They can sell at a loss, and I bet they are planing on doing exactly that already but I doubt they could manage to sell all the hardware they are launching for anything close to $299. They already hinted at the thing being expensive, so I don't see any indcation of them being in a position to sell it for much less than $400 unless they start cutting some major corners.
xbox 360 confirmed pricing
- Thread starter jvd
- Start date
MasaC said:
What PS3 has is Sony brand name going for it, no momentum advantage as it hasn't even been released yet...
MasaC said:
KK has mentioned numerous times to expect the PS3 to be expensive, also MS has the same advantages that Sony has since they control the designs and can pick and choose how and where they want thier chips made and if MS is setting prices like these what do you think Sony's prices are gonna be!?
My WAG is PS3 will be $499 at launch in US...
Of course Sony can sell the PS3 for $299. You're fooling yourself if you think otherwise. Look at the PSP, people said Sony couldn't sell that thing for less than $300 with all that stuff in it and look what happened. Same thing with the PS2. Ken Kutaragi said it would cost less than $900 and guess what? It did. $299 just like the PS1. The talk of a pricey PS3 is just to psych MS not going too low with the 360 and it looks like it worked.
PC-Engine said:Assuming SONY wants to bleed more money, what makes you think PS3 at $300 will magically win the war.
The games, the extisting userbase, the brand name and the cheapest BD-player around. Pretty much the same things PS2 had going for itself back in 2000.
Last edited by a moderator:
But that didn't win them the war then; sure they won the battle but Nintendo and MS are still fighting.
Also, Sony has likely been planing to take a loss already and tagerting a $399 price point or higher. Sure they can take a loss on their consoles, but lossing another $100+ on each console when they will sell millions of them means hunderds of millions of dollars of extra losses. Considering that, I honestly doubt anyone at Sony will even put the idea of launching the PS3 at $299 on the table.
Also, Sony has likely been planing to take a loss already and tagerting a $399 price point or higher. Sure they can take a loss on their consoles, but lossing another $100+ on each console when they will sell millions of them means hunderds of millions of dollars of extra losses. Considering that, I honestly doubt anyone at Sony will even put the idea of launching the PS3 at $299 on the table.
overclocked
Veteran
Whats the fuzz about this really, the cons of X360 was the HDD to me as used in XBOX vs PS3/and the Edram.
The only thing that matters are the games and i not really been that interested in what either camp has shown yet.
This rambling about hardware,Flops,bandwith etz etz makes me sick..
The only thing that matters are the games and i not really been that interested in what either camp has shown yet.
This rambling about hardware,Flops,bandwith etz etz makes me sick..
Why should the PS3 cost that much more than what PS2 cost at launch?
I'm sure the "Emotion Engine" cost a lot to design, as did the "Cell". But then again, there were also IBM and Toshiba to share the "Cell" development costs, while for "EE" there was just Sony and Toshiba.
Which one was relatively more expensive to design and manufacture?
Now the RSX is designed mainly by nVidia, while PS2 it was mainly just Sony. Which one was relatively more expensive?
PS2 had DVD, PS3 has BR. The PS2 DVD was then a relatively new design (wasn't it the first where there was just one lens for CD and DVD wavelengths?) as is the Blu-Ray.
Which one was relatively more expensive?
PS3 has some more connectivity, WiFi and Bluetooth, that could add something.
I predict a $399 US launch price, and €399 EU. Not including the harddrive, with one wirelss controller (with usb-mini usb standard charging/wired cable) and a 64MB Memory Stick DUO.
At launch there would be 40Gig and 80Gig HD options, priced $99 and $149 respectively, including an OS.
I'm sure the "Emotion Engine" cost a lot to design, as did the "Cell". But then again, there were also IBM and Toshiba to share the "Cell" development costs, while for "EE" there was just Sony and Toshiba.
Which one was relatively more expensive to design and manufacture?
Now the RSX is designed mainly by nVidia, while PS2 it was mainly just Sony. Which one was relatively more expensive?
PS2 had DVD, PS3 has BR. The PS2 DVD was then a relatively new design (wasn't it the first where there was just one lens for CD and DVD wavelengths?) as is the Blu-Ray.
Which one was relatively more expensive?
PS3 has some more connectivity, WiFi and Bluetooth, that could add something.
I predict a $399 US launch price, and €399 EU. Not including the harddrive, with one wirelss controller (with usb-mini usb standard charging/wired cable) and a 64MB Memory Stick DUO.
At launch there would be 40Gig and 80Gig HD options, priced $99 and $149 respectively, including an OS.
Last edited by a moderator:
your screen name is 'overclocked' and hardware talk makes you sick?
Nothing personal, I just got a chuckle out of that bit of irony
MasaC is most likely right. IF Sony can price the PS3 at $299 they will smack MS around again next generation. MS just leveled the playing field where before they had an advantage in my estimation.
What's wrong in suggesting?kyleb said:
In the speculation world, suggesting something will happen has as much validity as saying it won't happen. And all we're doing here is speculate, so what gives you the right to say that your speculation is right and other's speculation is wrong?
overclocked
Veteran
What makes me "sick" is the useless numbers thrown at different "camps" to justify why either is better, its not been a sane conversation that atleast try to hold their bias aside for the sake of the forum.
kyleb said:
But you didn't. You did what far too many people have been doing on this forum and still do, you just bashed
Don't know about anyone else, but that's not "giving reasons" to me.
Sony could launch at $300. They could launch at $100. But they'll lose such much money they'll keel over and die! Anything less than $400 would be a bad call IMO. As I said of XB360 they can afford to charge more and initial buyers will still pay, plus those initial buyers are already keyed in to a higher price. And without the optional extra to buy perhaps it'll even come out cheaper than the XB360?
kyleb said:
Not any less absurd than suggesting otherwise, which by the way is what you're doing. Fact is, no one knows with what numbers Sony is playing with, how much they are willing to loose, what their calculated risks are and what the longterm benefits are for them directly.
What we do know is that "the right price" is an important factor, so dismissing a $299 price point without knowing all the factors is absurd. Fact is, PS2 launched at 299, an PSP, contrary to many articles and popular belief, launched lower than expected as well. Chances are Microsoft is ready to slash the price in time for PS3, but I'm sure Sony knows that as well, so hey, why completely dismiss it?
The thing is, I didn't simply suggest otherwise, I made a suggestion and gave reasoning to back it up. I could simply suggest that Sony is going to figure out a way to make the PS2 run games that out class the 360 and cancel the PS3 all-together to focus winning over the market with $100 hardware. But without any reasoning or evedince to back up the proposition, such a claim nothing but absurd.
Its absurd that speculation is absurd.......a.b.s.u.r.d.
So any type of speculation is absurd (in your words)....so you saying that the price point of the PS3 being higher than $299 is also absured...since it is also speculation. So I would suggest for you to stop speculating (since you think its absurd) and let other people speculate that think otherwise about speculation.
kyleb said:
So any type of speculation is absurd (in your words)....so you saying that the price point of the PS3 being higher than $299 is also absured...since it is also speculation. So I would suggest for you to stop speculating (since you think its absurd) and let other people speculate that think otherwise about speculation.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
