PS3 $400 Price Drop Rumor

[Vigilance]

While I do agree that Sony has been a bit baffling, I have a hard time believing they'll release a 40GB PS3 so much cheaper than the newly released 80GB model that got rid of the other TWO previous versions.

After finally working to get rid of the two other, extra models, I just don't think they would put out yet another model and bring the whole problem back again.

I think they're just trying to move units myself, and possibly grasping at straws a little.

I got the sense in the EARLY build-up to the PS3 that they felt really confident and unassailable in their dominance.

This was when we got such lovely quotes from Sony execs like "you don't need the PC", "the next generation begins when we say it does", "people would buy this console even if we didn't make games for it" and "don't ding me if games for the system cost $100".

Then, as they got closer to launch, I think reality began to set in on some level, but I think Sony still felt that, even if the 360 could dominate them in the US, that they could control the home audience in Japan and use that as a base from which to fight the 360.

Of course, that hasn't happened. They're getting beaten by two very different consoles, and I don't think they have a real plan on what to do about it.

 

[Grog]

It'd be nice if, instead of cutting the price of the console, Sony cut the price of the games instead.

I realize that probably won't happen, but $60 for a game is frankly ridiculous IMO, and that's what's kept me away from both the PS3 and the 360 so far, more than the price of the systems themselves.

 

[John Crichton]

I think they're just trying to move units myself, and possibly grasping at straws a little.

While I'm a little surprised at this development, it speaks more to manufacturing costs dropping for the BR diode (and other PS3 costs) than anything else. Sony has never been a company to "grasp." They are BSers and generally cocky (like most big companies), but not ones to outreach themselves or panic. They most likely feel that they have a little ammo now and are feeling that it's time to start phasing the PS2 out and focus on the PS3/PSP.

If anything, Sony is arrogant. I can get behind that especially since they have the most impressive piece of console hardware this gen. It's really just a matter of games at this point. No small task.

Good times.

 

[LightPhoenix]

My skepticism is mostly based on the lack of a good answer to 'how does Sony make a PS3 that costs them at least $100 less than an 80GB PS3 to make, but that people will actually buy for $400'?

A smaller HD won't save them more than $10. They'll need to cut out other stuff. The rest of the PS2 hardware? Wi-fi? Wired controller? They'd probably need to do all of that to shave $100 off the production cost of the PS3. And I think if they did that they'd have another 20GB PS3 or Xbox 360 Core, which no one would actually buy.

Take a bigger price hit on the hardware. While games are the most important thing, right now Sony needs penetration as well. A killer game doesn't matter if no one is buying your console.

 

[Lazybones]

It'd be nice if, instead of cutting the price of the console, Sony cut the price of the games instead.

I realize that probably won't happen, but $60 for a game is frankly ridiculous IMO, and that's what's kept me away from both the PS3 and the 360 so far, more than the price of the systems themselves.

People keep saying this, but adjusted for inflation, games are cheaper now than they have ever been at just about any time in the past. $60 in today's money is about $38 in 1990 money, for example, and I remember paying $50 for titles for the Genesis. I think part of the problem is that PC games are still $50 so people feel ripped off for the console titles.

Not that I wouldn't rather pay less, but for titles that I don't want to pay full price for I just wait a few months; often they drop $10 or even $20 in that time. But I don't think that $60 is ridiculous in a historical context, especially given the increase in movies, CDs, and other things that compete for my entertainment dollar.

 

[Arnwyn]

That not really fair, of course, but nothing is. It IS a good game. Even as a God of War clone, its good. But its not great. And that's what it was supposed to be...that's also what Sony really needs: a great game.

And that's what they already have: it's called Warhawk.

Regardless of the poor "hype" from the (more often than not incompetent) gaming media, Warhawk is the real deal, and the first AAA title on the PS3. It should, by all normal accounts, be a system-selling game.

Of course, there are some significant objectivity and competency issues in today's dysfunctional gaming media.

 

[drothgery]

Take a bigger price hit on the hardware. While games are the most important thing, right now Sony needs penetration as well. A killer game doesn't matter if no one is buying your console.

Sony is not Microsoft. They can't afford to lose money hand-over-fist on hardware; if they do, Sony won't make money. Whereas MS would still be profitable if they gave Xboxes away for free.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

And that's what they already have: it's called Warhawk.

Regardless of the poor "hype" from the (more often than not incompetent) gaming media, Warhawk is the real deal, and the first AAA title on the PS3. It should, by all normal accounts, be a system-selling game.

Its odd. Warhawk IS good. Very good. AAA good.

But its still almost completely under the radar. Sure, the reviews have been great, too, but they're just almost hidden. It almost seems that, because Warhawk wasn't really advertised, its STILL not getting that now.

I don't think that's specific to the PS3, though. Seems like a lot of good games slip under the radar all the time for whatever reason.

Still, the sad fact is that despite Warhawk being as good as it is, it still isn't a system seller. A game NEEDS the hype and coverage to become that.

Of course, there are some significant objectivity and competency issues in today's dysfunctional gaming media.

Damn straight.

 

[Vigilance]

Its odd. Warhawk IS good. Very good. AAA good.

But its still almost completely under the radar. Sure, the reviews have been great, too, but they're just almost hidden. It almost seems that, because Warhawk wasn't really advertised, its STILL not getting that now.

I think the problem with Warhawk being a system seller is Warhawk itself.

It's an online-only, 32 person, multiplayer shooter.

I think that's way too limited of a genre to be a system seller.

And yes, I know that the Call of Duty 2 multiplayer and the Halo 2 multiplayer are phenomenally popular, but I don't think those games would have been true system sellers without their single player components.

There are still a lot of players who can't, won't or don't like to play online.

 

[Grog]

People keep saying this, but adjusted for inflation, games are cheaper now than they have ever been at just about any time in the past. $60 in today's money is about $38 in 1990 money, for example, and I remember paying $50 for titles for the Genesis. I think part of the problem is that PC games are still $50 so people feel ripped off for the console titles.

Aren't Wii games selling for $50 right now? (I thought I'd seen them at that price point - am I wrong about this?)

Anyway, even $50 for a game is pushing it IMO. A game would have to be pretty fantastic before I'd plunk down that much money for it. You can get most new PC games for $40-45, which is much more reasonable IMO.