Sony may release only one version of PS3?

"People that don´t have so much money, will not see a core pack for 199 dollars as something "inferior", but maybe more like an opportunity to go next gen without it costing too much and with time, you could expand your system with memory cards, controllers etc... the important thing is that it lets you buy stuff under a period of time and not everything right now.."

I agree, the PS3 will launch in the states with many titles already released on X360, when gamers see 2 systems playing the same games with the same graphics they will consider the two virtually equal.

I don't think a $199 core X360 would really be seen as cheap, or inferior, simply because the quality of it's games will be the same as PS3, it will have many great exclusives, and the cross-platform games will be virtually identical on-screen.

It would be considered a great deal rather than an inferior product, especially considering it's game library should far outnumber the PS3 during the 2006 holiday season.

 

I would take those kind of statements with a grain of salt. Nothing spur sales more than a price drop .. esp when one is needed to counter a launch. But then again, Sony has never had problems moving units during the Christmas season. Sony's 150.00 PS2 should not suffer too much going up against a 300.00 - 400.00 MS console. Both will sell well regardless, so why shortchange their own profits.

 

Man you guys are smoking something if you think the X360 core pack will be $199 next year. How much do you think it cost to make the system? Isn't the Revolution suppose to be released around $199 - $249 price point? How can MS compete with that same price point?

 

Yeah, I agree. I'd expect a 30-50 dollar price drop, but 100? That's a third of the price! And really, any downward pressure they put on Sony's price is probably good enough. It doesn't need to be drastically cheaper price. I believe this was Sony's strategy with PS2 versus Xbox...

.Sis

 

no kidding, xbox and ps2 have been out for YEARS, and have only been price "cut'ed" by 150. no way the 360 is going to be cut 100 in the first year. but yeah, maybe 30 or 50.

 

I think Xb360 won't change its price when PS3 launches, when system is not even out for more than a year, unless of course, PS3 starts to dramatically outsell Xb360 but that is not very likely scenario.
PS2 remained $299 even when Xbox launched.

 

Says all.

 

Exactly. And this goes for Europe too.

I'm wondering what MS will do in Japan... It's a very different market.

Anyays, to get back on topic, I'm getting a bit tired of Sony.

 

I think if you refer to the higher priced sku for 360 as the "x-box live bundle", you can avoid all confusion. I think the ps3 will have 1 sku but retailers will likely have bundles that include the hd.

 

Scooby:

I agree, the PS3 will launch in the states with many titles already released on X360, when gamers see 2 systems playing the same games with the same graphics they will consider the two virtually equal.

Which games will be the same? I don't see the majority of PS2-exclusive users being too interested in the same old Xbox rehashed lineup when they weren't interested in it this generation already without thinking about all those "PlayStation exclusives".

I'm not projecting doom and gloom for the Xbox360, but IMO it won't sell far beyond their initial fanbase until PS3 launches - and once it does launch, you bet marketing perception will be gathered around that the PS3 is more powerful, will have more software, will be dominant - regardless of if any of this is true or not. Market perception is one thing, brand recognition is another. Things won't magically change and the time difference in the two launches isn't overwhelming either.

I think Microsoft's main concern is first of all to market their two SKUs properly first - then they'll have to face meeting demand for the right one, especially when PS3 launch is close. And regardless of the cheaper SKU - if people think they're buying something inferiour, they'll be quicker at the competition than you think - especially if its common perception that the latter is the one that will have better software support in the long run.

 

Reading this thread it almost feels like people are already thinking that releasing 2 version of the same console at launch is "the norm" and that "releasing only one version of a console" is some kind of special case!

 

To the contrary i think that it is a very likely scenario that PS3 significantly outsell the Xbox360.
I think that MS has a flawed strategy with Xbox360.
Sony had no reason to decrease in the PS2 price when the Xbox came because of the absolute leader position of Sony.
A price decrease would have made sony admit that they were afraid of MS and that they had an inferior product.
The MS situation is very different from the Sony's at the time.
Not only they are not the market leader but they are showing that they are afraid of Sony by rushing their product to the market and losing in the processus one of the biggest advantage they have in the current generation:The most powerful hardware.
They have perhaps slighty forced Sony to release the PS3 sooner but this product seems like a superior product and this perception combined with the playstation brandname recognition will help the PS3 clearly outsell the Xbox 360.
Really,MS had all the right cards for being a close second or even ,with a lot of luck, the leader of the next gen consoles market but they have wasted all this because of money.
That's pathetic for a company which has several billions of dollars of profit per year.

 

1st. Nowhere in there did I say *I*
2nd. How would anyone know what requirements would be needed for any given game? I mean, nothing is released yet. I merely tossed out the idea that having 2 versions out there could potentially backfire because if Joe goes out and gets a game that requires <x addon> he only has 2 choices, either buy the addon or return the game. I'm guessing that the buy addon/return game ratio would be 50/50.
A game developer does not want to lose sales because many have bought the cheaper version, and can not afford the addons. I would, as a developer, limit my game(s) to the 360 "mini" (if you will), to reach a broader userbase. But then again... that makes the "fully featured" 360 somewhat less appealing, as there would be fewer games to utilize the "extras".
It is a very delicate line, it could potentially backfire for the consumer, the developer of games, and ultimately Microsoft if the "fully featured" 360 has less games developed for it. (by that I mean, not taking advantage of the addons as they would if there was 1 version only)
How would you feel as a consumer if you paid US$ 100 more for something not being used by games? How would a developer react if they produce a game that reaches only ~50% of xbox360 users? How would Microsoft react if PS3 is presented as "fully featured" (1 version) and people start eyeing the competition in a more favorable light?

Sega made similar mistakes with the CD and 32X addon for the Genesis/MegaDrive just before launching the Saturn. People were confused, and simply stayed away. Having the PS1 lauched around the same time made the choice very very easy indeed.

 

Really, what's the big deal? The so called "2nd SKU" is nothing more than a bundle, why would it be even considered a different version? Because of someone's marketing talk? Why would Sony or Nintendo even care about it's existence, it's not going to revolutionise the market or something, at least not more than any other nice bundle.

 

Maybe in Japan, but I don't think this will be the case in Europe.

I know quite a few PS2 kids who are already saving for a 360 because it's only '299' and the XBox brand is pretty strong over here these days. This includes your 'will have more software' comment (that's not an issue for the general public)...

I think Sony will lose quite a few customers if PS3 will be expensive. Expected graphics quality is likely to be equal, and even if PS3 has more graphics power, the 360 is on second generation games by then...

IMHO.

 

FYI: SKU (wikipedia)

SKU is simply an identifier, for inventory management purposes, and it's one assigned by the merchant ... NOT the manufacturer (i.e. MS). A different SKU is assigned to each version of a product, even if it's just a new color, or packaging.

E.g. I can think of tens of different SKUs for PS2, just by counting colors and sizes. Same with GC and Xbox.

 

this should read "I know 2 muppets who think they'll save 100 bucks, but won't because they'll need a memory card and then why bother 'saving' 60 bucks because they'll also get more saving space than they could ever use, a wireless controller and the fact it'll hold its value"

 

Muppets = 13 - 17 year old kids.

You do know there are loads of them who don't care about the memory card?

I've seen it happen multiple time before (Cube / PS2)...

Not everybody is a hardcore gamer with loads of money you know. We're talking mass market here.

 

bit of a contradiction that, a 13-17year old with no money but at least $350 for a console and game

interesting concept, great 'mass market' to aim for that lol

MS are aiming really well at the 'non earning no money mass market'

I think I'll leave it there...don't you?

 

Yup.