. ;)
I think you're absolutely right. If you're just comparing apples to apples, the 360 as a gaming machine is probably no better (or worse) than a PS3. So factoring price into the equation, the 360 has an edge as a game machine. Even at the $400 price tag of both consoles, I think the 360 gets the edge.
The other thing Sony has to watch out for (and not just the Playstation side of Sony, but the overall picture) Sony may not be ALLOWING the games division to lower the PS3's price as it may hinder sales of standalone BluRay players. You sell a PS3 for 299 or less, then people are going to have a hard time ponying up much more for a standalone BluRay player. And I'm sure Sony's partners (any other company that releases stand alone BluRay players) wouldn't appreciate Sony undercutting them. Sony better not plan on selling really any BluRay player at a cost higher than the PS3, or else they'll be in a bit of trouble. They don't want to devalue the BluRay brand just to fix a black eye they've received from both Nintendo and MS. The real reason the PS3 has a BluRay player built in is so they can increase the BluRay penetration (it has nothing to do with gaming, there's no reason that probably 90% of the games on the PS3 couldn't be done on one DVD-9 especially since all the multiplatform games are on one DVD-9 on the 360 and not FOUR DVD-9s), its really a means to an end. If that plan goes belly up, Sony as a whole would be hurt, and they'd rather have the games division take a hit instead of the entire company.
"So factoring price into the equation, the 360 has an edge as a game machine. Even at the $400 price tag of both consoles, I think the 360 gets the edge." -- Hmm I feel some flaws in this argument. Is that you own a 360, isn't it? Gamewise it's apples to apples, right. Their distinctive features are the hardware and the price.
@ Kim: I think (for some incomprehensible reason) you're afraid of the upcoming and inevitable price drop from Sony's part. Just a hunch.
That is correct, I own a 360 and Wii (I physically own a Wii, but it is never played).
As for the quote, I could have worded it different, but what I was trying to get at was that considering ONLY gaming abilities and not features or add-inns or disc players or whatever, the 360 at $199 offers at least in all fairness comparable graphics/gameplay especially when comparing multiplatform games as the PS3. At 199 as I stated before, you can play all the triple A multiplatform games when you have to pay 399 for the same multiplatform games. And my argument is IF you're ONLY playing games, you essentially are going to pay around $100-$200 more for the same gaming experience that the cheaper product offers. I don't think there is a game for either system that blows the other out of the water. Sony's argument that "in the future" PS3 game's graphics will blow the 360 out of the water. Well, 2 years down the line, and still nothing. That's a different argument for a different day though...
Nick your correct because the developers are MULTIPLATFORM right now, meaning one game for ALL systems. Its not a secret that most games are developed on the 360 and PORTED to PS3, so the developers are not taking advantage of the hardware like they should. In a time of game budgets and development cycles,companies want to minimize costs AND make a product that everyone could enjoy to play... Its on the Sony first and second parties to show the consumer that the PS3 is the system to buy. They just cannot rely on the 3rd parties at this stage in the game....
Shy,
You nailed it. The same thing happened last generation with the Xbox 1 and PS2. Even though the Xbox 1 was significantly more powerful than the PS2 (not an opinion, way faster CPU and GPU, arguably a whole generation faster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XBox#Technical_specifications vs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ps2#Technical_specifications the multiplatform games last generation looked relatively similar on Xbox 1 and PS2. There WERE the games that blew the PS2 away that were exclusive either because they were first party or because the developers stated the PS2 couldn't handle the game (Chronicles of Riddick, Half Life 2, Doom 3, to name a few). There were a few multiplatform games where the Xbox had a significant edge namely the Splinter Cell series. But that was a rare case where the Xbox 1 was the lead console then down-ported to PS2 and to a lesser extent the GCN. The PS2 lost real time lighting and shadows (something the system just couldn't do) and was replaced by fixed lighting and "faked" shadows.
The question is though, IF the PS3 is truly more powerful than the 360 as Sony claims, is it so much so that developers won't be able to make a 360 version when desired because the PS3 is the only system of the two that can handle the game they're making (and don’t give me that MGS4 argument, aside from lazy compression, no game should take up 25 gigs, and if it does, that isn’t a hardware capability argument, that is a storage argument)? I don't think beyond having an edge graphically, there'll be much difference in multiplatform games and PS3 only games when compared to the 360, at least not to the extent some 3rd party and exclusive Xbox 1 games had over the PS2.
double post, sorry. (internet was being stupid)
That is correct, I own a 360 and Wii (I physically own a Wii, but it is never played).
As for the quote, I could have worded it different, but what I was trying to get at was that considering ONLY gaming abilities and not features or add-inns or disc players or whatever, the 360 at $199 offers at least in all fairness comparable graphics/gameplay especially when comparing multiplatform games as the PS3. At 199 as I stated before, you can play all the triple A multiplatform games when you have to pay 399 for the same multiplatform games. And my argument is IF you're ONLY playing games, you essentially are going to pay around $100-$200 more for the same gaming experience that the cheaper product offers. I don't think there is a game for either system that blows the other out of the water. Sony's argument that "in the future" PS3 game's graphics will blow the 360 out of the water. Well, 2 years down the line, and still nothing. That's a different argument for a different day though...
Very interesting points which I mostly agree with but you have to remember that even if Sony's "10 year cycle" was their plan all along it is based on the system selling well enough during their first couple of years to create an console installed base healthy enough for third party developers to make games on the PS3 for years to come, "Ala" PS2. This is certainly not the case with the PS3 at least not yet and with the perceived price advantage for the 360 it is clearly a new bump in Sony's plans.
Good points (Elite pricing vs PS3) mixed with opinions pretending to be facts ala "superior video game system". People can play both sides, you believe that Sony lowering the price of the PS3 would reveal what hardcore gamers known all along and stating you get what you pay for. Could the same be said of the 360? You pay a lower price for a inferior product ala RROD? Just like the 360, as you have mentioned, you can rent SD/HD movies as well as PURCHASE movies on the Playstation Store. If you have a PSP, you can transfer as well. So please don't perceive it as an exclusive 360 feature.
This isn't about the mighty system wars. As a multi-console owner, the PS3 still holds a good value and has plenty of titles for the user to play. The point of concern and what Sony has been drilling all along is profitability. Have they yielded enough gains in manufacturing with the recent die shrinks to drop the price of the console and still stay in the black? With the way the economy is, are they positioned well enough to drop the price? Many things for them to consider but we shall see what they do after Septembers NPD results come in.
At $399 the Elite 360 still isn't as good a deal as the PS3 is because you'll have to shell out another $100 for the wireless network adapter.
But you do know the PSN store has video rentals and downloads in HD, right?
I don't think that people will be worried about wireless internet when they can use the Ethernet cable included in the Elite. It will be a valid point if the only way to get Online was to buy the wireless network adapter but as it is both machines can be online right out of the box.
True but people can substitute the wireless adapter with having a blu-ray player...if that is something that interested them as well.
I honestly believe the ps3 doesnt really need a price cut. I own all 3 systems and i still think the ps3 was a cheaper buy than the xbox.
360 Elite -$399
Wireless Adapter - 100
Rechareable batteries - 20
HD player- ?????
while the Ps3 -399
hdmi - 49.99
Granted that the elite has 40gigs more on the HDD but for about 70-90dollars you can triple the amount of ur ps3 HDD just by buying a similar laptop HDD and the manual to do that is included in the box. There are also talks of MS looking for a new way to have HD besides the download service. I'm not trying to be a sony boy cause I love XBL. I play CoD4 all the time. I really think Sony should take notes when it comes to Online capabilities.