The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Your 'Oh, Sony' for January 24, 2007
Gosling
Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered User regular
Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered User regular
Yes, the story timestamp says the 23rd, but it's the 24th now, so phbtphbtph.
http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3156655
http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3156655
So you can look for that drop to $500 sometime after May 2008. Don't know how long after, but certainly after.1UP wrote:Sony: PS3 Price Drop Not Anytime Soon
Jack Tretton says you will pay $600 for a PS3, dagnabbit.
By Mark Whiting, 01/23/2007
You might think Sony's recent struggle with its public image, combined with the growing need to increase the PS3's install base after a recently-announced 25% revenue ding might put a bit of a hot foot under that PS3 price drop. But you'd be wrong.
There's a quote floating around today from an interview conducted with newly-crowned SCEA chief Jack Tretton on the subject of that fabled price drop. The short answer: "Don't hold your breath."
When asked point blank whether price drops for the PS3 will be "as soon or as drastic as they were for the PlayStation 2," Tretton responded with a curt, "No." He followed with a rationalization to the effect that the sizeable hardware development cost of the Big Black Box makes it difficult for Sony to "cost reduce," apparently justifying that $600 price tag.
Tretton also commented that "There's a heck of a lot more under the hood [compared to the PS2] and it costs us more money to make it. I think the consumers that get their hands on a PlayStation 3 clearly see the value and not only want to buy one for $599, in some instances they're willing to pay ridiculous prices to buy one on eBay."
Guess he hasn't gotten the memo yet about that whole eBay ransom thing cooling off.
By way of comparison, the PS2 dropped a hundred bucks in price during the first 550 days of its lifespan -- from $299 to $199 USD. Tretton's words would seem to suggest that the PS3's price point may take significantly longer than a mere year and a half to reach the same threshold. Given that scenario, one would really hope that Sony has some kind of ace-in-the-hole for keeping our collective attention (and purchasing enthusiasm) squarely focused on the PS3. Otherwise you're staring down a little something colloquially known as the Field of Dreams Business Model. "If you build it, they will come."
Joystiq is covering the story, though the interview from Tretton originally appeared in the print magazine Game Informer.
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
Gosling on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
i dont know if this is true or not. maybe it was a dream i had.
3DS Friend Code: 2165-6448-8348 www.Twitch.TV/cooljammer00
Battle.Net: JohnDarc#1203 Origin/UPlay: CoolJammer00
And I'm far from outraged.
Sony wants to keep it's pretentious/cutting edge image, and reducing prices doesn't help said image.
I wouldn't want poor people buying my stuff either.
Ooh, some good sub-retail deals on Craigslist, too.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
Good thing you aren't a multinational corporation. Im pretty sure Sony could not care less how much money a person had as long as they but their stuff.
This news also just adds to idea I already had about most likely never getting a PS3.
"Hey, people who want to buy our console ... we just gave you a huge reason to hold off on your purchase and screw over our bottom line. Durr."
While we're on this bullshit note: "...as soon or as drastic as they were for the PlayStation 2." Uh, what the fuck? The price drops were neither drastic nor soon with the PS2. If anything, it was the most price-stable console of the last generation. And for good reason, since they sold billions of those fucking things at every price point during its lifetime.
This isn't news. It isn't a story. This is anti-PS3 FUD and the OP should be embarrassed to have posted such a turd of an article.
You quote the joke, but not the actual insightful comment?
The Xbox1 price dropped ~6 months after it came out.
The OP is only expressing his disdain for the $599 price and the fact that we're not going to see it drop any time soon, even if that fact may be obvious.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
How do you figure it's selling reasonably well?
I guess that's why they run a website and you don't.
There was an insightful comment? I guess I missed when this became insightful instead of just as pretentious as you make Sony out to be.
The PS2 still has some quality stuff coming out, so sales of God of War II, PS2 systems, memory cards, and controllers could hopefully help Sony stay on some steady ground, until the attach rate for PS3 grows a bit.
So Sony doesn't want a pretentious, cutting edge image?
Yes it does. That's why it was insightful.
They want to keep prices up, especially for their flagship brand name, to keep up their image.
2) In my opinion and observation, all 3 consoles are in a price deadlock. The usual function of pricedrops is to be cheaper than the other guy in an attempt to maintain parity/outsell them. However, there's roughly a 200$ difference in each console. Sony would have to drop more than 200$ to be cheaper than the 360 (or 300$ to be cheaper than the core), and if they even pricematched it would look like they were following Microsoft's lead.
The day that Sony announces a pricedrop is the day that Microsoft has already announced one, or is the same day that MS announces one and continues to undercut the PS3. 400$ PS3? Oh, lookie here, 200$ core and 300$ premium. Oops.
C) PS2 Price History:
US$299.99 (October 26, 2000, release date) (CAD$449.99)
US$199.99 (May 14, 2002) (CAD$299.99)
US$179.99 (May 13, 2003, "temporary" pricing) (CAD$249.99)[1]
US$179.99 (August 18, 2003, official pricing)[2]
US$149.99 (May 11, 2004) (CAD$179.99)
US$129.99 (April 20, 2006) (CAD$129.99)
D) XBox Price History:
US$299 (November 15, 2001, Launch Price) (CAD$449)
US$199 (May 15, 2002) (CAD$299)
US$179 (May 14, 2003) (CAD$249)
US$149 (March 29, 2004) (CAD$199)
E) Gamecube Price History:
US$199.99 (November 18, 2001, Launch Price) (CAD$299.99)[12]
US$149.99 (May 13, 2002) (CAD$229.99)
US$99.99 (September 25, 2003) (CAD$129.99)
So, not only was it NOT the most stable, it was in fact the LEAST stable.
Of course, MS no longer sees the need to do that as long as there is a $200 gap between the 360 and PS3.
Of course there's no talk of price drop this soon after launch. The funny thing is that stories/rumors like this spring up not out of hatred for Sony, but on the hopes that they will one day be able to get a PS3 for a price they feel is justified.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
Hey, could you be any more of a cunt? All three also carried the bullshit news story of Konami canceling their entire PS3 and Wii lineup, which in turn created a retarded thread not unlike this one.
Crap game journalism is what it is irrespective of what websites I do and don't run, you fucking retard.
What was your point?
All of the casual-gamers I speak to here expect the same thing to happen again. Only hardcore fans are buying at launch. Everybody else is waiting for PS2-style price cuts. It will be interesting to see what happens when the expected price-cuts don't arrive.
Actually, removing the redundant temporary drop and the most recent drop (it'll likely be the EOL price for quite some time), it's obviously the most stable. It took them two years to do the requisite $100 drop (a year longer than the XBox) and neither ever needed to go as low as the GameCube to push units.
Moron.
This is from Jack Tretton's GOD DAMN INTERVIEW, what you are implying is that if it's negative news from someone, then you don't want to hear it. It's akin to saying FOXnews shouldn't cover anything the Democrats say...
Oh wait....I guess that's what you want huh?
grrrrrrr
GRRRRRRR
Nuh unh. We get angry at information. Werds. WERDS.
Most stable? It was the first one out. Of course it took longer than the Xbox to price drop. It was soundly beating the Dreamcast and had no real competition for most of that time, especially when it was actually viable as a media player that people wanted. The Xbox came out long afterwards. The Xbox dropped its price in response to the PS2 price drop - not due to some arbitrary calendar that they decided to set up one day.
Neither went as low as the GCN because the GCN cost less to produce by design, and N could reduce its price and still make money on hardware sales.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
Not checking sources, misrepresentation of news, etc. I'm still waiting for FFXIII on my 360.
Wait, what? Are you too fucking brain-dead to note the stench of editorial bias? That the article even implied that there was an expectation of an immediate price drop is utterly ridiculous. Gaming websites are essentially the trade journals for this retarded little hobby of ours and I think we should all expect them to have more common sense.
Could you be any more of a trainwreck?
If Microsoft drop the price of the XBox 360, then that will probably force Sony to cut the PS3's price, regardless of whether they are ready or not.
As did the PS2. I don't think the XBox was ever profitable, though. Sony never needed to drop the price of the PS2 that low because demand was high regardless of the premium.
Man, this half-assed Economics 101 shit reminds me of the community college, I-work-retail-because-I-want-to contingent of these forums.
Golly.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
Wait, weren't you stillborn?
Obviously. I figured that this point was obvious enough that it could go without saying.
The contrast I was making was due to the fact that N was profitting on GCN hardware sales almost from the very start, whereas the PS2 took longer, according to estimates and news reports throughout its lifespan, to profit on hardware (especially considering its early inclusion of DVD). I was not saying, as you seem to imply that you took from me, that the PS2 did not achieve this.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
You actually didn't say much at all. Don't blame me for that.