Sony Boss Getting Fed Up With PPL Telling Him The PS3 Is Too Expensive

[Ricardo Gil]

I have read cross-chat is coming...no idea what party mode is. But for the sake of it, these are minor functions and probably wouldn't use them much if I did have them. :) Thanks for your response ;)

Well, it really depends on what type of online gaming you're into. If you like to get together with your friends online, these are major functions.

[Pablo2008jedi]

Exactly Ji@nBing, its all about choice, and for my needs PS3 is better priced. For others, yes its too expensive. As I said in my previous post, its all down to individual needs. But I don't think the PS3 is too expensive for what you get, even the xbox 360 alone plus a separate bluray player is about ?260-+ at best

@+Ricardo Gil Again totally true, its up to the individual.

[Ji@nBing]

Well, it really depends on what type of online gaming you're into. If you like to get together with your friends online, these are major functions.

:yes: I use them every day. I couldn't imagine not having them.

[Michael1406]

Yet again, a bit of back and forth before it comes to what really matters - the individual needs. There's no point arguing when everyone wants and needs different things from their console(s).

EDIT: just realised it was said 2 posts up...but still, if people realised this before they got into these recycled debates then it'd save a lot of time.

[iamwhoiam]

Sony dropped the ball this generation, that's all there is to it. Assuming they've learned from everything that's gone on this time around, they shouldn't have any problem doing much better next time around.

They did drop the ball. It was being said by many before the PS3 launch that it'd do lack luster sales this generation and people would have fallen on swords to protect Sony over it. But, being Sony, they won't learn and their arrogance and complacency will get the better of them next time around as well.

[Michael1406]

They did drop the ball. It was being said by many before the PS3 launch that it'd do lack luster sales this generation and people would have fallen on swords to protect Sony over it. But, being Sony, they won't learn and their arrogance and complacency will get the better of them next time around as well.

You can't possibly know that - this is the first time that this has happened to Sony in the console market.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

They did drop the ball. It was being said by many before the PS3 launch that it'd do lack luster sales this generation and people would have fallen on swords to protect Sony over it. But, being Sony, they won't learn and their arrogance and complacency will get the better of them next time around as well.

Can we explain what context lackluster sales are taken in?

What kind of sales did people expect from a $600 console in 2 years?

As I've already pointed out in here, for the lifespan the PS3 has been on the shelves it's not done any worse than the 360 within the same time frame. And I can bet my boots none of you are going to say 360 sales were lackluster in it's first two years.

That is the advantage of getting to market a year earlier, but I'm genuinely asking where did you expect a $600 console to be sitting in terms of sales right now. Higher than the 360 that launched a year earlier and has always been considerably cheaper?

People's wallets are hurting from no drop from $400 since 2007, it's finally showing genuine concern now, the PS3 and 360 might have sold the same worldwide last year, but that will not happen this year without a PS3 cut a considerable amount of time before Christmas. The hardcore audience Sony has been riding the last two years that's given the PS3 sound sales considering the price can't be rode on forever, which is why if they don't become more appealing to casual buyers like the 360 and Wii, they won't be able to continue tracking in anyone's footsteps.

[Ricardo Gil]

As I've already pointed out in here, for the lifespan the PS3 has been on the shelves it's not done any worse than the 360 within the same time frame. And I can bet my boots none of you are going to say 360 sales were lackluster in it's first two years.

That's exactly the problem everyone points out. Sony lost almost half its market share during the PS2->PS3 transition, that's why they're considered lacking. They only managed to keep up in sales because of the enormous momentum given by the PS2, otherwise they would have failed considerably.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

That's exactly the problem everyone points out. Sony lost almost half its market share during the PS2->PS3 transition, that's why they're considered lacking. They only managed to keep up in sales because of the enormous momentum given by the PS2, otherwise they would have failed considerably.

There's no point in dreaming up scenarios of what things would be like if the PS2 hadn't existed, it did, and it's probably one of the main reasons Sony were able to come out the gates with a ridiculous price of $600 and Blu Ray technology that was completely unproven and expensive as **** at the time.

At least "were able" in the context of "someone thought they could", I don't think they expected to lose the kind of money they have.

Edited July 10, 2009 by Audioboxer

[Ricardo Gil]

There's no point in dreaming up scenarios of what things would be like if the PS2 hadn't existed, it did, and it's probably one of the main reasons Sony were able to come out the gates with a ridiculous price of $600 and Blu Ray technology that was completely unproven and expensive as **** at the time.

:huh: That's what I just said...

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

:huh: That's what I just said...

If it is then I don't really get your point in relation to what I originally said?

How is the fact the PS2 pay rolled a green light on the PS3 any relation to how anyone could expect consumers to pay for/adopt a $600 console?

I know the PS2 gave the PS brand a wide recognition, but a $600 console is still a $600 console. Which is why when you look at the sales I don't know how people could expect significant difference from what we have now after 2 years on the market. The PS2 launched at $299, and yes we have to consider inflation, but that's still a long way away from $600. Even the 360 only launched at $399, the PS3 is at the 360's launch price just now, after 2 years on the market.

The hardcore and some AV enthusiasts have rolled the PS3 to fair sales considering the pricing, however as I said above that can't be relied on forever and it's been stretched thin this year with sales plummeting. Casual buyers just can't spend $400, let alone the original asking price of $600, in large enough volumes.

Edited July 10, 2009 by Audioboxer

[Ironman273]

I think what Ricardo is saying is that considering what the PS2 was, Sony should've been a lot further ahead than it is. Like you said, the success of the PS2 is what made the PS3 what it is (and on another note, what made Blu-Ray win over HD-DVD) but part of that was the arrogance of thinking anyone will buy the PS3 because, hey, look at how the PS2 did. Price has been an issue from the start.

[Ricardo Gil]

I know the PS2 gave the PS brand a wide recognition

Enough said.

When you're the de facto console maker and suddenly lose half your market share then you know something went wrong.

I think what Ricardo is saying is that considering what the PS2 was, Sony should've been a lot further ahead than it is. Like you said, the success of the PS2 is what made the PS3 what it is (and on another note, what made Blu-Ray win over HD-DVD) but part of that was the arrogance of thinking anyone will buy the PS3 because, hey, look at how the PS2 did. Price has been an issue from the start.

Exactly my point.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

I think what Ricardo is saying is that considering what the PS2 was, Sony should've been a lot further ahead than it is. Like you said, the success of the PS2 is what made the PS3 what it is (and on another note, what made Blu-Ray win over HD-DVD) but part of that was the arrogance of thinking anyone will buy the PS3 because, hey, look at how the PS2 did. Price has been an issue from the start.

Exactly so how is "should've been further ahead" able to be taken into context with what we have then?

You guys are basically saying you expect a console launching at $600 to have sold more than a console launching at $400 with a one year headstart?

Sony made the PS3 the price it is, it's position is their "fault", but looking at the scenario as it is, no made up situations of if it were this price, if it were a PS2.5, if it were x,y,z, how can you guys have expected a significant difference in sales?

That is what I'm asking, and no one is answering it without saying "but look at PS2". I'm asking you to look at PS3 sales as a $600 console over 2 years and comment on them... PS2 didn't launch at $600, PS2 didn't have genuinely good competition from the start.

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

Getting fed up of Sony full stop tbh :p

[Minifig]

Just out of curiosity for those who have hope for the PS3 Slim..

What makes you think they're going to price the PS3 Slim any different than the PS3 Fat?

It's newer, it has better technology. This is Sony we're talking about. If any indication of the way they think, they're going to price it higher.

[soniqstylz]

Just out of curiosity for those who have hope for the PS3 Slim..

What makes you think they're going to price the PS3 Slim any different than the PS3 Fat?

It's newer, it has better technology. This is Sony we're talking about. If any indication of the way they think, they're going to price it higher.

How exactly would it have "better" technology, other than smaller, cheaper, more cost-effective, cooler chips? It won't have a 4x Blu-ray drive. It won't have SSD. There's not going to be a jump to draft-N wireless. We won't have the magical dual-HDMI that was promised. The CELL isn't going to be 16 SPU's on a 4Ghz core.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Just out of curiosity for those who have hope for the PS3 Slim..

What makes you think they're going to price the PS3 Slim any different than the PS3 Fat?

It's newer, it has better technology. This is Sony we're talking about. If any indication of the way they think, they're going to price it higher.

Because a slim allows you to remove lots of components and is cheaper to manufacture. Even reducing the casing size might only save $10-15 in material, but you times that by 1 million units and that's $10-15 million in savings. A 45nm cheap produces less heat, needs less cooling, and doesn't cost as much to make as a 65nm chip. It's not any better, it's just more efficient, hence MS losing a lot of their overheating and RROD issues as they brought the chip size down in the 360.

It will not be more expensive...

The reason you're probably seeing a slim this early (3 years is fairly quick for one, PS2 slim came after 4 years), is because it's the easiest way for Sony to slash the price. Cutting the price on the current model to $299 whilst making the PS3 the same size with the same internals would bleed them dry again, which probably explains them being so tight fisted about leaving the console at $400 for 2 years.

[Sethos]

They will probably charge even more for the Slim - "Oh but it has everything the PS3 has but in a smaller package, THAT IS WORTH MORE!". And they need to start making money off of the console, so a "cheaper to produce" slim at a high price, they would start making money off each sale then.

[Ironman273]

You guys are basically saying you expect a console launching at $600 to have sold more than a console launching at $400 with a one year headstart?

I'll only speak for myself, but I'm saying that a console that launched with the momentum of the PS2 behind it should've launched more "intelligently" than the reckless abandon that was the PS3.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

I'll only speak for myself, but I'm saying that a console that launched with the momentum of the PS2 behind it should've launched more "intelligently" than the reckless abandon that was the PS3.

I agree whole heartedly with that, the launch was a disaster of epic proportions, but again you're still not commenting on the actual PS3 sales of where they are right now, rather focussing on the PS2/the PS3 launch and everything apart from the actual sales to date :p

People are saying the price was the issue from launch, yet also saying they expected the PS3 to sell better? It's a bit of a contradiction if you're saying price is the main driver of sales, but expect something with a really high price to outsell/sell better than competition. Therefore I was asking for a in context explanation of why some of you expected a $600 console to be outselling the 360 which launched at $400 a year earlier? That is because I assume people are saying sales are lackluster because the PS3 is at 23/24 million units, and the 360 is at 30/31 million units.

The PS3 may have had months outselling the 360, but anyone knocked back down to earth could tell you with a years headstart and a $200 deficit in launch prices, it's just not realistic for Sony to be selling better than the 360 LTD (life to date). Besides what fanboys, Michael Pachter and anyone else predicted (even myself and others on this board), saying Sony would have a higher install base than MS with a device at $600 in 2006/2007 was a disastrous prediction. Price really matters, this generation has taught us that, and that soccer moms like fitness games :p

Which is why Sony need to become better priced for casuals, they can't bankroll on the hardcore and AV enthusiasts for much/any longer. People see value in the console and want to buy it, you would not sell 23/24 million consoles at $400-600 if that weren't the case, but not everyone can physically spend that sort of money, regardless of any value they/others may see.

Edited July 10, 2009 by Audioboxer

[spenser.d]

This is the first most serious mainstream console to launch at $600, then only be at $400 2 years later, I think for hitting 24 million units in 2 years it's value has definitely been enough to help it do decently considering those prices. For some perspective the PS2 launched at $299...

Does everyone forget where the 360 was after 2 years? It definitely wasn't higher than 24 million, it's at 30 million units now at 3 years.

Has everyone also forgotten the PS3 and 360 sold the same amount of units worldwide in 2008? The price cut of the 360 at the end of the year actually helping boost it greatly, but prior to the cut it was still cheaper than the PS3.

The PS3 sales are taking their toll badly this year though, which has intensified price cut requests. By the time the PS3 gets its cut, it will almost have been 2 years since it dropped to $400 (2007).

There is no way a device launching at $600, then selling at $400 for 2 years can realistically be expected to have sold much better than it has, especially not when within the same time frame the competition hasn't done drastically different.

This is fine, except the PS3 was following the blazing success of the PS2 and by all accounts should have been vastly outselling the Xbox 360 month after month. That's the same Xbox 360 that was following the...well average-ness that the original Xbox was. The Xbox 360 sold more units in 3 years than it's predecessor did in it's entire lifetime and there's no end. I'm not even actually convinced that a price drop for the PS3 is going to convince enough consumers that it'll put the PS3 over the top as far as sales go, and if that happens to come true, it'll really prove the sad state of affairs that SCE is in regarding this console.

-Spenser

[Ironman273]

I don't think the focus is on $$$ vs $$$. It's more about Sony launching a console that had a direct competititor. And they launched a year later so they had data to go by, not just guesses as to what the competition was doing. They actively decided that trojan-horseing blu-ray into it would be worth it because people would transition from the PS2 to the PS3 without question. They were wrong about that. My beef with it is that no matter what they say, their thinking was not with the consumer's best interest in mind. Their thinking was "we made a killing on the PS2 and now we have the opportunity to make money on the blu-ray format so let's do this with the PS3."

[Ricardo Gil]

I agree whole heartedly with that, the launch was a disaster of epic proportions, but again you're still not commenting on the actual PS3 sales of where they are right now, rather focussing on the PS2/the PS3 launch and everything apart from the actual sales to date :p

We've commented on that several times already.

You said even though it came out with a $600 price tag it managed to keep up with the 360's sales. That has one reason only, the brand name. The PS2 was so popular (it was the console that "everyone" had) that many people just bought it on potential and future promises alone. If "PlayStation" were a new brand back then on the market I wouldn't have bought it, simple as that.

I believe millions of other people would have done same.

But the truth is it that "PlayStation" meant console and just like Ken or Kaz said, they could release the PS3 without games and they would still sell. Hell, he wasn't far from the truth.

FF to 2009 and we can all agree that the XBox has gained its reputation as a games console too. Now Sony has to fight the game on its own merit, because the brand name momentum has dissolved.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

AGAIN it's PS2 PS2 PS2. Or talk about the bad launch, or talk about PR.

Why can't you guys just comment on actual PS3 sales in relation to Sony being able to ship a console at $400-600 and sell 23-24 million units?

Stifler, with a one year head start Sony already had 7 million sales to make up, in order to just match the 360 in the first year, they'd needed to have done like 17 million units in one year at $600... How is that a reasonable expectation?

You really expected a $600 console to be vastly outselling a $400 month upon month? It outsold it for a good part of last year up until the 360 price cut which leveled both consoles at 10 million worldwide for the year, again showing how important price is.

You guys are saying how the brand has helped the PS3, no one is doubting that, this debate started from "PS3 sales are lackluster", not "Has the PS2 brand helped the PS3", and I'm just trying to find out how/why people expected a console at such a high price to be sitting higher than it currently is.

Edited July 10, 2009 by Audioboxer