Guest Columnist: The PS3 Needs to Be “Underpriced”

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Guest Columnist: The PS3 Needs to Be "Underpriced"

If Sony wants to move PS3s off the shelves it needs to stop bragging about how great the console is and start pandering, instead.

Read Full Article

Some good points, however isn't Sony already selling the PS3 at a loss? The idea is finding the price equilibrium where price/purchase meet, however if that point is below the cost of producing your product you've got a problem, as no matter how much it increases sales you'll still end up with a net loss, and the further down price goes so does net profit/loss.

All I can say is shenanigans.(Does that have any use in this situation?)

They have gotten rid of everything basically and are selling for a loss and people still complain.

Take this note. IT COMES WITH A BLU-RAY DVD PLAYER.

Anyone that cannot recognize that blu-ray>HD DVD/Whatever the hell should be taken out back and shot.

The core package is already that btw.(Do some research please.)

EDIT: Yes I know i'm a dick, But if they lower it further then they will have to cut the BR driver.(Which they won't, Since all their games come on BRDisks.

You don't have to be patronizing to appreciate the value to the consumer of breaking up a big purchase into several smaller ones. Say I have $249 a month to spend - I can have a Wii or Xbox right now, then purchase the upgrades next month if I like it, or I can look wistfully at the PS3 in the window for another month.

Plus, for those of us who don't need more than 20 gigs of hard disk space or a second DS3 controller, a stripped-down version is actually the exact same value for less money.

They should sell it for 20 million kerjillion dollars and give it a hard disk as big as a house.

I'd definitely buy one if it was cheaper. And you're definitely right, I've spent around 500 bucks for my Wii at this point but didn't notice because it was broken up payments. The Wii is worthless without multiple controllers. Maybe if Sony only charged me 49.99 a month for 8 months or something? Still...love that little white bastard...

Photobucket

He's not complaining that the PS3 is too expensive. He's got two anyway, and paid $1,100 for one (according to the article). He is suggesting a business strategy that would make the PS3 more successful. It's completely a business suggestion.

And as for the Blu Ray player: I don't care. A noticeable difference isn't enough for me to justify spending my fortune. So for me, the 360 is, as the above poster points out, the same value for less money.

Rooster Cogburn:
He's not complaining that the PS3 is too expensive. He's got two anyway, and paid $1,100 for one (according to the article). He is suggesting a business strategy that would make the PS3 more successful. It's completely a business suggestion.

And as for the Blu Ray player: I don't care. A noticeable difference isn't enough for me to justify spending my fortune. So for me, the 360 is, as the above poster points out, the same value for less money.

Technically no, And if you read my post it would be pants-on-head retarded to switch to regular disks, Because all PS3 disks are BR.

And the stratagy would not be successful, Because microsoft will go all allies after world war 2."Anything you can do I can make cheaper then you." And keep underpricing them.(Live alone is like high-way robbery, When on the PC, Wii, And ps3 the servers are better.(Minus the Wii.) and can hold much larger game lobbys.

This is an EXCELLENT article and is very true....well except for the part where you said that the PS3 is more powerful when clearly it is equal to the 360.

You have to realize this though. Sony is an Asian company. Over there all they care about is MONEY. It is simply their culture and that will never change. Heck it was that way over 200 years ago as well. Do they care about customers? Nope. You buy their stuff, they have your money and that's that.

Point is while you have an excellent plan laid out and well thought out....they will just look at you and laugh until they die.

Sorry but those are the cold hard facts.

If it comes down to just the Blue ray vs. HD battle, the PS3 has already won. Practically all major movie companies have moved to Blue ray.

Bulletinmybrain:
Technically no, And if you read my post it would be pants-on-head retarded to switch to regular disks, Because all PS3 disks are BR.

And the stratagy would not be successful, Because microsoft will go all allies after world war 2."Anything you can do I can make cheaper then you." And keep underpricing them.(Live alone is like high-way robbery, When on the PC, Wii, And ps3 the servers are better.(Minus the Wii.) and can hold much larger game lobbys.

Technically yes, or explain what you mean. I read your post. I'm not saying they should switch now to regular discs. I'm saying that I personally don't own a PS3 because of the price difference generally attributed to Blu-ray. Nothing more.

Digikid:
This is an EXCELLENT article and is very true....well except for the part where you said that the PS3 is more powerful when clearly it is equal to the 360.

You have to realize this though. Sony is an Asian company. Over there all they care about is MONEY. It is simply their culture and that will never change. Heck it was that way over 200 years ago as well. Do they care about customers? Nope. You buy their stuff, they have your money and that's that.

Point is while you have an excellent plan laid out and well thought out....they will just look at you and laugh until they die.

Sorry but those are the cold hard facts.

Wrong on many points, number 1 the PS3 is clearly more powerful then the Xbox 360 just look at the spec lists the PS3 is almost 2 times more powerful if not more then the xbox 360.

Number 2, Asian companies only care about money? completely true, but then you have to realise that western companies share the exact same values. Microsoft and such care as much/little as any Asian company and in fact my experience with Asian companies has been much more pleasurable to that of when I've had to deal with western ones.

If the price came down on the PS3 to a reasonable amount, I would buy one stripped down to a 20G and a single Sixaxis and call it a day while I hummed merrily along playing my new Disgaea game as I waited for Infamous to come out. Blue Ray is not much of a big deal to me personally.

Most cross platform games I would buy for the 360. The point is that the stripped down PS3 at a lower price point would get those of us with a love of certain exclusive titles from the PS2 to buy the lesser version just for our fixes. We don't need the big hard disks because we have a big one in our 360. It would generate sales in an area that would have ignored the platform otherwise, which is always a win.

Sony projects 10 million PS3's will be sold during fiscal 2008 which is barely above the 9.24 million sold in 2007.

My theory is that they estimate such low growth because they don't plan to cut price this year and they know they won't get a major sales spike. Next year, they get the hardware costs down further, get cheaper volume production ramped up, get the PS3 itself more matured (launch Home, music store, more games, etc), and THEN drop the price by at least $100 and push for huge market penetration.

Skrapt:

Digikid:
This is an EXCELLENT article and is very true....well except for the part where you said that the PS3 is more powerful when clearly it is equal to the 360.

You have to realize this though. Sony is an Asian company. Over there all they care about is MONEY. It is simply their culture and that will never change. Heck it was that way over 200 years ago as well. Do they care about customers? Nope. You buy their stuff, they have your money and that's that.

Point is while you have an excellent plan laid out and well thought out....they will just look at you and laugh until they die.

Sorry but those are the cold hard facts.

Wrong on many points, number 1 the PS3 is clearly more powerful then the Xbox 360 just look at the spec lists the PS3 is almost 2 times more powerful if not more then the xbox 360.

Number 2, Asian companies only care about money? completely true, but then you have to realise that western companies share the exact same values. Microsoft and such care as much/little as any Asian company and in fact my experience with Asian companies has been much more pleasurable to that of when I've had to deal with western ones.

Western or Asian, they both give have some companies who only cares more about money.

Skrapt:
number 1 the PS3 is clearly more powerful then the Xbox 360 just look at the spec lists the PS3 is almost 2 times more powerful if not more then the xbox 360.

You mind backing that up? From what I'm looking at (Wiki), both seem to have very similar outputs in both graphics and processor. Of course, you can notice differences in practice, like the PS3 having better lighting and the Xbox 360 having better textures, but it would be stupid to say that the PS3 is "almost 2 times more powerful if not more".

While I think that's a quite good market strategy, I don't think Sony'll even bat an eye towards it. They seem quite stubborn when it comes to market strategy.

My take on this situation is that all this is a byproduct of needlessly introducing various tier models. (20G, 40G, 80G, 120G, 2USB, 4USB, with/without Wireless modem, $#@ nm chips, motherboards....wha ?)

If you think about it, they never had a 33Mhz PlayStation model and a souped up 54Mhz model. The only case a new model variation was introduced was when the existing console was reaching the mid-point of its lifespan...or the competition became fierce (think NDS, PS One, SG-1000, etc.). Furthermore, the consumers didn't need to worry about this stuff. This was good.

So naturally back then, SoNintendoSoft only had to communicate one price point for their products...keeping everything simple. They didn't need to remove any options to come up with a "cheaper model" because there was only one model!

But thanks to MS and Sony, we now have multi-tiered console choices...much like configuring a PC (or a car) and deciding which options work for me. To me, this doesn't sound like a console gaming platform..but rather a dell computer. Pre-configured choices based on your needs (with different performance!).

--

BTW, the introduction of "limited/special edition" models were mostly a marketing effort as well as an effort to cater to the niche that may exist and is usually only a repackage or color variation not a spec change (so it doesn't count) :-)

"Case in point, the Wii is $249, but once you buy all the "necessary" peripherals, you're looking at a $400 investment before you can enjoy your Wii."

Eh? Since when?

The PS3 is meh, it's a powerful piece of kit, but who cares? Developers see potential, but then see poor sales for the games due to most of them being ports, and a lot of the exclusives are poorly done (due to their developers not wanting to put the time in in most cases). Due to this, the new developers either don't spend the time they should on the game, or simply avoid the console altogether.

Yes, the PS3 needs to be lowered in price for it to even have a chance against the current market, but it's not the pricetag that kills the console, it's the sheer lack of enthralling exclusives.

Oh, and to those who are attempting to justify it's price due to having a blu-ray player-we're buying a console here, not a home cinema. Blu-ray or not (not that it makes any difference until films get bigger, longer and have higher resolutions), the price is extortionate for it.

Don't believe me? Lookup the price for a blu-ray drive for a PC. Any film addict who wants blu-ray would more likely spend $200 less on an upgrade for their PC than for a (sub-par) console.

Lastly, to anyone who instantly comes up with the bulletproof "you've never played/owned a PS3", unfortunately you're going to have to do better. ;) I have a PS3 and a 360 (and previously a Wii, which I sold in July).

Well what you can do is jam in hard-drive with any size you want so for less than the 80 you can buy a 20gig and slam in a 320... or more if you are using the PS3 as a media centre.

Solution!!!

Digikid:

Sorry but those are the cold hard facts.

I'm not sure that means what you think it means. Because it seems you think "cold, hard facts" means "half-assed, uneducated conjecture". Which it doesn't. But that's what your post mostly consisted of. So I'm confused...

Joshimodo:
Don't believe me? Lookup the price for a blu-ray drive for a PC. Any film addict who wants blu-ray would more likely spend $200 less on an upgrade for their PC than for a (sub-par) console.

This is a drastic oversimplification of what it takes to get from "PC" to "Blu-ray playing home theater PC". And what is this silliness where you seem to imply that HD films are not of a high-enough resolution to justify Blu-ray's storage demands? Or am I just completely misinterpreting you?

P.S. I'm all for the author's point. Greater market penetration now, even at a greater loss, is going to benefit Sony hugely in capitalizing on what's left of the physical disc market in the near-term, while providing the developers the install base that motivates them to make the PS3 the long-legged console that the PS2 is.

The thing is, for me, I have a Wii, and I have a 360. And I really want a PS3. If I had no consoles at all, and they wanted $400 for the PS3, I would do it. As it stands, the incremental benefit I gain from obtaining a PS3 (access to LBP, a BD player, KH3, whatever Team Ico drops in a few years) does not add up to $400. I don't think I'm alone in this situation. I ended up waiting a really long time to get a PS2 in the last cycle, because I was in a similar position, and have really enjoyed it. But here I am again, waiting until the total purchase price of the PS3 sinks to my own value judgment. $299 sounds awfully good to me. (My one disagreement with the article: inclusion of the DualShock is like the addition of HDMI to the 360. It should've been there from the start, and selling versions lacking it once you've corrected the problem would be sacrilege.)

Been trying to bring this point accross for a while. The PS3 is an excellent value, only problem is that people don't look at that, they look at the sticker. If the sticker has a small number, they buy it. Hence the success of the 360 and the Wii, and the minority of the PC crowd.

I guess I can see this as being an issue for a lot of people, though I have to say that price usually has nothing to do with my gaming purchases. If I want a system badly enough, I'll save up for it. Sad to say, the PS3's biggest problem for me is the game library of the system. Even with it's upcoming releases, to me the PS3 is turning into what the XBox was last generation: an FPS machine with an occasional release outside the genre. Don't get me wrong, I realize the 360 isn't much better with the FPS onslaught, but every JRPG in the past year and coming year are coming out/have come out on the 360, or both the 360 and PS3. Hence, I'll stick with the 360 for now.

EDIT: Though I have to admit, I'll miss my Ratchet & Clank...

Skrapt:

Wrong on many points, number 1 the PS3 is clearly more powerful then the Xbox 360 just look at the spec lists the PS3 is almost 2 times more powerful if not more then the xbox 360.

I don't know whether this should make me laugh or cry, but its something a LOT of people seem to beleive.
Im going to lay it out, the processor in a ps3 is unquestioniably more powerful than that of an xbox 360...1 component does not make the entire console more powerful, I would advise you do some researd onto the actual graphics cards used in both consoles, I tend to beleive the psuedo 2900XT is more powerful than a modified 7800GS. In fact, I've not once heard of sony claiming ps3 to be the most powerful console since long before its release.
If you like your ps3 thats fine, but if you're going to try and correct peoples facts about performance or value for money at least try and have a concept of the different hardware used, as they share very little in common in how they are built or even the games they are designed to play (different games are heavy on different resources).
/rant
The point I was going to make is that, having had my xbox 360's DVD drive kill itself, prehaps the unnecissarily high storage offered by the blu-ray isn' that major selling point, has anyone ever heard of a blue ray player killing itself?
I haven't and would have no idea if it was common or not, but there must be a huge market that rate the sustainability of a console, I still play my nintendo 64 and its like 10 years old, I somehow can't imagine my xbox 360 being alive in 10 years.

I agree with the main point, but I also think Sony would be well served going in the other direction as well...

by offering a PS3+PSP bundle at $500, and adjusting the install/setup instructions to specifically address connection between the two platforms, and the media capabilities.

Maybe include the Outrun game, that lets you use your gamesaves in both platforms, or include beats for the PSP, to play up the media centeredness of the platform.

Dys:

I don't know whether this should make me laugh or cry, but its something a LOT of people seem to beleive.
Im going to lay it out, the processor in a ps3 is unquestioniably more powerful than that of an xbox 360...1 component does not make the entire console more powerful, I would advise you do some researd onto the actual graphics cards used in both consoles, I tend to beleive the psuedo 2900XT is more powerful than a modified 7800GS. In fact, I've not once heard of sony claiming ps3 to be the most powerful console since long before its release.
If you like your ps3 thats fine, but if you're going to try and correct peoples facts about performance or value for money at least try and have a concept of the different hardware used, as they share very little in common in how they are built or even the games they are designed to play (different games are heavy on different resources).
/rant

Graphics processor wise the xbox 360 and PS3 are very similar, but very few people seem to understand just how powerful a cell processor can be. BTW I don't own a PS3, I'm basing this off the spec lists and what I know of computer hardware. Not only is it the processor that puts the PS3 above the xbox 360 but the RAM too, both have similar sized RAM but in the PS3 some of this is clocked stupidly high (around 3GHZ) which makes it leaps and bounds above what the Xbox 360 has. The bottom line is, the PS3 has the more powerful hardware, and potentially could easily overtake the Xbox 360 in terms of graphics, however at the moment the coding system is holding many developers back as with the PS3 it is much more console orientated, whereas the Xbox 360 is much more similar to that of a PC.

Even noow news stories have popped up about the Xbox 360 hitting it's graphical limit, however you find no similar news for the PS3.

Bulletinmybrain:

Take this note. IT COMES WITH A BLU-RAY DVD PLAYER.

Anyone that cannot recognize that blu-ray>HD DVD/Whatever the hell should be taken out back and shot.

Well, here's the reason I ending up buying a 360. BECAUSE THE PS3 WAS / IS TOO EXPENSIVE. I didn't care if it had a blu - ray player or not, I cared about the games, and online play. Yet sony insisted on putting something thats barely recognisably better (there is no that much difference)and slapping a huge price tag.

ZOMG A BLU-RAY PLAY0R!?

Oh yes, wait a minute, I don't have a squillion inch HD TV so I can't tell the difference, oh and the games aren't in full HD anyway you say? And I have to pay some sort of massive premium for this questionable benefit? And the exclusive games are pants?

How's about no...

(note: if a FF7 remake is made and exclusive to PS3, disregard all previous comments)

On the other hand, I would like my 360 better if it hadn't red-ringed on my three times.

QmunkE:
ZOMG A BLU-RAY PLAY0R!?

(note: if a FF7 remake is made and exclusive to PS3, disregard all previous comments)

On the other hand, I would like my 360 better if it hadn't red-ringed on my three times.

A men Brother!

You can give Sony all the "advice" you want. You still have to convince their stockholders it's a good idea to do this with their money, or Sony will get fucked no matter what they do. Please stop acting like they aren't beholden to anyone and can make snap decisions without considering their investors. Or would you actually like to see Sony slapped with a stockholder lawsuit?

The PS3 is actually trying to reach two very different markets. First, people without a current console, for these people the low price, stripped down option might work. Second is the "and" group. People that have a 360 or Wii or both already. I am part of the "and" group and I am simply waiting for a game or combination of games to make it worth my while. I would already have one if the backward compatibility were better. When my PS2 broke I wanted a replacement, I would have bought a PS3 if the backward compatibility of my games weren't questionable. As reviews for Lair, Heavenly Sword, and Uncharted came out I didn't see any of them as worth the price of the console. The Metal Gear series sort of lost me after 2, (I hate long cut scenes). So I wait for God of War III, Little Big Planet, etc. If anything looks great, not good but great I may take the plunge. Until something great is released exclusively for the PS3, most of the "and" group will probably wait as well.

P.S. The PS2 proved to be a very poor DVD player in it's early releases so I am not really interested in the Blu Ray player part of the machine. I do have a nice HD TV and a few forms of HD input so I don't consider this a strong selling point.

Holy shit a blue-ray player... who cares?

Platinum117:
Holy shit a blue-ray player... who cares?

people who like innovative technology?

As far as I could see, it could have been half the price without the Blu Ray tho, I do think it was rather foolhardy to bundle it with the PS3 and hang your next 5 years or so's gaming profits on what could have ended up the next Betamax or Atari Jaguar.

I still think if they dropped the price by $200 and made the blu ray optional, they'd have cleared more, but I guess blu ray was their baby, and I know they can't do that now.

However I still feel that the whole current generation came a little too early, when you look at what God of War 2 looks like on PS2, and when you consider the sales of the machine still, because its under $100 and and there's so much for non gamers.

Anyone think PS3 would have been far out in front by now at half the price and no blu ray?
Also, doing a one minute search brings up blu ray drives at 50, so I'm sure a price cut wouldn't kill em too much, considering how much they were at launch.

I oughta admit, I still dont own a DVD player in my house, except for my ps2 and PC, I really dont feel the need for it, and my speaker setup is 2.1 on TV and PC, also.

I think Sony 'did a crysis' in aiming for the rich, when they coulda lost a bit more on each console by losing the drive and not adding blu ray. I still don't believe that a sizable majority are complaining on a regular basis that DVD is far too fuzzy and the sound is bad.

Robyrt:
You don't have to be patronizing to appreciate the value to the consumer of breaking up a big purchase into several smaller ones. Say I have $249 a month to spend - I can have a Wii or Xbox right now, then purchase the upgrades next month if I like it, or I can look wistfully at the PS3 in the window for another month.

Plus, for those of us who don't need more than 20 gigs of hard disk space or a second DS3 controller, a stripped-down version is actually the exact same value for less money.

If you don't need a second controller, why are you a console gamer?

And once again, 500 GB for less than $80(Au) is the best price I've gotten for an SATA hard disc drive. Granted, the store thats offering this is a front for the local Triad.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here