PS3 to retail less than $500

[London Geezer]

if you can afford 300 you can also 375 -400 plain and simple
most younger adults work or save their allowance for their gaming needs

That's a pretty wild assumption. Some people scrape a living together and every dollar counts. They still enjoy gaming, one of the cheapest pasttimes available, so they still buy consoles and games, but that 75-100 dollars/euros/pounds can be a large amount of their disposable income, potentially more than they can afford.

75-100 dollars is 1.5-2X games.

If they are gamers and can usually find money for 2 games, they will find the money to pay a bit extra, even if that means waiting.

Obviously, that means they *really* want a PS3. But in the end, if they don't, they don't, no matter what price it has.

I'd love to know how many people actually choose consoles according to their price. If anything, most buy the console they want, and adjust their saving/expenses based around that.

 

[gleemax]

I'd love to know how many people actually choose consoles according to their price. If anything, most buy the console they want, and adjust their saving/expenses based around that.

Yes, or they wait for the price to come down on their preferred console. That's what I do; I rarely buy games at full price either, unless the box says "developed by Insomniac." If PS3 debuts at $450 (or whatever), I won't immediately buy it. That doesn't mean I will jump ship and buy an Xbox 360 or Revolution because they cost less. I don't buy consoles to feel good about myself, I buy them to play games. If a console doesn't have the games I want to play, I won't buy it regardless of price. If a low price was vital to a console's success, the PS2 would have failed spectacularly. The truth is that a lower price can only be an enticement if you want the product in the first place. If Billy wants a GameCube, a lower price will entice him to buy it. No one is arguing that. The keyword is if.

People are making a big deal out of a small price difference. PS3 won't cost $1000; that's wishful thinking (for people who hate Sony). When you consider the PS3 hardware power/capability and software lineup, $450 is not an unreasonable price. On the other hand, I doubt Microsoft could sell many 360s at that price (IMO). These aren't Console A and Console B; these are unique products with unique capabilities and games. A higher price does not automatically doom a console to failure or preclude great success.

 

[_phil_]

I wouldn't be surprised to see next gen games priced Up.

 

[London Geezer]

I wouldn't be surprised to see next gen games priced Up.

Not one bit surprised. Come on, BlueRay games priced the same as DVD ones? Not gonna happen!

But i'd love to be wrong.

 

[jonnyp]

Price is driven by demand, if Sony see that demand for PS3 will be high enough (and who are we kidding, kids will want a PS3 like they want to have sex with Pamela Anderson), they will price it accordingly.

Eeeek, Pam the washed up bimbo with hepatitis? I certainly wouldn't

Seriously though, I don't think a slightly higher price for the PS3 is going to hurt Sony, especially if they this generation also have the most powerful hardware, which they didn't have in the last gen and still had the most expensive console.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Everybody I know, granted a horribly scientific sample, would most certainly consider the option of buying the X360 plus one or two games OR the PS3.

Saying that the PS3 (if it does cost more) greater price won't influence sales is bizarre. Of course it will. If the PS3 is priced $100 higher than the X360, then you have the option of buying an X360 plus two games or the PS3 and no games. At $50, you're talking about one game vs zero games for the same price.

The BR disc won't matter a hill of beans to most anybody unless the BR movies are already widely available at the time of the PS3 launch and I doubt that will happen. DVDs were already widely available when the PS2 launched, thats why the DVD player was "good extra value".

The Blue Tooth, the extra ports, etc.. are real nice, but how many people are going to actually use them? Most gamers will just look at the box and see that PS3 has "a bunch of extra stuff", but unless they are told how and why they need to use them.. Nobody will care. The PS3 as a hub/router? Great. How many gamers care? How many geeks don't already own a hub/router and won't see value in that extra "feature"?

And the talk from Sony right now seems to indicate they know their console will be priced higher and are trying to slowly prepare the market for it. They believe the extra value in the PS3 will justify the price.

It won't. Not to gamers. Not if the games look the same on both systems. Not if one console has already been on the market and might be poised for another price drop, and not if the difference in price means purchasing an extra 1,2 or 3 of those games that look nearly identical.

 

[London Geezer]

You assume many things.

And i'm a bit scared by your username. Reminds me of someone...

 

[Phil]

Something I find quite interesting is that one of our biggest newspapers (Blick.ch) is expecting Xbox360 launch price in Switzerland to be 370 CHF - which would be around $300. The strange is, is that PS2 launched at 699 CHF in 2000 - which equals no less than $570.

If Xbox360 is really that cheap...

 

[karlotta]

well the xbox360 might be that cheep. All this speculation, but maybe its realy a power play by MS to sell the box much cheaper. Knowing that Sony is in a real bind as a corp. they are loosing money, they put in a American at to fix it up. Blue ray is very expensive and will still be at launch of the
PS3, they wont make money on the PS3 H/W for alongtime and sony doesnt have a longtime to loose money. They dont have 54b$ in cash like MS. The dreamers and inovaters at Sony are going to be run by a suit from Hollywood, From the only Div that has made any REAL money for Sony the last few years. So all the BS i am saying is that Sony has to pick a price that works for the shareholders which will be higher than what ever MS has.

 

[Acert93]

1. The Xbox 360 just looks a lot cheaper to make, especially down the road. They have 35% more transistors, XDR, BR, and a lot of varying format connections (those add up), and WiFi out of the box. The only thing MS has more is the HDD, and maybe Sony will decide to go that route also. All things being equal (MS and Sony willing to lose as much on each console sold) I would be shocked if the consoles were the same price starting spring 2007 (fall 2006 may be a different story... new consoles vs. console with 1 year headstart in games).

2. GCN's price has significantly aided its position in the market. If they had stuck around the same price as the others it would have never been as close as it is with the Xbox 360. When they dropped to $99 it sold very well that first holiday season.

3. While not an issue to every, new consoles are expensive. $300 console, $50 a game, $30 for a new controller. So to get a new console you are already looking at $400 after tax in most US states. While those wanting a console will wait for that one, $400 and $500 are big jumps. As sweet as the PS3 looks I am not sure I could dump $500, especially considering...

4. I like online games. I think there is a new factor to guage in the whole buying preference, namely what do your friends have? In the past it was always cool when my friends got other consoles. But with Xbox it was not... I wanted to play Halo with them!

If all your friends get an Xbox 360 so they can play games you like (Gears, PDz, Halo 3, whatever) and you can get that $50-$100 cheaper that is HUGE, especially for the first 2 years where there is a lot of hardcore gamers and early adopters moving on over. e.g if my friend on the other side of the US gets a Xbox 360 and tells me he wants to play some PDZ (if it is good) or Gears Coop with me I would probably get one.

While this is a small market, every ounce counts. If MS can get out some quality Next Gen titles before fall 2006 and has close to 100 titles out and 2nd gen titles hitting the shelves I think Sony would be hard priced to charge a huge premium for a game machine.

Not that they could not, and not that the PS3 would not sell. But if they are charging more than $50 more after Fall 2006 (fall 2006 in the US they can charge whatever they want and it will sell out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Seriously) I think they are putting themselves in a position where the US race could get really tight.

If I am Sony (I am not... would love to meet Ken though) I would not want to conceed an inch of US soil. So price will be important.

Finally, a console that sells for $100 more means $100 less sales in software. If the guy/gal can save up an extra $100 for a console, the person buying the other console has that same theoretical $100 to buy games. If I am Sony/MS/Nintendo I want (A) My console in the MOST peoples hands and (B) to buy the most software because that makes me money.

So I lose money hand over first on the machine to get marketshare/mindshare/developer confidence, then I make my profit 3 or 4 years down the road as I rake in $125M on first day GTA 5/Halo 4/Mario 128 sales.

 

[Phil]

I'm actually thinking MS will sell Xb360 for $299 and Sony will go for $349. If Sony does match the $300 price point at launch in NA, I would expect Microsoft to sell it lower.

Then again, it might work against them if market perception will think that a lower price == less quality. It can work both ways.

 

[Acert93]

I'm actually thinking MS will sell Xb360 for $299 and Sony will go for $349. If Sony does match the $300 price point at launch in NA, I would expect Microsoft to sell it lower.

That is exactly what I am thinking.

Then again, it might work against them if market perception will think that a lower price == less quality. It can work both ways.

That is where the games come in. If MS is losing on the games front by all means it will be percieved as less quality.

Btw... to throw out a phrase not mentioned much anymore these days...

Game Pack-in

That adds value and perception... wonder who has the guts to do it?

 

[jvd]

Mabye ms with a halo 2.5 just increase the texture res and quality and pack it in

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Finally, a console that sells for $100 more means $100 less sales in software. If the guy/gal can save up an extra $100 for a console, the person buying the other console has that same theoretical $100 to buy games.

Ahh.. there you. Said much more succinctly than what I was trying to say.

I think that's the key point and it's huge. If the game quality is the same, or similar, then no console (I don't care who) can afford to give up software sales to take less of a loss on their hardware.

I have to believe that gaming, for the most part, is a closed system. There's a finite amount of money. Money spent on hardware isn't spent on software. Money spent on an X360 is money not spent on a PS3. Money spent on an X850 is money not spent on a 6800U, etc..

 

[PC-Engine]

well the xbox360 might be that cheep. All this speculation, but maybe its realy a power play by MS to sell the box much cheaper. Knowing that Sony is in a real bind as a corp. they are loosing money, they put in a American at to fix it up. Blue ray is very expensive and will still be at launch of the
PS3, they wont make money on the PS3 H/W for alongtime and sony doesnt have a longtime to loose money. They dont have 54b$ in cash like MS. The dreamers and inovaters at Sony are going to be run by a suit from Hollywood, From the only Div that has made any REAL money for Sony the last few years. So all the BS i am saying is that Sony has to pick a price that works for the shareholders which will be higher than what ever MS has.

Good point.