Ars Technica rumor claims 399 40GB PS3 this year

[Rangers]

http://arstechnica.com/journals/thu...-in-our-mole-lets-us-in-on-sonys-future-plans

Seems unlikely to me but, whatever. I suppose it is possible with Sony recently raising money and actually, I've been hinting a 399 PS3 for a while so I'm not sure why I'm contradicting myself

This reminds me of what the heck MS needs to do..drop the stupid Elite and go with 40GB premium! If Sony does this it will make MS pricing structure look pretty bad..but I think MS plans for a deeper cut died with 1 billion set away for repairs..they could have sold the next 10 million consoles for $100 cheaper for that money..which would have meant a $249 premium..

 

[liolio]

http://arstechnica.com/journals/thu...-in-our-mole-lets-us-in-on-sonys-future-plans

Seems unlikely to me but, whatever. I suppose it is possible with Sony recently raising money and actually, I've been hinting a 399 PS3 for a while so I'm not sure why I'm contradicting myself

This reminds me of what the heck MS needs to do..drop the stupid Elite and go with 40GB premium! If Sony does this it will make MS pricing structure look pretty bad..but I think MS plans for a deeper cut died with 1 billion set away for repairs..they could have sold the next 10 million consoles for $100 cheaper for that money..which would have meant a $249 premium..

I agree on both point, I feel that MS is lagging behind its own pricing strategy (you're right the 1 billion... hurts).

And everybody (consumers, editors even square) ask Sony for a price drop.
But Sony lose ton of money at the price it sells ps3 in Japan (hopefully it doesn't sell that much) and else where.
The loss for the first quarters of ps3 exploitation are abysmal...

Shortly, I feel like everybody ask Sony to stretch even further their profitability plan (witch already seems a quiet long term plan) for the sake of brand recognition/BD push/etc.

Sony has real tough decisions to take..

 

[Qroach]

People at MS predicted a $399 PS3 by the end of the year with no backward compatibility support about 2 months back. They are expecting it.

 

[Rangers]

People at MS predicted a $399 PS3 by the end of the year with no backward compatibility support about 2 months back. They are expecting it.

True and I recall at the time everybody yelled at them for spreading "fud". The theory was they wanted people to be disappointed when Sony didn't actually do it.

 

[DJ12]

People at MS predicted a $399 PS3 by the end of the year with no backward compatibility support about 2 months back. They are expecting it.

And just were did you get the idea there would be no BC support?

 

[Arwin]

Yes, they just mean less PS2 chips, probably, or got confused by that concept (I mean the 80GB without the PS2 CPU has just been released). The cost of the PS2 chips in there was considered to be fairly considerable.

I've also predicted a 399 PS3 by the end of the year, but we'll see. A 40GB harddrive though? Seems a strange figure - I thought 80GB was basically becoming the cheapest HDD now.

 

[Rangers]

I think one caveat against this move is, all the angry customers that just bought 599 80GB PS3's it would create. Ask Apple about that..

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Indeed, unless Sony got a job lot of unused 40 GB HDDs on the cheap, it makes no sense!
As for angry customers, tough! Prices drop and console buys know this. They get angry, but what can they do? If they weren't willing to spend $600 on a console, they should wait for the price to drop. Pretty much all markets have price drops. You can buy a car this week only to have a special offer appear next week. And PC prices drop like nobody's business without causing a stink. As a consumer, it'd be nice if you weren't caught out by an unexpected price-drop, but at the end of the day, that's life. Nothing anyone will do about it.

 

["Nerve-Damage"]

I think one caveat against this move is, all the angry customers that just bought 599 80GB PS3's it would create. Ask Apple about that..

Not really.

PS3 is going on a full year now, so certain price cuts were expected. While Apple’s iPhone has been out less than 2 months. Apple iPhone early adopters just feel hurt (rightfully so?) because the immediate price cut was just out the blue.

 

[Carl B]

Well, doesn't make any more sense today than the rumor did when it cropped up before; certainly a 40GB 2.5" drive difference doesn't logically equate to a $100 cut, and definitely not when the 80GB drives are in fact cheaper to source.

Holidays are soon enough that we won't be waiting long though to see if this whole thing's real or not.

 

[Titanio]

Doesn't make sense. As per the common understanding of 'HDD economics', at least, a 40GB system shouldn't be any cheaper to make than a 80GB system. That's why the 60GB system was phased out too. If anything it might be more expensive to make at this point.

But, if I were conjuring up a rumour for the masses, it would make sense to differentiate a cheaper system with a smaller HDD, since MS and Sony have both to varying degrees differentiated their cheaper and more expensive systems by using varying storage capacities, even if it's one of the less relevant contributors to system cost, so the idea would appeal to less informed perception of HDD capacity and pricepoints.

 

[patsu]

Our mole has a great track record: both the Xbox 360 HDMI story and the wired Xbox 360 Rock Band controllers have since been confirmed.

I posted a response in GAF. A good Windows mole does not necessarily make a good Sony mole.

Without any supporting evidence, this looks like just another speculation similar to MS's earlier prediction. I doubt that the 40Gb PS3 rumor is true.

Instead of relaying the rumor, Ars should have challenged their source and ask him/her to explain why it is viable given the common belief that 40Gb HDD should be more expensive to make than 80Gb now. As a technical site, the least they could do is to conduct a quick survey of 40Gb HDD bulk rate (compared to 60Gb and 80Gb)

Why not simply drop the price of the 60Gb since it would have more volume than 40Gb due to existing orders. They also didn't mention the territory.

That would actually make an interesting article. Now it reads like another forum post.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That's why the 60GB system was phased out too.

Except it wasn't The 80GB appears to have been introduced to offset the loss of full BC in NA. 60GB hasn't been phased out in the rest of the world on account of it no longer being the cheapest capacity HDD. That could be because they're using up stocks of HDD, maybe. Dunno. But the whole cheapest HDD solution never appears to hold water with consoles! For whatever reason, these companies choose to use less economically sensible storage solutions. Sony introducing a 40GB PS3, despite being nonsensical, is no more nonsensical in that respect than MS continuing with a 20GB HDD for XB360 when for presumably no more money on their part they could offer consumers a lot more storage and value.

 

[Heinrich4]

How the economy of little USDs on each HDD 40GB could make Sony sell console at US$399?

Sometimes i fell some articles aim to make certain pressure to manufacturers, therefore does not have much logic in this... at least for who has some knowledge of the hardware/videogames etc.

BOM of ps3:

http://img260.imageshack.us/my.php?image=untitled2fl4.jpg

http://img112.imageshack.us/my.php?image=untitledxj7.jpg

http://www.electronicproducts.com/whatsinside/viewteardown.asp?filename=Xbox_360_web.html

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I think the idea is to introduce the hardware at a lower price, but still maintain a more profitable 'higher-end' version. The price to manufacture has already dropped considerably. It's quite possible PS3 is $200 per unit cheaper to make now then when it launched. By passing on those savings, Sony offer a lower entry point, but also take less profit than they do now. So by offering a cheapo 40GB version, some people who know no better will pay for $100 for only 20GB more storage. After all, if that's the major distinguishing number on the box, 50% (or 100%) more storage for only a 20% increase in price has to be worth it, right?

 

[Gradthrawn]

I think the idea is to introduce the hardware at a lower price, but still maintain a more profitable 'higher-end' version. The price to manufacture has already dropped considerably. It's quite possible PS3 is $200 per unit cheaper to make now then when it launched. By passing on those savings, Sony offer a lower entry point, but also take less profit than they do now. So by offering a cheapo 40GB version, some people who know no better will pay for $100 for only 20GB more storage. After all, if that's the major distinguishing number on the box, 50% (or 100%) more storage for only a 20% increase in price has to be worth it, right?

The WiFi and card reader modules could also be dropped. Assuming they're still modular, that is.

 

[Rangers]

Well, doesn't make any more sense today than the rumor did when it cropped up before; certainly a 40GB 2.5" drive difference doesn't logically equate to a $100 cut, and definitely not when the 80GB drives are in fact cheaper to source.

Umm of course 40GB drive is not $100 cheaper (if at all)..since when did cost have anything to do with companies creating an artificial value situation?

One assumes this would not be the only PS3 sku, and as such, some sort of value differentiator, however artificial, must be created.

This rumor does appear to be on tenuous ground. However if true, it'll be interesting to see microsoft's response.

 

[-tkf-]

But Sony lose ton of money at the price it sells ps3 in Japan (hopefully it doesn't sell that much) and else where.

Tons of money is speculation, noone really knows how much exactly. We only know that the PS3 is alot cheaper to produce know than it were when they launched it and there hasn´t been any real price drops.

 

[dobwal]

Except it wasn't The 80GB appears to have been introduced to offset the loss of full BC in NA. 60GB hasn't been phased out in the rest of the world on account of it no longer being the cheapest capacity HDD. That could be because they're using up stocks of HDD, maybe. Dunno. But the whole cheapest HDD solution never appears to hold water with consoles! For whatever reason, these companies choose to use less economically sensible storage solutions. Sony introducing a 40GB PS3, despite being nonsensical, is no more nonsensical in that respect than MS continuing with a 20GB HDD for XB360 when for presumably no more money on their part they could offer consumers a lot more storage and value.

One could surmised that MS's continuing with a 20GB HDD is due to contractual obligations, pricing on the 20GB HDD is based on a certain volume.

A 40GB PS3 is another matter as it makes little sense to introduce $100 cheaper sku based primarily on a smaller HDD as going to 80 to 40Gb shouldn't save Sony anywhere near a $100 in manufacturing costs.

Maybe the $399.00 sku will come with no multi-card reader, no wifi and a wired controller and Sony will just eat the additional losses to increase marketshare?

 

[rekator]

One could surmised that MS's continuing with a 20GB HDD is due to contractual obligations, pricing on the 20GB HDD is based on a certain volume.

A 40GB PS3 is another matter as it makes little sense to introduce $100 cheaper sku based primarily on a smaller HDD as going to 80 to 40Gb shouldn't save Sony anywhere near a $100 in manufacturing costs.

Maybe the $399.00 sku will come with no multi-card reader, no wifi and a wired controller and Sony will just eat the additional losses to increase marketshare?

In fact this SKU replace the "Stealth" 20Go PS3…