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

[+Anarkii Subscriber²]

I have a PS3 and im happy with it. The only thing that I hate is how devs are writing the good games for only the xbox and pc, like Splinter Cell Conviction and the like. I would much rather play it on a more then fully capable console (the ps3) instead of the clunky controls of the PC. Someone needs to write a XBOX 360 emulator for the PS3 lol, that would solve that problem anyway!

[Sethos]

I have to agree with the fact that the PS3 wouldn't be sitting at 22 Million or whatever the count is, without the strong brand that was moulded in the success of PS1 and PS2. Jacking up the price of production by shoving their format down our throat and including features a lot of people don't have have a use for, that is their own fault and could have been avoided.

[Ricardo Gil]

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?

They managed to do so because of the PS and the PS2, can't you understand that?

[r0c]

Maybe because they have a better idea on how to run a business then the average Joe, hmm? people can bitch and moan all they want but fact is the PS3 is as low as it can go for now, it ain't cheap to make the PS3 and selling it at a huge loss to please cheap arse whiners is bad business, period. You don't like the PS3 price? then don't buy it simple. Yes, Sony made a huge mistake putting the Blu-Ray drive in the PS3, while it may of helped [blu-Ray] win the war but it comes at a terrible cost, it keeps the PS3 in a high price range. Sony are working on making it cheaper and it will eventually drop and if you can't afford/justify the cost then wait, it's not like the PS3 is the only console, you can pick up a 360 or a Wii or just game on a PC. People need to stop bitching about the price of the PS3 like it's the only console on the market, damn does it annoy me! :p

EDIT: Also, there is no evidence Sony doesn't listen! for all we know they are taking everything on board, you know Sony want the PS3 cheaper too because they really want it to sell but it's not that simple, they can't just drop the price for the sake of it. There are many other things to consider. If companies ran in the way consumers wanted them too, they'd be all bankrupt and consumers would then be bitching and moaning about that.

:shiftyninja:

agreed

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

They managed to do so because of the PS and the PS2, can't you understand that?

Yes! I know that. I'm not asking people to tell me why the PS3 has sold, I'm asking them about their expectations of said sales.

I'm questioning you, and others remarks that PS3 sales are lackluster and asking you to justify why you thought/think/expected a $600 console to be sitting higher than it is right now. Some of you are trying to tell me price is the key to sales, so why would you expect such an expensive device to have sold vastly different than it has?

You're saying brand has helped, but did you genuinely think brand would be powerful enough to have a $400-600 console making up a 7 million 360 head start? That's the daft predictions some of us/Michael Pachter and others were making in 2006, but it's completely wrong, money is money, what people can't afford they don't buy regardless of brand, especially when competing products are so much cheaper.

The 360 launched at $400, the PS3, $600, that's a $200 deficit, even if the PS3 has only tracked the 360 within the same time frame (it really has, there's still that 7 million gap today), isn't that a reasonable success moving such a higher priced console on the same line?

[Kirkburn]

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.

Uh, I think you answered your question in the first sentence. That's better tech.

Btw, regarding the argument that came up earlier about Wii being unused - in economic terms, the attachment rates are what's important here (that is, games sold per console).

Last report I find is Nov 2008 - http://gizmodo.com/5079375/how-many-games-each-console-sells - and the Wii was still leading the PS3.

[Ricardo Gil]

You're saying brand has helped, but did you genuinely think brand would be powerful enough to have a $400-600 console making up a 7 million 360 head start?

It's not about what we expected, it's about what Sony expected. That's why they failed, they relied on brand name alone expecting to crush the competition. Instead, they ended up with an overrated, overpriced console and a bunch of angry costumers.

[+Mystic MVC]

The 360 launched at $400, the PS3, $600, that's a $200 deficit, even if the PS3 has only tracked the 360 within the same time frame (it really has, there's still that 7 million gap today), isn't that a reasonable success moving such a higher priced console on the same line?

I think that it is considered a success at many points that they were able to sell so many units at such a high cost but I've got one comment. We will never be able to know how many people have it for just Blu-Ray and like when DVD units came out, were willing to pay that premium price to have new technology. The 360 has had to sell itself mainly on games and XBL. Microsoft would like to say as an entertainment hub but much of the general public doesn't bother.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

It's not about what we expected, it's about what Sony expected. That's why they failed, they relied on brand name alone expecting to crush the competition. They ended up with an overrated, overpriced console and a bunch of angry costumers.

What has our chat got to do with Sony's expectations, we were discussing ours?

You said you thought sales were lackluster, and you still haven't answered me why after about a page and a half of me re-asking, so let's just leave it. I don't want to play games, relive E3 2006, talk about the PS3 launch, talk about the PS2, it started as a simple question asking people to comment on 23/24 million consoles getting sold at $400-600 and asking why/how you thought that number should be higher. Not tell me about how the PS2 helped sell PS3s, I know that, an unknown console launching at $600 would have gone to prison.

I think that it is considered a success at many points that they were able to sell so many units at such a high cost but I've got one comment. We will never be able to know how many people have it for just Blu-Ray and like when DVD units came out, were willing to pay that premium price to have new technology. The 360 has had to sell itself mainly on games and XBL. Microsoft would like to say as an entertainment hub but much of the general public doesn't bother.

That is true, which is why when I'm talking about price I'm mentioning bank rolling the hardcore gamers and AV enthusiasts. It's probably something that affects software sales, while the PS3 is at 23/24 million units, developers may only be selling to a potential 17/18 million gamers (completely random number), the rest could just be watching movies. Which is why the price has to come down.

[Sethos]

What has our chat got to do with Sony's expectations, we were discussing ours?

You said you thought sales were lackluster, and you still haven't answered me why after about a page and a half of me re-asking, so let's just leave it. I don't want to play games, relive E3 2006, talk about the PS3 launch, talk about the PS2, it started as a simple question asking people to comment on 23/24 million consoles getting sold at $400-600 and asking why/how you thought that number should be higher.

We didn't expect it to be higher at that price, we expected Sony to not add a ton of crap to the console, price it lower and blast the competition. At least I did.

[Omar Hussain]

can anyone say for sure whether there is going to be a price cut for the PS3 coming soon or is that just speculation?

[iamwhoiam]

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.

Arrogance is what Sony's about. They [probably] figured that with the success of the PS2 and the brand recognition that they could do whatever they wanted and people would buy it just because it was a PS. They over stuffed the console with, IMO, things that were needed and removed those that were (BC).

The next PS will still be over priced, hard to develop for and still lack any significant number of 1st party titles.

[HighwayGlider]

In the long run XBOX 360 will have more units sold than PS3 that SONY won't be able to catch up.

[+Mystic MVC]

That is true, which is why when I'm talking about price I'm mentioning bank rolling the hardcore gamers and AV enthusiasts. It's probably something that affects software sales, while the PS3 is at 23/24 million units, developers may only be selling to a potential 17/18 million gamers (completely random number), the rest could just be watching movies. Which is why the price has to come down.

I just wish a large site like Kotaku or IGN would do a poll with the exact question of who has a PS3 purely for Blu-Ray. Out of my friends, only one has a PS3 and he got it for Blu-Ray. That is nowhere near descriptive of the entire population of PS3 owners, but having a number to shoot towards (how many are gamers) is always helpful.

[Ricardo Gil]

What has our chat got to do with Sony's expectations, we were discussing ours?

You said you thought sales were lackluster, and you still haven't answered me why after about a page and a half of me re-asking, so let's just leave it.

That's because you're mixing two different things here...

Of course I think their sales were lacking, they were kings last gen, they had everything going for them. But considering all the screw-ups, they're doing OK.

Basically, you're just asking things that everyone here has already answered.

I'll break it down to you:

- Considering their previous situation, they're lacking.

- Taking into account all the stuff they've done wrong, the sales are actually pretty good.

- Why? Because of the PS brand momentum.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

I just wish a large site like Kotaku or IGN would do a poll with the exact question of who has a PS3 purely for Blu-Ray. Out of my friends, only one has a PS3 and he got it for Blu-Ray. That is nowhere near descriptive of the entire population of PS3 owners, but having a number to shoot towards (how many are gamers) is always helpful.

Neither would IGN or Kotaku be. You're talking thousands of readers, not millions, and those are gamer focussed websites, the poll is going to be ridiculously skewed if your question on them was "do you play any games on your PS3 or just Blu Ray". It's gamers that read those websites, if your plan was to try find those only using it for media functionality you'd need to visit all the AV websites.

At the end of the day it's still PS3s in houses, even if you aren't a gamer you may make money for Sony in other ways such as through the PSN store (video rental). Then there's always the chance you might pickup your first game "ever" at some point if something catches your eye, this generation is ending up more diverse than any before. With titles through PSN selling for $3-10 even the non-gamers might be okay putting down a little for a game or two instead of gambling on a $60 title.

If Sony are still losing around $40 per PS3 sold right now, it doesn't take an end user long to eclipse that loss if they buy a few things a month, that's the benefit of making these consoles home entertainment devices, lots of streams for potential revenue.

Edited July 10, 2009 by Audioboxer

[Growled Member]

I don't think there is any doubt about that the PS3 having superior technology. If Sony can stay focused on the long term and not be bogged down in current sales they may yet become a winner. The Xbox will almost certainly need another version released before the PS3 does.

[Minifig]

So .. you're telling me..

They're going to bring out a new improved slimline ps3 and knock down the old one to make a profit on it?

After how long on the market ? :pinch:

:no: .. Sorry, I think Sony's lost this one, unless they mark the "old" model down dramatically.

Reason?

They'll be producing BOTH models.

Production costs over all will put them in a hurt, when they're already in a hurt from the fact that the original PS3 isn't selling as well as they hoped.

[+Mystic MVC]

Neither would IGN or Kotaku be. You're talking thousands of readers, not millions, and those are gamer focussed websites, the poll is going to be ridiculously skewed if your question on them was "do you play any games on your PS3 or just Blu Ray". It's gamers that read those websites, if your plan was to try find those only using it for media functionality you'd need to visit all the AV websites.

I think I win the stupidest post of the day it is only 10:30am here! It is going to be a long day, my bad sir.

[Ricardo Gil]

I don't think there is any doubt about that the PS3 having superior technology. If Sony can stay focused on the long term and not be bogged down in current sales they may yet become a winner. The Xbox will almost certainly need another version released before the PS3 does.

Source?

[Argi]

Source?

PS3 has "better" CPU, 360 has "better" GPU. No secrets there, we don't need this to degrade into 360 v PS3.

[Growled Member]

Also the PS3 has Blu-Ray.

[Minifig]

I don't think there is any doubt about that the PS3 having superior technology.

Oh and, watch them too Growled.

Edited July 10, 2009 by Andrew-DB

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

So .. you're telling me..

They're going to bring out a new improved slimline ps3 and knock down the old one to make a profit on it?

After how long on the market ? :pinch:

:no: .. Sorry, I think Sony's lost this one, unless they mark the "old" model down dramatically.

Reason?

They'll be producing BOTH models.

Production costs over all will put them in a hurt, when they're already in a hurt from the fact that the original PS3 isn't selling as well as they hoped.

Uhhh let me tell you how it works :p

The 80GB being sold just now, will probably either be out of production completely, or about to stop production fairly soon and all they'll be selling is stock. Stock being PS3s sitting in Sony warehouses ready to go to stores just now. Companies like Sony have a lot of money to throw around, they can sit on stock piles in the thousands, if not hundreds of thousands. The consoles are guaranteed to get sold onto retail, so there's no issues sitting on some stock.

This is the reason you're seeing bundles like this, to get rid of all the current stock piles. By the end of the summer, you might even see the PS3 hard to find in some stores, and no, keep the heads I'm not suggesting it's because it's "sold out", it'll just be because the retail chains aren't receiving stock volumes from Sony like they used to as fat production winds to a halt.

Of course when the Slim launches there will be an overlap to some extent of stores having fat and slim, but not long after, probably a month or two, maybe even less, the big major retail chains will only be carrying the slim. You'll no doubt find fat PS3s in some stores until after Christmas. At some point early next year though, if not earlier, you won't be able to buy a fat in retail any more.

That's how the process will change over, and if the PS3 Slim launches at $299, fat will be cut as well, there will only be a small % of fats circulating so the cut won't do much harm in terms of loss per unit sold. The slim itself might even be selling at a profit, but it's more than likely it'll be around break even or a small loss at $299 (yes I am suggesting reducing to a smaller console, 45nm and redesigning the insides could make the PS3 cost that much less to manufacture). This is why they'll be desperate to bang out the Slim, large manufacturing savings.

So no, they will not be producing both models.

Edited July 10, 2009 by Audioboxer

[Death Proof]

PS3 is very cheap , i think it should cost something like 700$

[Add cheap mexicano accent above ]