PDA

View Full Version : PS3 launch price of $300-400 confirmed by Howard Stringer


Arreat
11-21-2005, 04:39 PM
http://money.cnn.com/2005/11/21/technology/playstation_fortune_112805


Sony will sucker millions of people into thinking they are getting a $2000 Blu-Ray drive for $300-400, much like they did with the DVD drive in PS2 only not to that expensive an extent. And not that you won't be getting a great Blu-Ray drive and it will be a terrific deal over buying a stand alone BR ROM player.

Looks like Sony will be taking the position that XBox once has, same price and supposedly better graphics. I'll be picking up a 360 only because it has better FPS games ( Halo 3 and Perfect Dark Zero) :clap2:

Discuss

IG-64
11-21-2005, 06:18 PM
Well, seeing that it is the CEO of Sony, I guess it's official enough. Though the words "sucker millions of people into thinking" seem a little suspicious. >_>


Let's see: Cell processer, 2 $500 video cars, $2000 Blu-Ray drive...

Seems a little like suicide to me, but we'll see.

TiE23
11-21-2005, 06:33 PM
Sell at a loss? How much? My God, those things won't be cheap to produce!

BongoBob
11-21-2005, 06:34 PM
They're sony! F*** Pants!

But seriously, I don't see how they could do that, other than because they're sony.

ET Warrior
11-21-2005, 07:45 PM
Near as I can figure, production costs for a PS3 have to be over 800 dollars.

Sony is out of control.

Lynk Former
11-22-2005, 01:30 AM
Better for them to confirm an overall price now, leaves time for people to save up or dig into their lifesavings.

The thing with Sony is that once they figure out that they're not the most liked flavour anymore (and it will happen), they're gonna get soooooo burned once they've realised that making consoles at a loss is gonna drive them further into debt. At the moment with their current momentum they have nothing to worry about, but the only way from here is down.

BongoBob
11-22-2005, 09:17 AM
Wow, CNN.com (www.thisisajokeharhar.com) just announced that Howard Stringer is a chain smokin psycho :o

Prime
11-22-2005, 11:07 AM
I like not being a part of the console craze...

Kain
11-22-2005, 11:54 AM
Um...it probably won't cost Sony that much to mass produce the systems. The whole capatilist thing and all - it usually only costs the companys a fraction of what it costs the consumers.

El Sitherino
11-22-2005, 12:05 PM
Except production cost will be a minimum of $800 dollars due to the tech required to create the PS3.

Lynk Former
11-22-2005, 01:29 PM
Remember that the PS3 is using new technologies and they're always expensive initially. Sony plans to be the first with the most powerful hardware out there and ride it out for 10 years.

El Sitherino
11-22-2005, 02:19 PM
I'll laugh though if Blu-ray fails like betamax, Sony'd probably die at that point.

90SK
11-22-2005, 06:36 PM
It's a dangerous gamble, and it'll certainly be interesting to see how it plays out in the end. I don't think they would do it if they didn't assume to make a profit off the venture. Still, maybe I'm putting too much faith in Sony. Time will tell, regardless.

TiE23
11-22-2005, 07:41 PM
Remember that the PS3 is using new technologies and they're always expensive initially. Sony plans to be the first with the most powerful hardware out there and ride it out for 10 years.
10 years? I don't think so mister! :p

BongoBob
11-22-2005, 08:10 PM
I would laugh my ass off at all the PS2 fanbois :D

While I come across as an Xbox fanboy, I'm really not, I also play my gamecube alot, and sometimes borrow my cousins PS2 :)

CapNColostomy
11-22-2005, 09:20 PM
I'll laugh though if Blu-ray fails like betamax, Sony'd probably die at that point.

I'm confident that Blu ray will do fine, mainly because of Sony and the PS3. The PS2 certainly didn't hurt dvd sales.

El Sitherino
11-22-2005, 09:57 PM
I'm confident that Blu ray will do fine, mainly because of Sony and the PS3. The PS2 certainly didn't hurt dvd sales.
But that was way after DVD was the selected format.

As it stands right now, HD-DVD seems like it may win out.

CapNColostomy
11-22-2005, 11:19 PM
But that was way after DVD was the selected format.

PS2 was the first DVD player I, and many people I know ever owned, because at the time, it was a cheap way to get a DVD player. They weren't 20-40 bucks a pop like they are now. In fact, I had no interest in owning a DVD player at all until I decided to get a PS2, as I'm sure was the case for many other people. You couldn't give away a DVD in Japan until Sony released PS2. So maybe history will repeat itself. But to be frank, I don't care about what it'll play other than games. I'm getting it for games.

Lynk Former
11-22-2005, 11:34 PM
@ TiE²³: But that is Sony's plan, they've said it before that they're gonna make this console last for as long as possible.


And about PS2 and DVD. The PS2 has always been a terrible DVD player, one of the worst you can get in fact. DVDs didn't take off because of the PS2, it took off because movie companies switched from making VHS tapes to make DVD discs.

CapNColostomy
11-23-2005, 12:07 AM
And about PS2 and DVD. The PS2 has always been a terrible DVD player, one of the worst you can get in fact. DVDs didn't take off because of the PS2, it took off because movie companies switched from making VHS tapes to make DVD discs.

Okay, once more. PS2 isn't responsible for DVD alone. But when it was released, the PS2 was a cheap alternative to standard DVD players. I never said it was a good DVD player either, but I'd wager it was a better DVD player than the Gamecube. PS2 doubling as a DVD player didn't hurt DVD sales. It's not like DVD's were huge already when PS2 came out. And lots of movies are still released on VHS, so...

toms
11-23-2005, 06:35 AM
And about PS2 and DVD. The PS2 has always been a terrible DVD player, one of the worst you can get in fact. DVDs didn't take off because of the PS2, it took off because movie companies switched from making VHS tapes to make DVD discs.

PS2 didn't "make" dvd a winning format - for one thing it wasn't exactly competing with anything else - but it did help the momentum by putting a cheap dvd player in a lot of homes... at a time when they cost several hundred pounds each.
That said, the PS2 was a pants dvd player, and within a few months you could buy better stand alone dvd players for £40 in the shops.

Still, reality and perception are two different things, and the peception that you are getting more value by getting a games console and DVD/Blueray player is a powerful one... even if in the long run you don't end up liking or using the "free" player.

All the independent analysts I have read seem to theink blueray is by far the favourite - but then a lot of them are placing a lot of value on the PS3 factor.

Lynk Former
11-23-2005, 06:49 AM
So your point is the PS2 plays DVDs and the GameCube doesn't?... Obviously the PS2 didn't HURT DVD sales, that would be pretty impossible, but it was clearly suggested earlier in the thread that the PS2 had a big and in brining forth DVDs which isn't true. It is true that Sony included the ability to play back DVD movies on the PS2 because they wanted to further a format they had invested in, but when it comes down to it, the movie makers are the ones who ultimately brought it forward. On the other hand...

The PS3, if Bluray is successful, will be the flagship and will take a far more important role than the PS2 ever did with DVDs.

Prime
11-23-2005, 10:11 AM
The $300-$400 statement is incorrect.

Correction: An earlier version of this story appeared with statements erroneously attributed to Sir Howard Stringer, CEO of Sony Corporation, regarding pricing and availability of the PS3. Stringer has not commented publicly on how much the PS3 is expected to cost, or how soon it will appear in the US after the Japanese launch in spring 2006.

toms
11-23-2005, 12:49 PM
PS2 helped dvd sales (in a small way) and DVD helped PS2 sales (in a small way) but in the end neither was that crucial to the other. And the combination turned out to be not that great anyway.

DVD didn't have a competing format to worry about, so PS3 may have a bigger effect this time around.

RoxStar
11-23-2005, 01:52 PM
Um...it probably won't cost Sony that much to mass produce the systems.

Its the miracles of child labor!

Lynk Former
11-23-2005, 06:13 PM
XD Apparantly the Xbox360 is selling at a loss of 126USD with each console, expect the PS3 to be worse. And I know what some of you are going to say "who cares if the company is selling it at a loss, we get something expensive for cheaper!"

Yeah, and then you get all the crap that happened to the PS2, all those stupid defects and problems, people having to return their PS2s because they didn't work in the first place, stopped working or worse, actually damaged game discs. Once you start selling something at a loss, the only way to make it as cost effective as possible is to cut as many corners as possible.

I'm sure there will be a lot of you that won't have a problem with your PS3 initially, but thee'll be another group of you which will have some bad stories to tell about how you had to return yours or try to get it repaired, etc.

TiE23
11-23-2005, 10:27 PM
While I come across as an Xbox fanboy, I'm really not...
You play "Pimp My Ride" with your Xbox... :D


Well, in similar news, Microsoft looses $126 on each 360 (and you say they were money mongers?)

Microsoft’s newest gaming console marks an improvement on the earlier version in some decisive ways. To name a few, the pricier Xbox 360 is sleeker and more powerful (see BW Online, 11/22/05, "Xbox: How It’s Designed to Thrill"). And unlike its predecessor, the Xbox 360 is being released months ahead of the comparable next-generation console from Microsoft’s chief gaming rival, Sony.

But when it comes to profitability, the new machine won’t change anything. Microsoft will carry on its tradition of taking a loss on the console, according to a preliminary analysis by market researcher iSuppli.

An up-close look at the components and other materials used in the high-end version of the Xbox 360, which contains a hard drive, found that the materials inside the unit cost Microsoft $470 before assembly. The console sells at retail for $399, meaning a loss of $71 per unit -- and that is just the start.

Other items packaged with the console -- including the power supply, cables, and controllers -- add another $55 to Microsoft’s cost, pushing the loss per unit to $126. These estimates include assumptions that Microsoft is getting a discount on many components.
Ehh...

Lynk Former
11-23-2005, 11:52 PM
Which brings us back to my point http://xbox360.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3145847

It's not gonna be pretty once the PS3 finally comes out.

Kain
11-24-2005, 12:18 AM
Which brings us back to my point http://xbox360.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3145847

It's not gonna be pretty once the PS3 finally comes out.

Maybe thats why Sony is waiting until after the holidays and such before releasing PS3.

Not that I'm accusing Microsoft of rushing the system, glitches and crashes and bugs and all, just so its out now and about for the holidays. :dozey::¬:

And we don't have proof that Microsoft is loosing money on anything. Its not very buisness-saavy to continue production of something thats costing them money. Until I see Bill Gates holding up a bill that has a net-loss at the bottom that is signed by him and the losses circled in hot-rod-cherry-red, I'm going to live under the pretense that, as a multi-billion dollar industry, Microsoft is giving us the short end of the stick.

Lynk Former
11-24-2005, 12:24 AM
Microsoft lost a tonne of cash on the original Xbox... I think it was a 4 billion dollar loss before they finally started making money from the damn thing. Microsoft's goal is to get everyone thinking "Microsoft" when they think of videogames.

http://www.joystiq.com/entry/1234000150060595/

CapNColostomy
11-24-2005, 05:54 AM
So your point is the PS2 plays DVDs and the GameCube doesn't?... Obviously the PS2 didn't HURT DVD sales, that would be pretty impossible, but it was clearly suggested earlier in the thread that the PS2 had a big and in brining forth DVDs which isn't true. It is true that Sony included the ability to play back DVD movies on the PS2 because they wanted to further a format they had invested in, but when it comes down to it, the movie makers are the ones who ultimately brought it forward. On the other hand...

No, that's not my point at all. I just figured since we were pulling things out of our asses to argue about that I'd mention your precious Nintendo. Afterall, nobody once chimed in championing the PS2 as a good DVD player. But anyway, I got to looking around and found a portion of an article about the history of the DVD that I thought you might find interseting.

"By the spring of 1999 the price of a DVD player had dropped below the US$300 mark. At that point Wal-Mart began to offer DVD players for sale in its stores. When Wal-Mart began selling DVDs in their stores, DVDs represented only a small part of their video inventory; VHS tapes of movies made up the remainder.

As of 2005 the situation is now completely reversed; DVD sales make up the bulk of gross sales and VHS is a slim minority. The price of a DVD player has dropped to below the level of a typical VCR; a low-end and relatively quality player can be purchased for under US$50 in many retail stores and many modern computers are sold with DVD-ROM drives stock. Most, but not all, movie "sets" or series have been released in box sets, as have some entire seasons or selected episode volumes of older and newer television programs.

DVD rentals first topped those of VHS during the week of June 15, 2003 (27.7M rentals DVD vs. 27.3M rentals VHS). Major U.S. retailers Circuit City and Best Buy stopped selling VHS tapes in 2002 and 2003, respectively. In June 2005, Wal-Mart and several other retailers announced plans to phase out the VHS format entirely, in favor of the more popular DVD format. [2]

According to the Digital Entertainment Group (DEG), all DVD sales and rentals (films, television series, special interests, etc) totaled $21.2 billion in 2004. The sales portion of that was $15.5 billion. In comparison, the total 2004 US box office for theatrical rentals was $9.53 billion (per the National Association of Theater Owners or NATO). While the growth of theatrical films on DVD has cooled recently, that of television programs and music video has increased dramatically.

In 2000, Sony released its PlayStation 2 console in Japan. In addition to playing video games developed for the system it was also able to play DVD movies. This proved to be a huge selling point because the PS2 cost about the same as DVD player but it could do a whole lot more. As a result, many electronic stores that normally did not carry video game consoles carried PS2s.

Following on with this tradition Sony has decided to implement one of DVD's possible successors, Blu-ray, into its next PlayStation console currently known as the PlayStation 3. Microsoft's Xbox, released a year after the PlayStation 2, also had the capability to play DVD discs with an add-on kit, cementing the DVD's place in video game consoles."

So yeah, I'd say that PS2 and DVD did more for each others sales than what you'd care to admit, or have anyone else believe. Of course I'm not saying that PS2 is entirely responsible for DVD's popularity increase, because that's just retarded. But if you build a popular, kickass video game machine, that doubles as a cheap alternative (insert player format here) player, it's only common sense that said format will do well if the machine is popular. The Playstation is popular. According to a recent documentary about the history of video games that I watched, DVD players and DVD's were gathering dust on the shelves in Japan UNTIL the release of the PS2, because standard DVD player prices were too high. Next you'll be trying to tell me that PSP movies aren't selling well because of the PSP, but because of some other jackassery I suppose. Good argument, but not one I'll be involved with.

Good day to you, sir.

Lynk Former
11-24-2005, 06:24 AM
Oh wow, so because I'm a Nintendo fan I'm suddenly going after Sony for no apparant reason? I wasn't even going after Sony in the first place, just putting the point that movies did more for DVDs than the PS2 did. There are people out there who make it sound like the PS2 was the thing that made DVDs take off, it's the opposite, DVDs were the thing that drove the PS2 to take off. And that large chunk of text just highlights that fact. DVDs succeeded before Sony, and as a result allowed the PS2 to gain a boost in sales, but Sony didn't affect the success of DVDs... unless Sony has the ability to affect the past through the present (at the time).

And this is pretty damn pointless when toms has alraedy spelt it out pretty damn well in the first place.
PS2 helped dvd sales (in a small way) and DVD helped PS2 sales (in a small way) but in the end neither was that crucial to the other. And the combination turned out to be not that great anyway.



Oh and don't worry you can give my "precious" Nintendo as much crap as you want, just as long as you have the facts to back it up.

Prime
11-24-2005, 12:31 PM
Which brings us back to my point http://xbox360.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3145847

It's not gonna be pretty once the PS3 finally comes out.These issues are getting a lot of pub.

For those interested... (http://www.echonetwork.net/)

toms
11-24-2005, 12:50 PM
if the ps2 had any effect it may have been to reduce the price of DVD players... cos once you could get a PS2 for the price of a dvd player it became necessary for dvd players to get cheaper to appear to offer better value.

DVDs DID get off to a very slow start, and it wasn't until there were cheaper options in terms of players (either ps2 or others) that they started to skyrocket to the mass acceptance they have now.

TiE23
11-24-2005, 01:58 PM
You guys do know that Sony lost money because people whould buy their console just to play DVDs, then they couldn't make money off those people because they didn't buy any PS2 games.

Thats why Xbox has the DVD remote seperately.

toms
11-24-2005, 05:36 PM
I thought it was cos they didn't want to have to pay royalties to sony.. :)

CapNColostomy
11-24-2005, 06:12 PM
DVDs DID get off to a very slow start, and it wasn't until there were cheaper options in terms of players (either ps2 or others) that they started to skyrocket to the mass acceptance they have now.

Jeebus Effin Cripes! Someone who knows what the hell they're talking about! Awesome job, toms.

@Lynk...

Fact:The PS2 is a better DVD player than a Gamecube.

Lynk Former
11-24-2005, 07:26 PM
A lot of people were buying DVD players at the time when the PS2 had come out. What Sony did was launch at a perfect time when DVD players were in demand, which means the PS2 road on the success of DVD, the fact that it became accepted by the public came from the fact that it was officially made the standard long before the PS2 came out. So like I have said before, unless Sony can affect the past from present day events, they couldn't have led DVD to success. It's the other way around. It is a very different scenario with the PS3 where Sony is taking a format that HAS competition, putting it into their console and hoping this will get people to accept it as the new standard.

Very different from how it was for DVD.


@ CapNColostomy: Hate to break it to you but the GameCube has nothing to do with DVDs, it uses a proprietary format. So how is what you saying a fact? Looks more like an attempt at being spiteful that isn't quite working.

CapNColostomy
11-24-2005, 09:01 PM
So how is what you saying a fact?

Ummm...it doesn't play DVD's at all? A Playstation 2 is aslo a better DVD player than a toaster oven. A clown is a better clown than a doughnut. These are undisputable facts.

Mike Windu
11-24-2005, 09:17 PM
OMG I think I caught on!

A pencil is a better pencil than a pen!

Am I right?

Lynk Former
11-24-2005, 09:33 PM
XD *snickers* But then if something that doesn't play DVDs isn't a DVD player, how can it be a worse DVD player if it isn't even classified as a DVD player in the first place? Which means it is a disputable fact.

However an indisputable fact would be "The PS2 is able to play DVDs, the GameCube is not." Which brings me back to my earlier question. What does the GameCube have to do with any of this?

CapNColostomy
11-24-2005, 10:30 PM
I thought you might reply with that. And I have no counter. You win at the internet.

Lynk Former
11-24-2005, 10:42 PM
Yeah, another pointless arguement comes to a close XD

Mike Windu
11-24-2005, 11:00 PM
Well it would only come eventually, the whole an apple is a better apple than an orange thing couldn't go for long. :p