Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Sony Open to Considering PS3 Price Cuts

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the get-em-out-of-the-house dept.

Sony 339

njkid1 writes with word that Sony is considering dropping the PS3's price. The Mercury news reports that Sony Senior Vice President Takao Yuhara has admitted they are investigating whether to drop the PlayStation 3 in price around the world, despite statements previously made that the 'lower' PS3 price in Japan is hurting Sony's bottom line. Profits for the company slipped some five percent in the October-December period, and the shortfall expected through March could be even worse than previously predicted. The article points out the possibly risky nature of a price cut for such an expensive item so early in its lifespan, and notes the stiff competition from the Xbox 360 and the Wii.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

A better way to make money (1)

TodMinuit (1026042) | more than 7 years ago | (#17845960)

Burn a huge pile of real money and put the video up on Revver. Bound to make more money than cutting the PS3 price.

That's nice... (5, Insightful)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#17846046)

But why would I buy a PS3 when the demo units at the stores are usually frozen and the demo game is unimpressive? There are better places to blow your money.

Re:That's nice... (2, Informative)

Vampyre_Dark (630787) | more than 7 years ago | (#17846928)

Mod parent up, he is no troll. This is the truth. I've been all over this week, and everytime I see a PS3 demo unit, I want to play it, only to see that it has crashed and burned. Every single one.

Re:That's nice... (4, Funny)

FinchWorld (845331) | more than 7 years ago | (#17847412)

According to Sony its a "feature". Stops people playing too long... apparently.

Reminds me of some of the (orginal) xbox demo units that were sealed in so tight they got to hot and crashed:P

Re:That's nice... (2, Funny)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 7 years ago | (#17847928)

that includes the automated demos... can't have people monopolizing those

Re:That's nice... (4, Funny)

IcyNeko (891749) | more than 7 years ago | (#17847650)

That's pretty much you own fault. If you weren't standing in the PS3's weak spot and attack for "massive damage", the PS3 would still be ok!

Re:That's nice... (1)

ravenshrike (808508) | more than 7 years ago | (#17847988)

The PS3 is advanced enough that the demo units are basically high end computers put in a tiny little enclosed box with no airflow. How long do you think a computer running a P4 and 7900GTX would last in the same environment?

I spent $647.99 (1)

Clete2 (823221) | more than 7 years ago | (#17846054)

I sort of hope that they drop the price so more will sell, but I spent $647.99 on my PS3. =(

Re:I spent $647.99 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17846184)

haha. What possessed you to do that? I haven't seen *anything* worthwhile on the PS3 yet, in any way whatsoever.

Re:I spent $647.99 (1)

Mizled (1000175) | more than 7 years ago | (#17846362)

I sort of hope that they drop the price so more will sell, but I spent $647.99 on my PS3. =(
You got suckered too eh? :0P

Re:I spent $647.99 (1)

Clete2 (823221) | more than 7 years ago | (#17847616)

Not really. I'm sure it will be well worth it in a year or so. I can't wait for Unreal Tournament 2007. Resistance is a great game too. I'll be using it for Folding@Home as well. At least they didn't have manufacturing problems like the Xbox 360 *still* does. (when are they shrinking the die size anyways?)

Re:I spent $647.99 (3, Informative)

PyroMosh (287149) | more than 7 years ago | (#17848216)

They do though! But they planned much better for it.

The Cell processor uses 7 cores, but each one has 8 physical cores on it.

The reason for this is that they expect a roughly 1 in 8 failure rate of the cores (or close to it). By having 8 cores, many chip yields will have one bad core, but it's okay. They test them, disable the bad core, and ship the chip with the dead portion disabled.

When they happen to have a good chip with all cores good, it'e either used for other applications, or it has a random core disabled anyway and goes into a ps3.

When there's more than one core dead, I'm not sure what they do. I'd guess they either scrap it, or use it in less demanding applications.

It's a somewhat clever model. But it makes me wonder if they're releasing chips with cores that might me marginal into the market.

Bad, yet, not so bad (1)

Programmer_In_Traini (566499) | more than 7 years ago | (#17846738)

go tell that those that spent like 2k or 5k for buying one on eBay... THEY must be sorry right now.

Exclusivity does have a price tag on it.

Sony is Going to Lose the Console War (5, Insightful)

jakek812 (958016) | more than 7 years ago | (#17846074)

As much as I hate to say it, Sony has no chance, and the fact that they have to do a price drop on their console this early in its lifespan especially when they're taking a huge loss on it already, proves it.

Re:Sony is Going to Lose the Console War (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17846130)

Exactly. Sony's best in this generation will be an also-ran unless they drop the price of the console by like two hundred bucks. Otherwise, both of the other players have more momentum and there's little to nothing Sony can do to catch up. Sony must especially drop the price in the UK to something reasonable. It's not a market you can ignore any more.

Re:Sony is Going to Lose the Console War (-1, Flamebait)

benzapp (464105) | more than 7 years ago | (#17847434)

What UK are you living in? Anyone with half a brain, even the usurous financial thieves in London, know the game is up and it's time to leave that island. In a century, there won't be any English left!

The UK produces nothing of value. All they do is take from the rest of the world. It's days as a "market" are severely numbered.

Re:Sony is Going to Lose the Console War (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17847662)

What UK are you living in?

I'm not. I'm living in the USA.

Boy, do you look like an idiot now? (Free hint: The answer is "YES")

The UK produces nothing of value. All they do is take from the rest of the world. It's days as a "market" are severely numbered.

Not that I really agree with your analysis of the UK, but things are going to get worse in the entire first world before they get better. China and India are both up-and-coming and between them have enough population to throw everyone's system out of whack.

Re:Sony is Going to Lose the Console War (1)

trdrstv (986999) | more than 7 years ago | (#17847816)

Sony's best in this generation will be an also-ran

Too late.

Nintendo Cats? (0, Offtopic)

Bacon Bits (926911) | more than 7 years ago | (#17847522)

All your customer are belong to us
You have no chance make your time
Ha ha ha ha

Re:Sony is Going to Lose the Console War (2, Interesting)

numbski (515011) | more than 7 years ago | (#17848958)

Not neccessarily.

I think it all depends on how deep their pockets are, and how badly they want to win. If they were to do a serious price cut (as in 50%, bring it down to the $300 range), they would be hurting, and hurting BAD, however the units *would* start to sell. Market penetration is nearly as important as profit per unit sold. The main thing killing them right now is that Nintendo actually turns a profit on every Wii sold, Microsoft, I don't recall whether it's a loss-leader or not, but Microsoft's XBox360 simply can't hurt them badly enough for it to matter.

If Sony were to gamble big and drop the price low enough that mere mortals might consider buying, they could at very least make things interesting. Question is, how much of a loss can they afford to take per-unit to get there?

Well... (5, Insightful)

Dave Parrish (1050926) | more than 7 years ago | (#17846224)

The Wii is selling like hotcakes and the PS3 is already requiring a price drop.

Anyone else betting that Sony learns nothing from this?

They seriously need to figure out that, when someone buys a game system, we want to PLAY GAMES ON IT. We don't need to watch movies, listen to MP3s, view images, surf the web, do our dishes, and drive to work using the same machine.

Re:Well... (5, Insightful)

CronoCloud (590650) | more than 7 years ago | (#17846508)

They seriously need to figure out that, when someone buys a game system, we want to PLAY GAMES ON IT. We don't need to watch movies, listen to MP3s, view images, surf the web, do our dishes, and drive to work using the same machine.
Ahh but mostly likely when Sony's people asked people if they would use those extra features if they put them in there, those people said yes. So Sony did that, both the with the PSP and now the PS3.

And then consumers whined. "They cost too much"

and then Sony said, "But you told us you wanted those features when we asked you about them so we put them in there. You had to know that would raise the price."

Consumers: "Waaaah it costs too much we just want to play puzzle games and casual games"

Sony: "But you said you wanted games that were more like those you played at home on your portables. You wanted 3D games rather than stripped down 2D travesties of 3D games like what happened on the Gameboy Color ports of 3D games.

You said you wanted higher resolutions on your home machines like you have on PC's. You wanted built in wireless so you wouldn't have to buy a wireless bridge, you wanted us to use standard memory cards. and now you complain about having to buy an HDTV, having to pay for the built in wireless, and having to pay for an adapter for the old cards? You people are hypocrites and don't know what you want."

Here's what Sony needs to learn:

Consumers don't know what they want, will whine anyway when they get what they said they wanted, and sometimes lie

Re:Well... (4, Insightful)

dynamo (6127) | more than 7 years ago | (#17846638)

They seriously need to figure out that, when someone buys a game system, we want to PLAY GAMES ON IT. We don't need to watch movies, listen to MP3s, view images, surf the web, do our dishes, and drive to work using the same machine.
Ahh but mostly likely when Sony's people asked people if they would use those extra features if they put them in there, those people said yes. So Sony did that, both the with the PSP and now the PS3.

And then consumers whined. "They cost too much"

and then Sony said, "But you told us you wanted those features when we asked you about them so we put them in there. You had to know that would raise the price."
BIG difference between wanting a feature and being willing to use it if it's there anyway. Sony had to know they had no business asking about the extra features if they couldn't do them cheap or free. Now they are stuck having to wait a little longer for everyone to buy PS3s. Waaaaaah.

Re:Well... (1)

elcid73 (599126) | more than 7 years ago | (#17847968)

Sounds like (according to you) Sony needs to do some usability studies instead of market research.

Re:Well... (5, Funny)

CokeBear (16811) | more than 7 years ago | (#17847980)

Didn't they see the episode of the Simpsons where Homer built the car?

Re:Well... (4, Insightful)

MemoryDragon (544441) | more than 7 years ago | (#17848614)

Nobody asked for yet another proprietary Sony movie format in the PSP, nobody asked for yet another disk format which could not be copied with movie prices three times as much as on the copyable DVD. But those things drove up the price of the PSP significantly and in the end were doomed to fail from day zero. The only ones asking for those things was the paranoid Sony movie division. See a scheme here, the same happens now to the PS3, it would have been out a year earlier and probably 200-250 dollars less with equal gaming capabilties if it would not have been misused as vehicle for the Blue Ray drive, and it certainly was not the Sony gaming division trying to shove yet another format onto the customers to raise movie prices. Nintendo is right with their assumption, HDTV on a console is interesting but only in 2-3 years, for the mass market a lower price is more important. Microsoft also was wiser in this aspect. Sorry to say that, not market research on the customers was the dooming force, it was simply Sonys internal politics and the ignorance about past mistakes and past successes.

Re:Well... (1)

grimJester (890090) | more than 7 years ago | (#17846512)

Does it let you watch blueray movies with any HDTV you want?

Sony doesn't control WB, Paramount, Disney, Fox (5, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#17846780)

Does [a Sony Blu-ray Disc player] let you watch blueray movies with any HDTV you want?

Yes. In titles without the image constraint token, the resolution far exceeds that of DVD-Video in both luma and chroma. Even with the image constraint token, the chroma resolution is double that of DVD-Video in each dimension. The major American movie studios that have adopted Blu-ray Disc have agreed not to use the image constraint token for the first few years of releases. But whether Warner Bros., Paramount, Disney, and Fox use the image constraint token in future Blu-ray Disc titles is not Sony's to control.

Re:Sony doesn't control WB, Paramount, Disney, Fox (1)

grimJester (890090) | more than 7 years ago | (#17848512)

I was actually trolling, but thanks for the clear and informative answer!

We want homebrew to run, not be blocked. (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#17846604)

when someone buys a game system, we want to PLAY GAMES ON IT. We don't need to watch movies, listen to MP3s, view images, surf the web, do our dishes, and drive to work using the same machine.

We also want to play games on it. This means that games from smaller developers need to run, not error out with "Cannot load game because it is not signed." That's part of why PLAYSTATION 3 has Linux, so that innovative 2D games from smaller developers can run.

Re:Well... (1)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 7 years ago | (#17846694)

Anyone else betting that Sony learns nothing from this?

They seriously need to figure out that, when someone buys a game system, we want to PLAY GAMES ON IT. We don't need to watch movies, listen to MP3s, view images, surf the web, do our dishes, and drive to work using the same machine.


And why would they? This is a lesson the cell phone industry still hasn't learned. And they have more at stake. Sony will claim that they deliver what the consumer wants to their grave, all the while loading up simple tech with more "features" and restrictions that most users would ever touch.

Re:Well... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17847000)

They seriously need to figure out that, when someone buys a game system, we want to PLAY GAMES ON IT. We don't need to watch movies, listen to MP3s, view images, surf the web, do our dishes, and drive to work using the same machine.

Says you. I mean, aside from the dishes and the driving to work, I want all that in one box. This is in fact why I bought an Xbox. If I couldn't have put a media player on there, I wouldn't have bought it. I held off on buying one, in fact, until they were easily moddable and XBMP (XBMC was only a story told to frustrate XBMP users at the time) had reached something like stability.

Based on your statements though, you might enjoy this [everything2.com] (warning: long load times.)

Re:Well... (1)

WarlockD (623872) | more than 7 years ago | (#17847216)

That can't be it. Because the Wii can watch movies, listen to MP3's, view images, surf the web.

But then, the Wii costs less than half as much as the ps3. Hummm.

Re:Well... (1)

Manmademan (952354) | more than 7 years ago | (#17848090)

...Because the Wii can watch movies..
actually, no..it can't. this feature was taken out shortly before release. the Wii is also incapable of any high def output at all which is kind of bizarre considering the Xbox1 has no problem doing so.

Clarification. Wii CAN play movies, not DVDs. (2, Interesting)

trdrstv (986999) | more than 7 years ago | (#17848318)

actually, no..it can't. this feature was taken out shortly before release

Yes it can play movies. It cannot play DVD's , but it can play motion Jpeg (a Quicktime format) which I have used (My Nikon CoolPix records in that format) in the Photo Channel.

Re:Well... (1)

cmorgan47 (720310) | more than 7 years ago | (#17847900)

meh, i use my PSP chiefly for gaming, but i do browse the web and keep about a half gig of music on it as well for those "mp3 emergencies." sony certainly has some lessons to learn, but they're more in the "quite creating proprietary media then changing the format" arena.

Re:Well... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17848048)

They seriously need to figure out that, when someone buys a game system, we want to PLAY GAMES ON IT. We don't need to watch movies, listen to MP3s, view images, surf the web, do our dishes, and drive to work using the same machine.

Some one should tell this to Steve Jobs, before he tries to sell some crazy expensive phone.

Re:Well... (1)

SuperDre (982372) | more than 7 years ago | (#17848096)

Yeah, well, maybe YOU only want to play games on it, I certainly want my console to be able to do as much as possible, and watching films for me is more important than playing games.. so WE do need to watch movies, listen to MP3s, view images, surf the web.. etc.. If I only want to play games, I'll get my SNES out of the closet...

Re:Well... (1)

rlp (11898) | more than 7 years ago | (#17848120)

We don't need to watch movies, listen to MP3s, view images, surf the web, do our dishes, and drive to work using the same machine.

Can't really fault Sony on that. The Xbox 360 does four of those and the Wii does three of them.

Re:Well... (1)

holt (86624) | more than 7 years ago | (#17848658)

We don't need to watch movies, listen to MP3s, view images, surf the web, do our dishes, and drive to work using the same machine.

Can't really fault Sony on that. The Xbox 360 does four of those and the Wii does three of them.
I haven't figured out how to surf the web on my 360, so I can only assume that I'm woefully underestimating either its ability to do my dishes or drive me to work. It doesn't look very comfortable to sit on, so I guess I'm leaning towards it being able to do my dishes. On the other hand, I already have a dishwasher and my car doesn't have heated seats, so maybe driving me to work would be better. Decisions, decisions....

In all seriousness, though, the ability to play MP3s is pretty awesome. I've really enjoyed being able to blow away baddies in Gears of War and the new Splinter Cell while listening to my own soundtrack. (Yes, I know that this was available on the last generation, at least sometimes, but I think that Microsoft may have made it mandatory this time around.)

Re:Well... (1)

rlp (11898) | more than 7 years ago | (#17848806)

My bad - I thought the 360 had a Web browser. VERY surprised it doesn't - as it's got internet connectivity, support for game, video downloads, etc.

Re:Well... (1)

Wicko (977078) | more than 7 years ago | (#17848396)

an interesting comparison, but there is a large factor of the already high price for the PS3.. there are few people that want to blow that sort of money on comparable hardware selling for 500 CAN (XBox 360). I don't really consider Sony and Nintendo in the same market anymore.. they have different objectives now.

I definitely agree that they won't learn anything.. consider their proprietary mediums for a prime example.

When you mention capabilities, the Wii pretty much does the same thing (the realistic abilities that is). Well, at least the web browsing, im not entirely sure about movies or MP3s. But I would say that playing those is a very popular idea among console gamers.

Drop the price?! (2, Funny)

Threni (635302) | more than 7 years ago | (#17846228)

You'd be mad not to want to pay £700 or whatever it's going to cost in the uk, for a games console! Why not round it up to £1000, and charge £100 a game!

Re:Drop the price?! (1)

Andy_R (114137) | more than 7 years ago | (#17848538)

The British launch price is actually 425 UKP (about 835 US dollars), not quite as shocking as your suggestion, but still in "that has to be some sort of a joke, right?" territory.

I'm not even going to think about buying a PS3 until there's a proper Gran Turismo game out, and the console is below 300 UKP.

PS 3 sales prediction cut by 25% (4, Informative)

frakir (760204) | more than 7 years ago | (#17846292)

Sony Corp. will reach only 75% of its global target for PlayStation 3 sales this fiscal year through March, according to a Nomura report released 15th Jan.
They originally planned 6 mil, adjusted to 4.5 mil now. more... [vgcharts.org]

Re:PS 3 sales prediction cut by 25% (1)

Xoltri (1052470) | more than 7 years ago | (#17847126)

Popups and annoying banners on that site, I closed it immediately.

Re:PS 3 sales prediction cut by 25% (2, Insightful)

Baldrake (776287) | more than 7 years ago | (#17847958)

While these numbers indicate that the PS3's sales are below expectation, there is another interesting interpretation. Microsoft had sold 10 million Xbox 360's by the end of 2006. If Sony genuinely sells 4.5 million by end of March, they will have almost half the user base of the 360. Given all the doomcasting we've been hearing, that is not actually that bad a place to be after only three months in the market.

(And yes, yes, Microsoft is also selling 360's during the same period, but while sales may have been steady, I can't imagine they were flying off the shelves in a January when there were two shiny competitors on the market.)

Re:PS 3 sales prediction cut by 25% (1)

MemoryDragon (544441) | more than 7 years ago | (#17848780)

Good question if they even reach teh 4.5 million, they definitely will have delivert this number of units, but I think they will be more alike 2-2.5 mio units.

Enough! (5, Insightful)

Ecuador (740021) | more than 7 years ago | (#17846370)

Enough with this PS3 talk. The numbers show the consumers don't care, and there are more interesting things to talk about on /.
That is at least until the (unlikely) event that the non-fanboi consumer starts getting interested in Sony's nexgen child.

well, then.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17847358)

why don't you go to one of those threads... :-\

better to lose a little on the sale (4, Informative)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 7 years ago | (#17846372)

instead of having no sale. The real money is in the games and add-ons after they sell the console. Sure it might hurt them more near term, but not getting into the living room will cost them more down the road.

of course since you can still buy PS2s many might opt that route if they don't like WII or XBOX360

Re:better to lose a little on the sale (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17846724)

Sure, but when they start needing everyone who bought their discounted system to buy an average of 30+ games (or whatever) each for Sony to make back its money from the system price cut. . .

Re:better to lose a little on the sale (2, Insightful)

Mr. Hankey (95668) | more than 7 years ago | (#17847034)

That's true, but it would probably be better for them to keep the console's price down in the design phase. I realize they're pushing for Blu-Ray, but I couldn't even conceive of spending much more than $200 on a console primarily intended for games. I've typically spent less than $150 per console in the past, and that includes the PS2. I really don't care how powerful a game system is, I already have a few PCs and don't need another device claiming to be one. I don't even want a Blu-Ray player. I just want a platform that plays fun games, without the hiccups or conflicts that can happen on a PC.

The Wii price point was marginal despite the interesting input devices, oddly enough it was the price of the competition that caused me to view it in a favorable light and purchase one. The Xbox 360 price was out of line IMO, although it can no doubt come down over time. The PS3 at this point is a ridiculous joke. The 360 going down in price might find me purchasing one, but I'm not sure if Sony can make back through licensing what they're likely to lose on the PS3 with further price cuts. If they can bring it to around $200, I might buy one. I don't see it happening within the next few years.

Computers and their components become faster over time, and the price for components generally goes down when they have been in production for some time. Ideally, a console would consist of parts which are favorable to reasonably priced mass production while providing good performance. Sony has thrown balance out the window and attempted to make the most powerful console. This sounds nice in theory, but they're using parts that are difficult to manufacture, expensive, and unproven (in the case of Cell.) Passing the costs on to consumers obviously doesn't work in this case, but how much of the cost can Sony eat? What if someone gets one and uses it as e.g. a Linux box without playing games on it? They may never receive software licensing revenue for that unit, so each instance is a net loss.

Re:better to lose a little on the sale (1)

joggle (594025) | more than 7 years ago | (#17847450)

I know where you're coming from but I don't think there will be a significant drop in the 360 price anytime soon (anything over $50). The problem is that the graphics card is much more complicated than entire consoles of previous generations. So you are effectively paying for the complexity of two previous generations for a 360 or PS3.

I bought a 360 over the holidays and my roommate finally managed to get a Wii a couple of weeks ago. While the Wii is certainly fun and I would buy it myself even though I have a 360, it is not at all at the same graphics level of the 360 (it honestly doesn't even seem to be at the level of the old Xbox to me). So for cartoon style games its fun (really fun). But if you want to play online with some friends with voice chat with intense gameplay then you really need to look for a PC or 360. Also the online capabilities of the 360 far surpass those of the Wii.

Re:better to lose a little on the sale (1)

Grizpin (899482) | more than 7 years ago | (#17847208)

This would make good economical sense but the problem is that Sony is already losing a lot of money on the sale of the hardware at its current price. I read an online article by the Wall Street Journal just before the system released in the US and they gave figures on how much the company had already lost in the great laptop battery recall. They predicted the figures for the release of the PS3 coupled with the battery replacement costs and predicted a loss in the billions for Sony by the end of this year.... and that was at the PS3's release price!

Re:better to lose a little on the sale (1)

flitty (981864) | more than 7 years ago | (#17848922)

" The real money is in the games and add-ons after they sell the console. "

So, since sony included "everything you ever wanted in a game system" (Blu, linux, hdd, wireless) in the ps3, they are screwing themselves twice?

why cut prices? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17846400)

All of the "super smart analysts" say the PS3 and blu-ray are going to dominate their respective markets...

20GB Model (2, Insightful)

the dark hero (971268) | more than 7 years ago | (#17846418)

Im not thrilled about getting a PS3 anytime soon, but at $600 you really are getting a great deal. I think they should lower the price of their largely inferior 20GB model to $300-$400 in order to sell them. A person willing to spend that much on the 20GB model will surely want it for gaming and that can bring up sells in the software dept.

Re:20GB Model (3, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 7 years ago | (#17846572)

"getting a great deal" is subjective.

Millionares think 900,000 dollars for a home is a great deal, whereas mr. and mrs. joe shmo can think 500 bucks a month for a one room apartment is a great deal.

Unless you have a burning desire to have blu-ray in your home, there really is no good reason beyond a personal opinion to spend 600 dollars on a PS3. the 360 has the same graphics (in some cases, better) and still uses "old" dual-layer dvd technology.

Had sony stayed out of the media market (which they have failed in time after time after time) and just stuck with what works, they would be in a much better position.

Re:20GB Model (1)

fistfullast33l (819270) | more than 7 years ago | (#17848616)

the 360 has the same graphics (in some cases, better) and still uses "old" dual-layer dvd technology.

I'll argue with the capacity of the DVD versus the capacity of the blu-ray. I think it's better to have that extra room (it's like a factor of 10 or 20 larger). Hideo Kojima said in an interview [gamepro.com] linked on Slashdot that he thought games would eventually get to 50GB. The interviewer even says that Resistance was 16GB, much larger than any DVD can hold [wikipedia.org] . Personally, I prefer the one disc to multi-disc games. And yes, the 360 does have the HD-DVD external drive but a developer won't be very open to moving to that as it doesn't guarantee him the same install base. So now you're looking at possibly two different format releases for a game on 360 versus a guaranteed known quantity on the PS3. It might not affect the platform now, but eventually I'm sure it will.

Re:20GB Model (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 7 years ago | (#17848810)

Oh come on. There is nothing in resistance so revolutionary that it requires that much space. I'm not saying that I doubt that it takes up that much space on disc, but I can ASSURE you that game could have been made to not be so overweight.

The developers had the space, so they filled it up. This could mean they filled it up with super huge textures in the menus, sound files that are way far beyond in quality what the human ear has the ability to distinguish (not to mention most people not having the setups or the ears to be able to tell the difference anyway)...see what I am getting at?

yes, games will eventually reach that size...all I'm saying is they don't necessarily need to be. Filling up a disc just because the space is there is not a good reason.

Re:20GB Model (1)

Dev59 (953144) | more than 7 years ago | (#17847014)

There is nothing inferior about the 20gb model. What does the 60gb model have over it?

-Memory card readers (pointless if all you want to do is save games and download stuff)
-Wireless ethernet
-More hard drive space
-Chrome trim

Is that really worth $100 to you? If I'm going to pay $600 for a PS3 I'd rather buy the 20gb model and a 120gb notebook hard drive to slip into it.

Unlike with the 360, the cheaper system is not in any way gimped. The 20gb PS3 is actually a much better deal, IMHO, than the 60gb model.

Re:20GB Model (-1, Flamebait)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17847098)

Im not thrilled about getting a PS3 anytime soon, but at $600 you really are getting a great deal.

Look, shill-boy, crawl back to your hole and save this kind of blatant astroturfing for someone who will fall for it. There's nothing about the PS3 that's a "great deal" unless a) you absolutely must play some game that is a PS3 exclusive or b) you want to use it for scientific computing and your problems are immensely parallelizable and totally matrix-based, or c) you want to play Blu-Ray discs for some bizarre reason. Meanwhile, supporting the PS3 is supporting a company that has repeatedly displayed its disdain for its customers and the rest of the world, in both the areas of safety and freedom.

Barring one of the above three purposes, the PS3 is a horrible deal. As a Linux box it is fairly useless because of its extremely limited memory, which may or may not be expandable by any means (but probably isn't.) It's also not particularly fast if your programs don't utilize the SPEs, and you can build a PC that does more for much less.

Re:20GB Model (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17847854)

And the same can be said for Microsoft:

"Meanwhile, supporting the 360 is supporting a company that has repeatedly displayed its disdain for its customers and the rest of the world, in both the areas of safety and freedom." -- amazing coincidence...

But that's just being pedantic. If you don't like the console... don't buy it. Don't judge a console by the actions of a _division_ of a giant conglomerate like Sony. (The movie and music versions are not the games division...)

Re:20GB Model (1)

Rycross (836649) | more than 7 years ago | (#17848024)

It's the same company. The whole "its a separate division" argument is a cop-out, because you don't want to admit you sacrificed your principles for a shiny new toy. At least be honest about it.

Re:20GB Model (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17848074)

And the same can be said for Microsoft:

I'm not buying an Xbox 360 either. I may buy a Wii a ways down the road. Not sure yet. Oddly enough most of the games I play are either on the Super Nintendo, or an original Playstation game in my PS2 (which I bought before I realized Sony was evil.)

If you don't like the console... don't buy it. Don't judge a console by the actions of a _division_ of a giant conglomerate like Sony. (The movie and music versions are not the games division...)

Uh, what? You came straight out of left field, there. I guess I should expect this level of stupidity from a coward, though.

Go reread my comment. I talk about the technical reasons why the PS3 is not a good deal, and then I discuss the situations in which it might be.

Finally, the movie and music divisions are under the same parent company as the games division. If the games division is losing money, then buying movies or music from the company supports the games division, and vice versa. Buying ANYTHING from Sony is supporting rootkits and exploding batteries. It's your choice where to spend your money, but personally, I choose to spend it on companies that respect me.

Besides, SCE is evil. They filed enough lawsuits against Lik-Sang that they could not possibly respond, for example, shutting down a resource loved by gamers worldwide. You may have forgotten this, but I have not, and I cannot forgive it. The enemy of my friend is my enemy. I'm not going out of my way to make it happen, but I won't be happy until Sony has been destroyed and their ground sown with salt.

Re:20GB Model (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17848870)

Good for you. I'm glad you are fighting the "good" fight and giving these multinational corporations the what-for.

You talk about the technical reasons why YOU don't like the console. Period. The situations where it might be good for YOU. It's an opinion, nothing more. I'm glad you shared it, but don't get your head too large over your insight....

Do you own a 360? Microsoft is just as evil. Yet Sony's recent evil has been pushed forward by a bunch of people who feel the PS3 isn't worth the money (some people do.... otherwise it wouldn't be selling, now would it?)

I don't condone Sony's actions any more than the next guy, but let's face it... we're not dealing with "Troll, good citizen, good citizen" in this console race. It's the 3 prime evils and we're just along for the ride.

Sony will no more be destroyed than Microsoft will by people who hate Windows and their anti-competitive monopolistic DRM-laden crapola.

So don't hold your breath....

Re: PS3 worth about $300. (1)

trdrstv (986999) | more than 7 years ago | (#17848010)

Barring one of the above three purposes, the PS3 is a horrible deal.

Exactly. I put the PS3's worth at around $300 USD. That's the going rate of a first Gen HD-DVD player, which is what the PS3 is (a first gen Blu-Ray player). If they charge $300 and throw in a movie worth watching in HD (Taladega Nights doesn't count. I mean a movie that is sold on it's visual appeal) they might have another sale.

Re:20GB Model (1)

the dark hero (971268) | more than 7 years ago | (#17848898)

You are a poor judge of these things my friend. I am a Nintendo fanboy through and through, but i am absolutely tired of the "zomg P$3 is teh suxx0rz" i've been hearing. There is a market for this thing. Sony just didnt realize how retarded they've been to see that this market is too small. Someone could utilize many of the features the PS3 has to offer and get their $600 worth. My brother proved that. I'm just going to quit hating and perhaps try to find the good in the bad. I don't hold allegiances to software/hardware (exception: nintendo) but i know bad business when i see it. I also know that eventually there will be a game for the PS3 that i must play. The next Shadow of the Colossus will certainly be my weakness.

Stupid (5, Insightful)

rlp (11898) | more than 7 years ago | (#17846506)

By announcing that they're considering a price drop - they'll kill sales for a while. Anyone considering buying a PS/3 will hold off till after the price drop. Except for people who MUST have one now. Given the dearth of launch titles and the slackening of demand - those folks already have a PS/3.

Now they have to drop prices and quickly.

Re:Stupid (4, Insightful)

CerebusUS (21051) | more than 7 years ago | (#17846802)

Bingo.

Yet another stupid move on Sony's part. They were better off continuing to deny that a price drop was even being discussed, and then picking a random day and just lowering the price.

I certainly wouldn't buy a $600 console knowing that the price could be $500 in a month or two.

That's a free second controller and a game....

Which is the other way they could go, I guess... Bundle a second sixaxis and resistance:fall of man with every 60GB unit for the same price.

Re:Stupid (2, Funny)

J-Doggqx (809697) | more than 7 years ago | (#17847490)

"Bundle a second sixaxis and resistance:fall of man with every 60GB unit for the same price."

But I thought they could sell 5 million without any games?

Not selling hurts more (2, Insightful)

AnswerIs42 (622520) | more than 7 years ago | (#17846576)

X-Play was right.. the way to save the PS3 is to not let Sony exces speak at all..

the 'lower' PS3 price in Japan is hurting Sony's bottom line

NOT selling a PS3 hurts the bottom line even more.

Re:Not selling hurts more (4, Interesting)

Grave (8234) | more than 7 years ago | (#17847134)

To be quite honest, selling the PS3 hurts the bottom line more than not selling right now. The last estimate I heard was that 30 software titles or accessories must be sold per system to break even (on the 60GB). This would require purchasing every single title currently available, three extra controllers, and a dozen Blu-Ray movies.

While the long-term view says that they need to sell as many PS3s as possible before the 360 runs away with the game, there is a need to see production costs come down to prevent very substantial financial loss.

Personally, I think that Sony is in serious trouble this year. There are so many very highly anticipated titles coming for the 360 that will almost certainly be system sellers (Halo 3 being the ultimate), and so few coming this year for the PS3. If it takes another year for a system-selling title to come out on PS3, Sony might not even be able to get close to the market share of the 360.

(I don't consider the Wii to be a direct competitor, as it will almost certainly be the #1 selling system by the end of the year. However, for many people it will be a second system. For blockbuster games, the 360 and PS3 are the competitors.)

Re:Not selling hurts more (1)

miyako (632510) | more than 7 years ago | (#17847992)

Actually, selling the PS3s hurts the bottom line less than not selling them, since they are already producing them. Basically, it costs then $x to make a PS3, and they sell it for $y (where $x > $y). They still lose money in the end, but they lose less money by selling the systems than by having them sitting on the shelves.
I've also heard the 30 titles thing floating about. I'm not sure how accurate it is, but there is something else to consider as well: mindshare. Even if sony never makes back the cost of selling the PS3 for the first six months, it might be worth it to them, if hardcore gamers snatch up the systems at that point, and get the casual gamers excited about the system. The (larger number of) casual gamers can then go buy the system in a year or so, when sony isn't taking as much of a loss on the system, and they will have to buy fewer games/movies/etc each to be profitable customers for Sony.

Re:Not selling hurts more (1)

Katmando911 (1039906) | more than 7 years ago | (#17848066)

"and a dozen Blu-Ray movies" DING DING DING we have a winner! This is the reason why Sony has to do what ever it takes to get the PS3 into peoples homes. Even if the user's don't buy a lot of blu-ray movies they probably won't bother to buy a HDDVD player and that means they wont be buying any HDDVD movies. The sooner one of the next-gen DVD formats can kill the other one the better and Sony's going to be in a world of hurt if they lose THAT battle.

Re:Not selling hurts more (2, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#17848900)

Lets just say it costs them $700 to make the system, and it costs $600 for the person to buy it. This means if someone buys it, they lose $100. If nobody buys it they lose $700. If somebody buys it after a price drop at $500, then they have lost $100. Unless they find some way to sell the PS3 at $700 or more at some later date, then selling it now for a loss of $100 is still the best they can do for the already manufactured units. As far as building new consoles, I'm not sure if it's more worth their money to stop production, or to continue producing them and selling at a loss, hoping to eventually make a profit.

Bitterness (4, Interesting)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 7 years ago | (#17846800)

I probably sound quite bitter, but I hope they don't do it. I _want_ them to get thoroughly boned for their rampant anti-consumer bahavior. Yes, I'm still pissed about rookits, yes, I'm still pissed about fake advertisements. Peoples memories are too damn short, and companies have been getting exploiting that fact for too long. Nothing beats a good financial thrashing for keeping corporations honest.

Re:Bitterness (3, Insightful)

the_B0fh (208483) | more than 7 years ago | (#17848460)

So, when are you going to do whatever you're going to do, to Microsoft? You know, the company that LIED UNDER OATH IN COURT?

Where are they? (2)

blackmonday (607916) | more than 7 years ago | (#17847010)

If I were interested in buying a PS3 (I'm not), I wouldn't be able to get one. I live in Southern California, and have never seen one on a shelf. I've heard anecdotes of people seing a ton at a best buy somewhere, but I just haven't seen this. I shop regularly at Fry's, Target, Best Buy, Costco, etc. I've never seen one in stock. Maybe they'd sell more units if they could get them out the door.

Re:Where are they? (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 7 years ago | (#17847536)

Come to central Florida. We've got plenty here. I recently took a picture of a shelf at Target with the PS3 cabinet jammed full and the Wii cabinet absolutely empty, side by side. I think it's on my home PC. I should have posted it. Ah well.

Re:Where are they? (1)

Veilrap (875588) | more than 7 years ago | (#17847586)

Well there is at least ten in South Bend, Indiana, Best Buy and Gamestop both have a few sitting on the shelves here.

Re:Where are they? (1)

idlemind (760102) | more than 7 years ago | (#17847954)

I am in Oregon. I have seen PS3 units available in several different stores. A pretty good percentage are 60GB units. I guess it's more popular in socal

Re:Where are they? (1)

trdrstv (986999) | more than 7 years ago | (#17848594)

Maybe it's a distribution problem then. Maybe some regions have a glut, and other are just over stocked.

NorthEast PA has plenty. I can go into several EB / Gamestops, Targets, Wal-marts... you name it they have it, at least a few of each model. They've been in stock and readily available since the week before Christmas.

Re:Where are they? (1)

Detritus (11846) | more than 7 years ago | (#17848856)

I'm in Maryland. According to iTrackr, the PS3 is in-stock at 16 of the 24 local stores that they monitor. The Nintendo Wii is in-stock at 0 of 24.

they aren't Coke (5, Insightful)

OutOnARock (935713) | more than 7 years ago | (#17847036)

In America at least, we by nature forgive and forget. IANAL, but only when we feel we've been "made whole" does this occur. That the transgression before us has been repaired to our satisfaction.

Take Coke. We were told by the company that their newest was the greatest shit on earth and all other colas might as well pack it in. They even took away Coke. The Coke we all knew and loved. A Coke that all they had to do was not fuck it up.

And they fucked it up.

And there was outrage. More importantly, there were no sales of this New Coke. Yet people as I recall were selling two liters of old, or Classic Coke for hundreds of dollars.

And they saw this outrage and maybe cared, maybe not. But they saw the sales in those markets. And their New Coke had a short, painful life, and a quiet death. I don't even know if they promoted when the sliver stripe on the cans disappeared and Classic Coke was just Coke again.

Because they could. Because THEIR product does not have to evolve and is unique within their domain. They were smart enough, God help me, to realize that they had a great product in their domain, and their customers were willing to fight for it; all they had to do is not fuck it up.

THEY could say they fucked up, go back to the Classic taste we all loved, and sure, even drop the price if they wanted to to sweeten the deal a little, slight pun intended. And we would forgive them because they made us whole, we had our Coke again and the world was right.

Their product allowed for a fuck up of such massive proportions. A gig in management there must be sweet.

Sony assumes that the BRANDNAME "Playstation" carries all the attributes of a Classic Coke. No. Their product does have to evolve and becomes less and less unique by the day. They cannot just apologize, with their tails between their legs go back to what they had, drop the price a little, and make us all whole and happy with their product again.

Sony must make their "New Coke" fly.....and now they must try to repair the injury to their fans and make them whole again. A price drop alone cannot accomplish this, I wonder if anything they do really can. I wish them luck but I'm betting this will be another how not to succeed example in business classes across the globe in a few years.

Re:they aren't Coke (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17847516)

No, no, no. This had NOTHING to do with consumer demand. They wanted to swap the formulation from the old "expensive" formula to a newer less expensive (read more profitable) formula. The problem, the taste wasn't EXACTLY the same as the old. So, you release "New Coke", let people get "un-used" to the taste of your original product, then, release the newer low cost, ALMOST tastes the same "Coke Classic", the customers think that they somehow influenced your decision, you get to make more money per unit sold, everybody wins!

It was a BRILLIANT strategy.

Mod parent up. And read this :) (1, Flamebait)

Fross (83754) | more than 7 years ago | (#17848042)

This is absolutely correct, and the parent's parent is as exactly woefully mistaken as Coke wanted them to be.

Coke did not go from Coke to New Coke and then go "oh noes, we are losing all the profits" and change back to Coke Classic for the consumer - that's exactly what they wanted to happen, to have people think - to think they had "won" and got old Coke back. Coke won, and they didn't get old Coke back.

The change in formula the parent refers to is a simple one - replacing sugar with corn syrup. A slight change in taste, but a much cheaper product, saving Coke somewhere around a cent a can - a HUGE amount of money. They couldn't just foist this on people, as it did taste slightly different, and people would notice the change, and complain.

So, they changed the formula of Coke to new Coke (I'm not sure whether New Coke had corn syrup or sugar in it), then waited a few years for all the Coke to disappear, for people to forget what it was exactly like... then brought in Coke Classic, aka Old Coke but Cheaper. Consumers get to feel like the won and get their "old" product back, Coke gets to gloat smugly and quietly and rake in the profits. And credit to them, it was a brave and amazigly shrewd bit of business.

I don't think this has anything to do with the original thread anymore, but it's a good thing to know :)

Re:they aren't Coke (2, Informative)

CokeBear (16811) | more than 7 years ago | (#17848056)

Urban Legend.

The change you are talking about is the switch from real sugar to high fructose corn syrup, and it happened almost a year before the introduction of New Coke. It was pretty uneventful, since there were no blogs back then. A few people complained, but they were ignored.

Re:they aren't Coke (3, Informative)

Golias (176380) | more than 7 years ago | (#17848592)

I find your ideas intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

No, but seriously, there were far less crafty and conspiratorial reasons behind New Coke.

It started with the invention of NutraSweet. Diet Coke pushed Tab and all other sugar-free colas into total obscurity. It not only became the #1 diet soda, it became the #3 soda overall.

The crucial difference between the flavors of Coke and Pepsi is the choice of citrus used. Coke has always used lemon, while Pepsi uses lime. That's why Coke has that "snap" that hard-core Coke fans crave, while Pepsi tastes slightly sweeter (which led to them winning all those "Pepsi Challenge" taste tests... If you just have a sip of each back-to-back, the sweeter one will taste "better.")

Diet Coke has a formula which is extremely sweet, like Pepsi.

Younger people tend to prefer the sweeter taste of Pepsi, while older folks like Coke... generally speaking.

This created a demographic scare for Coke execs in the 1980s. They saw that a whole generation was growing up on Pepsi, and feared for their market-share dominance. Not considering that some of these Pepsi-drinking kids might gradually change their preference, they panicked.

New Coke was an effort to capture the younger market, by making a sugar-based cola which tasted pretty much the same as the startlingly popular Diet Coke, and compete with Pepsi on the basis of sweetness.

The problem was, people who drink Coke exclusively don't like the ultra-sweet taste of Pepsi.

If it was an on-purpose maneuver, it was a terribly risky one. The ONLY reason their old customers came back for "Classic" Coke was because there was, and is, nobody making anything that tastes quite like Coca-Cola. (Actually, there may have been, since the patent on Coke's old formula has long since run out, but nobody is calling their attention to it.)

As for why Classic doesn't *quite* taste the same to picky cola drinkers: Coke keeps most of the formula the same, but uses whatever sweetner is cheapest at the time for the region which is making it, which in almost all cases is either high fructose corn syrup or beet sugar. They figure most people won't care, and they are mostly right.

If you are one of those hard-core Coke fans and miss "the real thing", go shopping in April.

For the Passover, Coke makes a limited batch of Kosher Coke, so kids from traditional Jewish families can have a little Coke with their feast. The thing is, there is only one Coke formula which has been approved as Kosher, and that's the original formula using cane sugar for sweetener.

You can identify the Kosher cans of Coke by looking for the triangle-shaped seal of the Rabbinical Council near the base of the can. I don't drink Coke anymore (all that sugar is bad for you), but back in the day I used to buy it by the crate-load out of local supermarkets and hoard enough to get me through as much of the year as I could.

Re:they aren't Coke (1)

hal2814 (725639) | more than 7 years ago | (#17847834)

"I don't even know if they promoted when the sliver stripe on the cans disappeared and Classic Coke was just Coke again."

Then I wonder if you were alive back then. They promoted it to death. That 90% of people who recall this story refer to the old Coke as either Coke Classic or Classic Coke is proof of how large-scale that advertising was. They didn't just take away the silver stripe. They continued to sell reformulated Coke under the moniker "New Coke" (still with silver stripe) and then sold the old formula under the title "Coca-Cola Classic." Then they relentlessly advertised Coca-Cola Classic for about 2 to 3 years when they finally just started labelling it Coca-Cola again. New Coke continued to be an option but it wasn't one that many bottlers picked up so it varied by region (much like Tab) but it dropped out of sight for most markets pretty quickly. From what I remember, it was around the late 90's when the last New Coke bottler finally abandoned the soft drink for good.

Re:they aren't Coke (1)

tkrotchko (124118) | more than 7 years ago | (#17848072)

Close.

When Coke was released, they stopped the old formula for a short period of time (I want to say 3-6 months). There was "old coke" speculation going on.

After it was clear that it wasn't catching on like they'd hoped, they released the previous formula under "Coke Classic" and the newer formula under "New Coke". Gradually, they make "New Coke" go away (I want to say 18-24 months).

No doubt, after all the current execs are dead, the new CEO of coke will announce "New Coke" and the cycle will repeat itself.

$299 for 20GB.... (1)

RatPh!nk (216977) | more than 7 years ago | (#17847264)

...version and I'm in. It should have been this way from the beginning.

A matter of timing (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17847510)

Apparently Sony is unaware of the phrase "too little too late"

Sony has to find a way... (1)

rehtonAesoohC (954490) | more than 7 years ago | (#17847806)

...to fund the development of the Playstation 4 and prepare for their next bout of battery explosions.

Unfortunate wording (5, Funny)

thatguywhoiam (524290) | more than 7 years ago | (#17848266)

"Stiff competition from the Wii..."

Someone mentioned a huge throbbing joke in there somewhere, but I'm boned if I can find it.

Perhaps 65nm Cell is a factor (1)

thatguywhoiam (524290) | more than 7 years ago | (#17848302)

Sony is moving to a 65nm process for the Cell [cdrinfo.com] much sooner than most expected. Perhaps they plan on keeping their loss the same per-unit, and passing the new savings down to spur sales?

They've set themselves up for it... (4, Insightful)

ravyne (858869) | more than 7 years ago | (#17848566)

Sony has done absolutely *nothing* right this generation. They're too late, with technology to match their intended launch date of last year. They threw in a GPU too late to the game because they thought their wonderfull cell processor would make a powerfull enough GPU. The cell is nice in theory, but there's too many restrictions and memory-wrangling in practice. They're up against the 360, with a 10+ million installed base, second-gen games, and a lower price point - Oh and Halo 3 is due out this holiday season or there about. They're up against the Wii at less than half the price, and cheaper games they can't match on innovation. The launch catalog was anemic with no real stand-outs, and there's nothing big on the radar except MGS4. They're losing exclusive third-party titles left and right to the 360.

Devs are comfortable on their competitors' machines - The Wii is just a faster gamecube (literally) with a neat controller, and while the 360 is relatively complex they've got wonderful top-notch tools to support development and an architecture thats doesn't have a split memory model or hobbled assymetric CPU.

Despite the high price, they're loosing about $175 - $225 per unit (depending on the model) while their competotors' machines are already profitable hardware. Nintendo has never sold an unprofitable machine, and right now, Microsoft could give consumers a $50 price drop and take each new owner out to lunch before they would go back into the red.

Mark my words -- If the earth doesn't shake for Sony real soon they'll be a distant third this time around, and may be foreced to drop from the race early or even for good, and if Sony's game division fails its going to make a huge hit on the entire company's bottom line.

They're arrogant over an overpriced architecture that hurts more than it helps, all in the name of pushing their BluRay format.

No one gets it yet. (4, Insightful)

popo (107611) | more than 7 years ago | (#17848848)

Sony will be Japan's General Motors.

Like GM is to the US, Sony is the poster child of Japan's industrial growth -- and in ten years
they will be in a desperate struggle for survival.

Think that's too grim?

Watch.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?