Network now...NEWS
Sony: "No Plans" for March PS3 Price Cut
Sony's PS3 pricing strategy has been one of the biggest industry question marks in recent months, and on an official level, price cut plans will remain under wraps.
Responding to new rumors of a PS3 price cut in March 2009, a Sony Computer Entertainment America rep told Edge, "There are no plans for a price reduction on PS3 in March 09, and anything reported on or discussed otherwise is purely rumor or speculation."
Over the weekend, online magazine D+Pad cited an anonymous source who purportedly attended a Sony staff briefing in London where execs said the PS3 will have a more competitive price from March 2009 and beyond.
March 31, 2009 marks the end of Sony's fiscal year, during which the company expects to sell 10 million PS3 units, or about flat compared to the previous year.
Sony has repeatedly denied a PS3 price cut will take place before the holidays.
Currently, Xbox 360s retail from $199 to $399 and Wiis sell for $249 in the U.S. Standard 80GB PS3s sell for $399.
SCEA sales VP Ian Jackson recently told analysts at the BMO Capital Markets Interactive Entertainment Conference, "There is no product in the industry today on the videogame console market that delivers what a PlayStation 3 delivers for under $400, in the case of the 80GB."
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
I'll maybe get the PS3 when it hits £100/£150. Sony have really scored an own goal with the PS3 because by the time the system is at mainstream level prices, it'll be competing with the Wii-HD and next gen XBOX.
One thing is for sure, the industry will never see another $600/£400 system again and if the Wii-HD and the next gen XBOX are competitively priced (which they probably will be) then it's more than likely consumers will buy the newer, better hardware, rather than the PS3.
Price and the modern technology of Blu-ray, combined with the hard-as-nails to program for Cell CPU has fucked Sony this gen!
And MilesMayhem is OmegaVader's alt account!
By the way people, wall e is top dollar's alt account!
Great minds think alike motherfucker!
@Wall_E
That's exactly why I think you and Top Dollar have nothing in common. ^^ Just playin.
C'mon, we shouldn't be fighting right now, its Christmas time; we should all be getting along!
It’s like the Grinch Who Stole Christmas. The Grinch (PS3 owners) hates the Whos (360 owners) for being so happy with their Christmas, so he tries to ruin it by taking away their gifts (belittling 360's success) but when the Grinch fails to ruin their Christmas and they're still happy, he realizes what gaming is all about, accepting the fact that the 360 IS THE BEST CONSOLE EVAAAARRRR!!!! Just playin again.
Some of the best games this year have come out on the PS3 and 360 the last few months, lets try to enjoy it and let this old-ass horse rest in peace.
By the way people, savagehenry is nolim's alt account!
While that's not true i'm pleased with your choice, savage always gives a good argument and backs it up with facts. Now, Wall_E, i don't suppose there's any chance of you doing the same?
WHY ON EARTH WOULD THEY CONFIRM IT???
In December of all months??
Customer: "Id like to buy a Ps3"
Sony: "Are you sure? We'll be cutting the price of it in March 2009"
Customer: "OK Ill wait till then. Bye bye" (Goes and buys Wii or 360)
This article means shit.
Sony don't really need to drop the price at the moment. people that are after a cost effective solution will always choose Microsoft or Nintendo. Sony know this. Besides all those serious about owning Sony's hardware more likely has bought it already at near enough full price. I depends on what you are happy about paying for I guess. Both systems are very similarly matched, both get similar games, although there are the exclusives to consider also
PS3 is still a good investment in my humble opinion blue ray drive and play station network would swing it for me if I were buying one this Christmas. Don't get me wrong 360's are good and the price of £180 with a hard drive and a game isn't bad, but is a bit of a novelty, even the more "serious" elite model are still very plastic and aimed at teenage boys (and closer to PS3 price at £279). Both Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft offer excellent packages as they stand now. Only difference being is Sony's machine has a blue ray player built in and a damn good one at that. If you don't see a future in BR-D then stick with the other consoles which don't have that technology and save yourself a little cash.
Play station 3 has been the most serious machine from the start and even though the initial cost is greater, the system has paid for itself in the time I've had it. Sony should only drop the price when they feel it's necessary and at least not until the PS is fully pulled removed from the roster.
Everyone could debate a price drop until they're blue in the face (some people on this post look like they already have), Sony will do what Sony want to do, they won't just bow to the pressure of a handful of people. The price tag will seem amazing value when Uncharted 2 comes out... ;-)
guys ive just been to John Lewis (in bristol) and they are doing the new 60gb 360 for £149. If the other half wasnt with me I would have had one. im planning a covert op tomorrow. thats just silly money, how can ps3 compete with that? also the arcade with nuts and bolts (one of the best titles of this gen) for £99. wtf
It can't, but Sony doesn't need to compete with the xbox360. Sony's hardware is well known for being slow on the uptake. Nothing separates the consoles in terms of games or services PS3 and 360 both have a similar back catalogue and range of service. In my opinion the most forward looking console is the Nintendo Wii which is by far the more dominant system on the market at the moment.
Xbox is cheap, I find is amazing how Microsoft can justify that price or £130 for an Arcade and £179 for a Premium. That's good money for a great system. However with the elite priced at £279 you kind of see how by knocking essential pieces of hardware of this list they can save quite a substantial amount of cash. Hypothetically speaking, I wonder what the price of an 360Elite with a Blue Ray drive would be. I wonder if Microsoft could remain competitive on price.
The price of the Elite is just plain weird, you can get an arcade for £130 and a 120Gig HD for £100 so, other than the black colour scheme, what is the other £40 for?
Dont know where you guys are shopping but if you look there has been another subtle price drop in the last couple of weeks. Currently , with no games 360 Arcade = £100 , Pro 60GB £150, Elite 120GB £200, PS3 80GB no games £280.
The elite has the following over the arcade:
Headset.
HDTV cable (the arcade comes with a plain old yellow, red and white standard AV cable).
Ethernet cable (big wows).
A standard HDMI port.
HDMI cable.
Other than standard HDMI connectivity, I guess it is less of a headache to buy the elite if you have the cash.
small correction, all versions now have same bare bones box, i.e. they all have hdmi out port.
To buy the iPhone (8gb/Pay & Go) is £342.50, just because there is a Nokia phone out there at £59.99 doesn't mean to say Apple are cutting the price of the iPhone.
In other words...you get what you pay for. One isn't going to get the PS3 for £129.99 for all the tech it has.
Yet, some people on here can't get their thick head around that.
The phone business is not a valid comparison to the video game console business. Phones are stand alone products where the profit is made on selling the product. In North America (and I would imagine the practice happens in Europe as well), cellular service providers will sell phones at a discount if the customer signs a service contract, still they're taking a hit to make more money with their shady-ass contracts.
The video game console business, the usual business model is to get your console in as many homes as possible, even if it means taking a loss, and make your money on the licensing royalties paid on every copy of a game for that platform that's sold. More consoles in the hands of consumers there are, the larger market/customer base you have to sell software/services/accessories to.
If the PS3 is going to really thrive as a gaming platform, it needs a price cut. It's obvious by last month's NPD numbers (where sales were lower than last year) that consumers (at least in the biggest gaming market in the world, North America) are not seeing the extra value in the PS3.
If the PS3 is going to really thrive as a gaming platform, it needs a price cut.
Here we go again...the system is selling just fine without a price cut. Remember, before the 360 price reduction the PS3 was outselling the 360 on a monthly basis. Just look at the NPD numbers before the 360's price reduction.
In other words...Sony don't need to do shit, not until Q3 2009 at least.
Before the 360 price cut, the PS3 had about a 200k unit lead, which in one single month the lead swung the other way in the 360s favour. The sales are what they are, and the price cut on the 360 is a reality. There really is no point in bringing in past circumstances, that is unless you think the best business strategy is for Sony to invent a time machine and prevent the 360 price cut from happening.
Clearly the PS3 is not thriving. Software sales are nowhere near as good as 360 software sales. Which is true even if you discount 3rd party titles. And it is certainly not for a lack of great exclusives. Sony had two of the most critically acclaimed games exclusive to the PS3, MGS4 and LBP. Personally, I'm not a MGS fan and I'm not really a platforming fan (as well, the part of game creation that interests me is programming so I'd rather put my time into that than learn the LBP editor), but I can recognize that those are two great games, which many people enjoy and possibly many more people could have enjoyed. I know with LBP, it wasn't a lack of marketing that LBP has sold so poorly, the few times I've watched tv in the last 2 months, I've seen many LBP commercials.
If it's not the price point of the PS3 that squashed the true sales potential of LBP, then what was it? Not exactly "thriving" conditions if an AAA, critically acclaimed and game with loads of mass appeal can't break 1 million sales, after being out for more than a month.
In defense of LBP selling poorly: I think the ads didn't do the game justice as they were a bit confusing for someone unfamiliar to the game. Or well, the ones I've seen.
I agree with you Bleak, I called that in a post before LBP came out and I think it was just hard to market what the game really is. It just looks like a cutesy traditional platformer/puzzler in the commercials. We all know that's not what it is, but the audience Sony is trying to strike a cord with doesn't.
@ Pete
You bring up very valid pionts. I don't know what the deal is with the PS3 why some of their biggest games don't sell as well as they seem to should. One thing I don't think people consider enough is installed base. In the US, its about 12 million to 6 million. RIght there you're already at a 50% disadvantage for software on the PS3. And the xbox has historically had a great attach rate (just not a great installed base). I think possibly the xbox audience for the most part is fundamentally different than that of the typical PS3 fanbase. At least the attach rate says so anyway.
So why Q3 2009? Shouldnt they hav dropped the price this year??
Its foolish to beleive that companies like Sony have deliberate "slow burn" strategies. That is the kind of garbage that is spun by them to give impression they are in control of their sales performance e.g. "Yeh we dont really want to sell PS3s just now. We're happy to wait". Utter nonsense.
dude the ps3 was £500 at launch its now around £300. thats a big drop allready
and yes you are right in a way, with apple and sony you allways get what you pay for...branding, hype, promise, and nasty drm.
i cant believe the guys i knew who rushed out and spunk'd £500 for ps3 on lauch day and another £50 for motorstorm , now that is a true definition of thick.
Now, only now, is the ps3 starting to look interesting , its got a handful of decent titles under its belt and there are some potentially awsome games comming in 2009. Some of these games delivering wont be enough, they need to drop the price to the £199 mark or less to shift units.
if sony were real clever they would operate like the phone guys and give away the consoles " free" with a minimum 12month subscription to live or home or similar and make cash purely off games, downloads and subs etc. MS is slowly realising that way of working is more profitable.
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. PSN comes free for life with every PS3 so how would giving a console away with PSN make good business sense?
Sorry dude you have no idea. Servers, development studios, marketing, maintainance, customer service all cost lots and lots of money, you are paying for PSN whether you think so or not. The costs are added on to software, hardware and downloads or selling advertising space on Home etc. You dont think that Sony is going to run its business at a loss just to provide you a great gaming service. Anyway i wasnt talking specifics, I was thinking more with a view to the next gen hardware in general. The more consoles that are out there the more people will be buying games and paying for downloads and subs. Thus is makes sence to "give away" the hardware at minimal or no cost. MS pioneered the selling of hardware at a loss with the original xbox. Printer manufacturers and phone companies have been doing it for years.
No you said PS3 not the next gen and the games cost the same on the PS3 as they do on the 360, oh and console manufacturers have been selling hardware at a loss for years (bar Nintendo). Contrary to popular belief console gaming did exist before Microsoft came on the scene.
You're absolutely right Arron, hardware has been selling for a loss for a while now. The Xbox 1 did sell at a substantially higher loss than console traditional standards though (with hard drive, network card, CD ripping capabilites, DD5.1 built right in). I've read it sold for a loss of around $700 (that number is just a guess from memory, it could be lower than that).
I heard the loss on the XBox was closer to $300-400
This site http://www.sematopia.com/?p=39 claims the closing loss at $126 per unit.
It appears as though the link you provided was referring to the 360. But maybe the xbox 1 was more like 300-400 like you say. I just know it was a significant loss higher than the norm. But MS had to be agressive I think in order to be able to get a foothold in the console market.
Ah, so it does. If I had more time, I would do a more thorough search for information.
NP, totally understand.
Wow Omega you must be slow tell me exactly how this supposed ship is sinking Id really love to understand where your coming from and I really dont see anyone agreeing w you so this must be all in your head 17 million in 2 yrs is def not considered sinking. Im gonna love it when you have to eat your words not to mention you seem oblivious to the FACT that Xbox has a small number of 1st party studios so instead of constantly reiterating your OPINION how bout you share with us proof that this ship is sinking oh wait there is none yes the xbox is ahead with a year to year and a half head start yes it has a higher attach rate but then it has been out longer so wuts your point? Technically the ps3 has outsold the 360 at this time in its life cycle so does that mean the 360 might be sinking according to your logic oh yes and I forgot that the ps3 is leading in Japan and Europe despite its high price and year wait so wuts that say it says to me that yur a dumbass who has no clue wut hes talkin about thats what.
you're going to be eating your own words when sony finally concedes the price point and cuts it. You have anticipation and hype -- "wait tlil next year, you'll see!" -- something Sony used this time a year ago and failed utterly. Me, on the other hand? I have facts.
The numbers in november are a very ill omen for Sony. If you can't surpass you previous numbers from the year before in the holiday season when the rest of the indsutry increases, you've got a huge problem on your hands. Price has always been the point of contention fo rthe PS3 and all analysts have been blaming it for lagging sales. Look how far Sony has fallen -- from outright dominance to "well, well, the PS3 came out a year later! and, uhh, uhh, it hasn't quite bloomed yet! it's almost caught up...maybe....". ESPECIALLY in light of the recession, which is probably why people backed off from sony last month and flocked to the newly cut 360, it's imperative they cut the price. They'll never get back the crown the PS2 has, though. It's simply way too late for that, and wii has pretty much eaten up that market. Few people are willing to own all three consoles.
Also, number of first party and second party studios is moot if the games coming out aren't killer apps. If Resistance 2 is the best Sony has to offer, well....that $400 machine is beginning to resemble the cd-i. The console even seems to be tainting true AAA titles on it! The hype around MGS4 was considerably less than it was for MGS2 or 3. I can hardly believe the game has virtually been forgotten by the time the holidays roll around and everyone's screaming for Resistance 2 instead, a decidedly unremarkable game. Frankly MGS4 seems like PS3's killer app...and I can only imagine the reason it isn't comparing to its predecessors is not because of quality, as it certailny seems chock full of it, but rather because it's currently featured on the least popular console of the generation thus far.
Again, sony can turn this around -- cut the price and make it favorable in a time when the world's economy is receding. It's too late to surpass microsoft at this point (and definitely too late to even touch the Wii), but it can become a more stable platform once it starts buliding a more reliable customer base.
btw, sony's software attach rate is considerably poorer than microsoft's, even in consideration of the year delay. This tells software companies to favor the 360 over the ps3. On the other hand, the Wii's is piss poor too, but then, there's SO many units out there and production costs for the console are so cheap that Software developers stand to make a profit anyway. If Sony is not the sinking ship, it's certailny the 19th century steamer trying to catch up to the other two.
Hype all you want for next year, deja vu aside. But right now, sony is failing to put up. Nothing signifies this more for me than LPB's depressing low sales. Would-be buyers such as myself are too busy enjoying our 360's.
@OmegaVader:
Having read your posts on here, you can't call everyone a PS3 fanboy who doesn't agree with you.
If people here have positive comments to say about the PS3, then let them say it. There is no need to act like like a madman and reply to every positive comment said about the system, because this is exactly what you're doing...with no good reason.
You know, people here could quite pimp you as the 360 fanboy...as you're going about it very well at the moment.
He is a 360 fanboy!
again, as I have stated repeatedly (though I guess you skip over my arguments because no one seems to be addressing the facts) I owned the ps2 and loved it far more than my xbox. I was planning on getting the ps3 till they cut the price and went out and bought the 360 instead. I would still like to play MGS4 and LPB and whatever the ICO team is working on right now. but not for $400.
mark my words. Sony will cut the price in 2009 or sink further. And MGS4 will inevitably come to 360. It's nothing personal, it's just business. I'll gladly buy a PS4 over the Xbox 720 if it is the more viable platform next generation, just as I bought the PS2 over the original Xbox. I buy the platform that gives the most, not the one that costs the most.
I'm just talking business, kids. There's no opinions here, just numbers.
I'll second that. Yep, OmegaVader putts from the rough!
Regardless of the comments on here, in my opinion i still see the PS3 sales overtaking that of the 360, by a large margin, on a worldwide basis. It's just a matter of time.
I'll look at the final numbers when the PS3 stops getting manufactured, as we all should.
I agree w you there wall e its only a matter of time just look at the exclusive list for 2009 it puts Microsoft to shame Xbox fans dont seem to realise that the Xbox is out of gas they cant keep up with Sonys 20 somthing first party studios when they only have three or four. Honestly guys hows the future of the Xbox look to you when you know there completely out of heavy hitters only in its third year ? Theyre not going to be able to keep up this momentum when theres no games to help it just do the math the best games are usually 1st party and the reason to buy a console due to those exclusives Microsoft only has 3 first party studios where as Sony has over 20 logic would say that the future looks grim for 360 all there "Heavy hitters" have been released leaving nothing but shoddy spinoffs while Sony hasnt even started with there big releases (except MGS4) looking grim for 360 no matter how you spin it.
"no matter how you spin it"
Having just read your attempt I think its a tad ironic that you ended with that phrase.
Not one single thing you have just said is based in fact.
You ps3 fanboys really defy all reason. even as the ship is literally sinking, you freak out about how it's floating high. At this point, it can only be called religious loyalty. If you want to use 'logic', look at the console selling more units with the highest software attach rate. Sony can brag about brand and features all they want, but it doesnt matter if people don't own the console!
To bring this back to the original article, though, this could all completely change if Sony prices the PS3 competitively! (Though, it is too late to repair a lot of the damage -- Final Fantasy, for example, is going to remain multi-platform. There just aren't and can't be enough PS3 units out there to justify exclusivity, not unless it starts selling like wiis...and that's literally impossible for a product priced that high during a global recession. People are trying to pay their mortgages, not blu-ray prices). Do not underestimate the poor performance up till this point -- Sony cannot turn it around in a single year. The first two are usually the most important for a console's entire lifespan. It just doesn't do well to keep saying 'wait for tomorrow.' Again, Sony did this last year when they said "2008 will be the year of the PS3", and it most certainly was not as it does consistently worse. You can only cry wolf so many times before you have to stop believing your own hype.
Well, I'm not sure about that last argument. If memory serves, the PS3 outsold the 360 globally this year, except the last couple of months due to the new Xbox price. 2008 was definitely the year of the PS3, it shipped some good exclusives (MGS4, LBP, Siren, WipEout HD etc.), the store brought quality games ONLY (a thing you couldn't say about the competition), the system software grew up.
2009 looks quite promising too.
Don't want to sound like a douchebag, but we all know the psychology behind the naysaying in this case. People are complaining about the price, because they DON'T WANT to buy it anyway, simple as that. People don't want two "next-gen" consoles in their households, because the 360 can play the games they want to play (more or less), and they don't care about the PS3's 1st party titles (or just pretend it). If the PS3 would be their first purchase, they'd think the same about the 360, no matter how cheap it is. They'd complaining about the hardware, I presume. It's hard to justify owning two or three gaming devices under their TV, especially these days, so they don't want to know about the PS3's benefits. (See the usual complaint about the PS3's not having enough good titles.) They don't hate the device they don't own, because "it's expensive", no. They drool over it, even if they don't want to buy it in the first place. It's ostrich policy.
// Enough rambling. To be frank, I couldn't care less. I'm perfectly happy with the GameCube of this gen.
"I'm perfectly happy with the Gamecube of this gen."
That is the most acceptable reason for owning a PS3. I had a gamecube myself. I would have a gamecube this gen too, if it wasn't so absurdly priced!
Touché, the price is where the GC and the PS3 differ. However, maybe history won't repeat itself in this case, and I'm very excited about the SCE exclusives. Whatever happens, I know I'll have some very good years with the system. Hell, if they'd close the PS division right now (which they won't), I wouldn't complain about that -- I have LBP and I'm in love every day. (MM just started to pour the real DLC for the game, yay. ^^)
Let me put it this way: the PS3 is the GC on steroids, with strong, very strong 1st and 2nd party support (inherited from the PS2). That justifies the system in itself, at least for me.
if the PS3 ever makes it below $300 and if the first and second party games actually start providing (I'm sorry, PS3's best game is a third party title!) I may hop on board. I eventually owned all three consoles last generation, and would do so this generation...if the format is affordable. Unfortuantely the difference between xbox and ps3 isn't quite as distinct as it was last generation. 360 has solidly caught up and so far is surpassing. It even has solid JRPGs now!
"I'm perfectly happy with the GameCube of this gen."
Are you referring to the PS3?
As far as your point about not buying two HD systems I can totally agree with. The PS3 doesn't offer enough difference from the 360 in terms of gaming to warrant a purchase. And most triple A games are going to be multiplatform and be near-identical on the 360/PS3. A BD player is the PS3's main draw and its not even gaming related (don't get me started on MGS4 using an impossible 50 gigs on just one side of a BD). WIth BD players under $200 now, Sony has now lost the "cheapest BD player" incentive. If Halo wasn't exclusive and I owned a PS3 first, I'd most likely not have a 360. The 360 just happened to come out first. I'll happily wait for a $149 Samsung BD player (or $149 PS3, whichever comes first...)
Yea I'm referring to the PS3 and I completely agree with every sentence of yours.
"The 360 just happened to come out first."
Couldn't say it better myself. However, people should consider the PS3's very strong first party support (definitely superior to the 360's).