Playstation 3: Hardware Info and Price

[Tap In]

But also Sony has a complete vision of people downloading extra content onto their PS3s (sorta what MS is doing now with the 360, but Sony wants people to also download music, movie clips, etc). Selling a non-HDD PS3 would ruin those plans.

Also I think Sony wanted the devs to be able to code for the PS3 as if the HDD was there too.

yes, those are valid concerns but as far as marketing goes, the Core system (and a no HDD core PS3 with the ability to add HDD later) is a good move for future competition.

impulse buyers (the vast majority of purchasers who will come after the first year or two) always buy off of the BASE price. Rarely do they sit and add all the additional costs.

also, I'm pretty sure MS devs code for the HDD drive too.

If the HDD is there, it takes advantage of the caching features, if not it defaults to streaming and saving to a memory card.

according to the "uncloaked" doc ...again... , Ms did quite a study on how devs used the HDD that was in every Xbox 1 and found that it was never fully utilized in ways that actually took full advantage.

 

[DUALDISASTER]

so what types of games are possible that are not possible on 360? Thats what they need to show.. so far I havent seen anything like that

Based off real world specs, ps3 looks to provide more immersion from their games. Plus, you get the best of both worlds with ps3, I.E. great graphics and unique ways to control their games.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

Not a bad strategy IMO. The 20GB-PS3 I felt was just a toke way of saying they had the PS3 at $499.

And it is looking like the PS3 will be GBP 425. Based on a site I just googled and converted, that is $803.82 USD.

I agree it's smart for them to release only the 60GB model for UK and maybe for Rest of the Europe too, but at 425GB and 800$ it is alot... If X360 get's a price cut next christmas things will be interesting. I also think that hitting that 499$ is not as important as for X360 core to hit 299$ as 499$ still is not very cheap and can still be seen as expensive high end, whereas 299$ can be seen as low entry level price, the difference in price between X360 and PS3 is so big that the 20GB PS3 doesn't really fit the same shirt if money is concerned, they should just focus and market PS3 as more high end and more versatile machine and thus costing big bucks.

edit: since if both are viewed as game machines, the huge price difference can turn out to be nasty for Sony, so they need to Market it being more than just game console, it's a bit risky for Sony as I'm sure many will still see it as just a game console even with all the new abilities.

 

[mckmas8808]

I understand the whole marketing perception, but honestly it doesn't follow with the vision Sony has with the PS3 at all. Everything they talk about is Network related or HDD enabled that selling one without it just would have ran against their vision completly.

 

[slider]

Add 2 games and an extra controller and you've got $1,000+. That's quite a sticker shock for a lot of people.

Well no it's not really and I bet you've smacked your forehead with a "d'oh!".

£425 + 2 games + a controller say... £550 at the top end
$499/$599 + 2 games + a controller... is I dunno what our US friends pay

Still you could make a case that it's still a sticker shock.

 

[Tap In]

Well no it's not really and I bet you've smacked your forehead with a "d'oh!".

£425 + 2 games + a controller say... £550 at the top end
$499/$599 + 2 games + a controller... is I dunno what our US friends pay

Still you could make a case that it's still a sticker shock.

how much are games there?

US is $599 + $60 (minimum?) per game x2 + $50? controller +Tax = $780US (top end)

 

[Tap In]

I understand the whole marketing perception, but honestly it doesn't follow with the vision Sony has with the PS3 at all. Everything they talk about is Network related or HDD enabled that selling one without it just would have ran against their vision completly.

I understand

Again, I think 2x blu Ray may be too slow to not have a HDD cache (maybe a techie could correct that for me )

If streaming is not a factor, then I question a vision that doesn't fully involve the perception and reality of the market. Unless they are just counting on past success and brand recognition to carry the day, which is possible.

Also, I think their vision highly includes Blu Ray being THE format and selling movies for them.

 

[RobertR1]

Well no it's not really and I bet you've smacked your forehead with a "d'oh!".

£425 + 2 games + a controller say... £550 at the top end
$499/$599 + 2 games + a controller... is I dunno what our US friends pay

Still you could make a case that it's still a sticker shock.

I was referring to his GBP > US dollar example. 550GBP > $1000. Nothing to "d' oh" about.

 

[slider]

how much are games there?

US is $599 + $60 (minimum?) per game x2 + $50? controller +Tax = $780US (top end)

I think we're all agreed it's an expensive sucker!

The £425 price I kind of linked to back in post 638(!) doesn't seem that bad to me. Seeing it in actual £'s has solidified it in my plans. I get the impression most people don't feel that way.

When are people assuming a price drop for? Units sold, time passed, PS3 sale, response to 360/Wii sales?

If it was on units sold, a non-global launch would've aided them immensely I reckon. First 2 million sold in Japan (which I'm sure they could do) -> price drop and hit other territories. But that's assuming an awful lot about corporate strategies... and I bet is way wide of the mark.

 

[slider]

I was referring to his GBP > US dollar example. 550GBP > $1000. Nothing to "d' oh" about.

Thought you might've been. But I think the sort of people that routinely convert local prices to overseas are in the minority.

 

[RobertR1]

If it's a closed computer system with similar architecture (like Macintoshes), it will not be difficult for developers to know which revision your console is, and then turn off certain features to make it run well. You still get what you paid for. It's just like buying a Mac.
.

No thanks:
http://theinquirer.net/?article=31810

 

[dobwal]

I think we all can agree that Sony is going into uncharted territory here. Bundling their gaming machine with features that have a noticeable negative affect on the PS3 retail price. If Sony fails, then one of the primary causes will undoubtedly be the high cost. However, I don’t think you can automatically predict failure based off the high retail prices. While there is plenty of examples of high priced consoles that failed, none have had the brand recognition, brand loyalty or market share that has been established by the PS2 for the PS3.

Nevertheless, I believe that Sony is playing fire in a fragile market; Nintendo, Sega and Atari can contest to this fact. The PS3 has the potential of becoming the next gen version of the Sega Saturn. The Saturn was technically advanced for its time, having two cpus with 6 additional processors. However, it was difficult to develop games on the Saturn due to a number reasons, one being the lack of development tools for quad based rendering. It may or may not be hard to develop PS3 games, but I have a hard time determining which games would have been launch ready if the PS3 had been release this spring. Saturn launched at a high price point than the PS1 ($399 vs. $299) and was unable to match subsequent retail price reductions as Sega had a hard time reducing manufacturing cost of the Saturn. $499/$599 (PS3) vs. $399/$299 (360) vs. $249/$199 (Wii) doesn’t show the PS3 in a favorable light, but the Sony has the advantage of manufacturing it own components. However, with rumors of yield issues for the Cell at 90nm might not bode well for 65nm production.

However, if anyone can pull this off it is Sony. But if the PS3 succeeds I think it will because it’s a gaming machine and not because it is a cheap Blu-Ray player, the center of living room entertainment, a home server or whatever else. People don’t spend the night at Best Buy, Wal-Mart or sit in mile long lines in Japan for those features. They spend those night and that wait in line to buy a gaming machine capable of playing MGS4, FF, GT and GTA4.

 

[Blazkowicz]

I understand

Again, I think 2x blu Ray may be too slow to not have a HDD cache (maybe a techie could correct that for me )

A bluray "X" is obviously bigger than a DVD "X", I don't know how much it's slower than X360.
but having a HDD is better no matter the optical drive, imo.

optical has ten times the access time, plus you have to wait for the disk to spin up. much slower and noisier. HDD is better for random access to stuff at any time. it allows swap, too (so the OS GUI can be put to swap, and you can afford to use slightly more RAM than physically available.).

and I hate memory cards, we have 4 or 5 of them at home for the gamecube, keeping track of what's on them and inserting the right one sucks.

 

[one]

The Saturn was technically advanced for its time, having two cpus with 6 additional processors. However, it was difficult to develop games on the Saturn due to a number reasons, one being the lack of development tools for quad based rendering.

Saturn had another problem, PlayStation was more technically advanced for its time with its 3D-oriented architecture.

 

[Fox5]

Saturn had another problem, PlayStation was more technically advanced for its time with its 3D-oriented architecture.

And another, Saturn had severe production problems, Sega just couldn't produce very many of them very fast, so they squandered any of the initial fan loyalty they could have leveraged. Not to mention they launched without any recognizable titles, and even without any recognizable titles in the works, namely Sonic and perhaps a few others like Streets of Rage and Eternal Champions. Basically the franchises that built the Genesis, gamewise the Saturn was no better off than any other newcomer to the industry, and probably only outperformed Jaguar due to the Sega name.

 

[onanie]

Because you make no sense?

No, it is because you refuse to understand.

Link to show sales of core systems VS premium packs, please.

No, they just need to buy one console one week. Thus 'impulse buyers'

Bolded for emphasis. Impulse buyers don't save up for anything. They have enough money in their paycheck to cover the purchase price of the item. At $299, I'd say an overwhelming percentage of NA consumers can make the 360 an impulse buy. At $499, only a very small percentage of NA consumers can make the PS3 an impulse buy.

It's really rather simple.

Sorry, but they certainly do. If they didn't have to compete at $300, why would they reduce the price at all? Why not continue to sell the PS3 for $499 and $599 for its entire lifespan? Because a very large percentage of the population won't buy it, that's why.

A larger percentage of the population will buy a console at $299 than they will at $499. History demonstrates this. As console prices decreasel, their sales increase. Whether it's GC, or Xbox or PS2.

And BR is not a 'necessary' component for games. Simply because the 360 and Wii don't have it, no previous console has ever had it, no current console has it, and yet there's hundreds of million of gamers right now happily playing video games.

Even Microsoft knew - they intended for a 80:20 ratio between the premium and the core pack. If they thought rock bottom prices were the way to go, then shouldn't the ratio have been reversed? I can confidently say that most of you bought the premium bundle over the core, even if I do not have the official statististics from Microsoft. Even if you would want to artificially limit the argument to "poor but impulsive" buyers, they wouldn't represent the majority of the console buying population (my original point being that the core is of limited significance).

i think the whole problem with the situation is that you seem to have elevated yourself to be above the "average gamer", calling "it" impulsive or ignorant of value - you yourself have bought the premium pack and figured that all your mates are not smart enough to do the same. Nothing makes you special.

Sony does not need to compete with the $300 core bundle. If they "reduced" the price, it is to compete with the premium bundle, as I have mentioned many times. Over the lifespan of consoles, price reductions are anticipated, if to remain competitive with whatever the intended target was. Certainly it is no indication that they are trying to compete with the $300 core bundle, nor is there a concern that there will be insufficient demand at this current point in time.

While you'd also like to argue that BR is unnecessary technically, I'll simply say that it is at least technically desirable (much like the fabled xenos, technically unnecessary for next-gen graphics, but you could at least see that it is desirable, honestly). There should be grounds for why Deano is "glad" to have a nice big disk. Not having a high capacity medium is ultimately a compromise (if not now, then definitely the future), no matter how you put it. But, please, do not let me stop you from refusing it.

 

[onanie]

I dont understand these arguments that are based around the idea of value and disregard price.

An Acura NSX is a great 'value' compared to a Lamborghini, yet the Honda Civic sells thousands upon thousands more, anyone want to guess why?

Analogies are great if they are accurate. Yours isn't. The $400 premium bundle is not quite a lamborghini in price tag compared to a supposed civic $300 core bundle, yet it is still vastly more popular. The analogy is certainly no truer when the $500 PS3 SKU is compared to the $400 premium pack.

Perhaps it is more akin to the heated debates about bmw E90 vs lexus is250. The BMW costs more, but represents value in the styling and prestige. It is no wonder that it still outsells the lexus significantly

 

[Nesh]

I don't think it's even fully a matter of competing initially. The real question is does anybody really think that there will be PS3s on the shelf after the first 2 million are released internationally in November? After 2 million in December? After 2 million in...

At some point the shelves will start to stock, then Sony will have to consider price adjustments to compete. Obviously, they risk losing a few buyers who are unwilling to wait around to see if there are price reductions and opt for the cheaper available consoles.

-aldo

Thats exactly what happened with the Saturn. SEGA chose an architecture in the last minute that was way too costy to recover from. Sony not only sold PS1 cheaper. They made price cuts more often

SEGA was announcing numbers shipped and things seemed they went well. But in reality Saturns were shipped and stored on shelves

Ofcourse there is more variability now than back then. PS1 and Saturn were very similar in their offerings

PS3 is much different than the 360 but we have to wonder if the price surpassed that point in which even with major improvements and differences people will be willing to pay the price.

The good thing is that Sony owns most of the manufacturing process so unlike MS they dont have to pay fees for most of the parts except for RSX and they can also use economy of scale opportunities faster and exploit them for their own gain.

Sony will do price cuts when they can. But when will they be able to do it?

 

[MrWibble]

Sony will do price cuts when they can. But when will they be able to do it?

I don't think they're concerned about keeping it as cheap as possible - quite the opposite in fact, they want to keep it as expensive as possible. But they also want it to sell as many as possible... it's just supply and demand.

So I suspect the question should be more about "when will they consider it necessary" rather than when are they able... It's a matter of mitigating whatever losses they're going to make in the short term without damaging their long-term market share.

As long as the machines are selling (to consumers - not sitting on a shop shelf) they'll probably sell it for as much money as they possibly can. Given that it's impractical (and probably undesireable) to adjust the price constantly, like some kind of hardware stock-exchange, they have to chose discrete price-points. The moment stock starts to sit on shelves instead, they have to judge what price point to aim for next, and find the moment where dropping the price will increase sales more than it will increase losses...

IIRC, when the XBox came out, PS2 was still selling for quite a premium (I can't remember exactly - I seem to remember that the XBox was introduced at a similar price to PS2 was selling for?). A lot of people assumed a price-cut would be imminent, but Sony held their ground. The fact was, even at a price-point that seemed less attractive with the introduction of competition, they were able to sell most of the units they shipped - which meant cutting the price would only have cut their profits (or more likely at that stage increased their losses) without affecting their userbase.

I don't like the PS3's price-point either, but in principal I think Sony can sell as many units as they can build even at that price, so I can't honestly expect them to make it cheaper. My fingers are crossed that production capacity increases quickly so that they have so many machines going into the wild that they have to reduce prices to shift them...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

How do price drops affect stores and older stock? If there's a load of $600 PS3 bought into a store for $600 each (as I understand it, no profits on consoles), and they sell all but two, and then there's a price drop to $500, does the store sell these two more expensive PS3's at $500 and make a loss?