| (Pages: 1, 2) | |
Wow, I'm really unsure of whether Sony will cut the price of the PS3 or won't. On the one hand, they certainly have the motivation and now the ability to, on the other, they've fought against people imploring, begging, and threatening them to change it for so long, maybe they'll hold out just for spite. | |
hm- I'm sadly to lazy to look this up, but I thought that the ceo comment was that if they cut the sale price they'd be loosing money. Did I just read that wrong? | |
It's probably mostly just the dispersion of the cost of the original factories used to make the chips. They had a huge initial investment, but now that they've made a few years worth of chips, the effective cost-per-chip has gone down. | |
Maybe it's connected to all the feature chopping the PS3's been subjected to. The cost of those usb ports, last gen chipsets and card readers must amount to quite a lot in manufacturing. I don't know, it seems like Sony are out to torpedo their own ship, they constantly state they are not going to cut the PS3's price and that it represents excellent value and so on, then they announce things like this. It erodes their own arguments. Still, it could be worse, they could have cut PS2 backwards compatability as well, you'd have to be a complete and total bloody moron to do that... | |
Ha, they are losing their own war to fight and keep the console at the prices it is despite the fact it isn't selling as well as others and that companies are slamming it. They would make more money with a lower retail on the system. Every system they sell, that's a pretty much infinite amount of money for them to spend on PSN and retail games published by Sony, not to mention the outrageously overpriced accessories. Accessories are overpriced on any console though. | |
Or even worse, they could randomly remove it from some models and some countries... Yeah, that would suck. | |
Good, now cut the price by 70% too :P | |
I don't think they will. If the next console wars are scheduled for 2012, they will probably be focusing all their efforts on not screwing up there.. Besides, any price drop for the ps3 will be countered by Microsoft/Nintendo.
I thought they did cut backwards compatibility for some models... and those that do have backwards compatibility, there are a lot of complaints that Sony doesn't filter/resize the graphics properly on ps2 games that need it, or release patches to fix graphics issues... The 40gb PS3's are NOT backward compatible. The 80gb's that were first released, up to and including the Metal Gear Solid 80gb Bundle ARE backward compatible with PS2 games thru software emulation. The 80gb and 160gb that are currently for sale are NOT backward compatible with PS2 games. All PS3's play PS1 games. | |
I can sense 360 fanboy hostility approaching this thread. Uh oh. They're mad. Everyone get your flame shields! Edit:
Crap. I'm too late. | |
Does this mean Sony finally is going to stop being an ass? Well, on the path. They should also get rid of having them being complicated for complication's sake. Doubt they will make me a fan, but if they let go of stubbornness, I won't be harsh on them anymore. (They could just keep being asses though and keep earning my hate, but Im gonna be optimistic) | |
You'll find I'm just as complimentary of the Microsoft system, now stop stirring. | |
That was kind of my point, Sony have been cutting out their selling points in an effort to lower the system's costs. It's almost like they actively try to make the PS3 a less attractive proposition as well. I find it bizarre, I'd love to spend a day with Playstation division's head honchos, just to see what's going through their mind. | |
I was under the impression they did that so people would still buy PS2's...would make sense since a fan crazy enough to buy the 160 gb version would probably have enough cash to just buy the ps2... (and by crazy, I mean I cannot comprehend how one can fill up a 160 gb hard drive...) | |
I get nervous whenever I read news like this. Reducing production costs that dramatically is usually a sign that it's being made more cheaply (read: lower quality/safety). I half expect this to be followed in a few months with stories like: | |
Perhaps, but it doesn't really make business sense when second hand PS2's are so easy to find and cheap. | |
I just honestly felt that it didn't really warrant a complaint. People don't want to buy the PS3, but they want the PS2. So they keep selling Ps2s. It sounds good to me. Though I shudder to wonder what will happen if they reintroduce PS2 compat back into the PS3's. I have a feeling people will complain if they do this, then stop selling the Ps2's. So if I was Sony, I'd have a hard time finding some way to compromise with no way to please the fans. | |
But you've also got Latin America to think of, from what I remember they've just recently started selling PS2s there about a year ago I think. PS2s still profit for them, and regardless if the PS3 making a profit now, they still have to make a bigger one out of all the loses they've already made. OT: Cheaper manufacturing costs =/= cheaper console, but I wouldn't be surprised if that happened. Sony's stuck between a rock and a hard place, they need to drop the price of the PS3 to properly compete with the others but they still need to make a profit off of them so they can safely drop the overall price. Damned if they do and damned if they don't, but Fat Princess keeps me filled... | |
Yeah, not to mention they'd need to make up for the losses over the past years. Let's hope they get a bunch of new IPS to their list to attract sales.
*laughs* I see what you did there. | |
I got an 80 gig version, not backward compatible. I am glad that they have found ways to cut the costs of production, as I love Sony, and would hate to never see the Playstation 4. I'm sooo looking forward to the PS3 Slim. | |
Oh no! Not your hate, everything but that! Everyone hide!
They didn't announce this if I recall correctly. It was an investor meeting, the only reason people picked up on it is because they like to complain. It is hardly shooting themselves in the foot to 'announce' cheaper production costs. The whole 'increased value' bit is more of a company motto, they'd still say it if the PS3 was 199$ or whatever.
Nice one. | |
The question then is how much does backwards computability cost? More than $50?
Hahahaha...I doubt they will be dangerous...probably just break more easily... Which is bad since I don't have a high opinion of the parts they used for the ps2. I bought one for my sister, only had a total of 3 games for it...didn't play that much but it still broke... Sony says repairs will cost about same price as buying a new one. Hahaha...no thank you...
That would never happen...the way the economy works is that if Sony was truly in trouble, another company would just give them money so the playstation would become a "joint-venture"... McDonalds/Playstation anyone? | |
More like Apple/Sony. That'd be funny, just imagine all the 'I'm a PS4' commercials. | |
McDonalds...my life would end. I would rather have Sony combine assets with game designer studios. | |
70%? What did they do? Start making the consoles hallow or paper? | |
While fanboys usually cause quite a ruckus for no reason, I think in this instance, they have a right to complain. Especially on something like "backwards compatibility" as that is something consumers thought was going to be a safe assumption... Besides,when questioned they said... Sony: When we removed backwards compatibility from PS3, we said that it would not be coming back as our priority was to make great next generation games. I am not sure where you are getting your information from, but at no point did we say that there would be some sort of emulation being brought to PS3. So I guess there was an announcement...at least thats what Sony claims...
Hahaha... | |
If Sony can do this and return Backwards Compat, the PS3 will proceed to rape 360 and kick the Wii in the chest. I'm interested to see what happens. PS: I'm a 360 owner, so no fanboy whining at me. | |
I would welcome a price drop. You know $99 a unit. Cheaper then a blu-ray drive for my HTPC?
That wasn't a reduction all at once. That was a reduction over the years they have been making the systems. | |
Hasn't Sony continuously stated that the lifespan of the PS3 would be over 10 years? Considering that the PS2 is still alive and kicking, it doesn't look to me that Sony will be releasing a new console anytime soon. I think the PS3 could continue through the current console war, and the entirety of the next before they need to release another console. | |
kinda, they are already not turning a profit on the system because not many people are buying it, now they are trying to cut their losses by at least getting rid of the units. They have to move metal or else they lose more money. Instead of (this is an example) losing $250, they only lose $150. Hypothetical prices but they were good numbers. For a future strategy they should stop bullshitting the consumer and make a cheaper system with a solid title base. As a matter of fact that's the only way to REALLY sell a council. You can sell units on a name alone but after a year people stop buying it. FOR THE RECORD: | |
Yea, the issue at had is first they need to turn a profit. If you cant make money why even continue on? I mean, business 101 says that if your company is losing money faster than its earning it you need to shut the business down before you end up in a soup kitchen. Basically the PS3 launched Blu-ray players so they could fight and win the HD v.s Blu-ray tech. Blu ray is winning but the PS3 was a distraction for a broader market grab. | |
Good for them. Hopefully they'll bounce back sometime soon. We'll probably have to wait awhile before there's any chance they'll lower the price for a PS3, though. They must first recover their losses, so it'll be awhile before we can expect a price drop. | |
Well, if the cost of production for PS3's is now less than the retail price, they will start turning a profit. They may have taken longer to get to that point than Microsoft or the Big N, but Sony's system will be around for longer than the 360 or Wii. (According to Sony, at least.) It seems like Sony is confident in their strategy. | |
They did a similar thing with the PS2 and it took them about 5 years to start turning a profit. I mean, its up to them to make another system and if they say they wont build another one for 10 years just to say they made some money then Ill trust them. But I firmley believe they released the PS3 just for the blu-ray | |
The level of trust you guys give is astonishing. Its already been stated that there will be a Wii2. And the Xbox3 is in development phase... As for the next Sony console...the PS4? There is no confirmation that they have a release date set for it or that they are in development... If they already have their next graphics supplier slated, doesn't that mean they are already making preparations? Intel will need some time to get a graphics card ready sure....but the company is HUGE compared to Nvidia... | |
| (Pages: 1, 2) | |
Extra Punctuation
MovieBob: Intermission
Experienced Points
First Person
Exploding Barrels
Miracle of Sound: Encore
Loading Time
Special Attack
Backchat
Drinking Games
Escape to the Movies
Escapecraft
Escapist News Wrap - Premium
Escapist Podcast
Feed Dump
GinxTV
Jimquisition
LoadingReadyRun
Mahalo
Meatbag and Co
Media Sandwich
Miracle of Sound
No Right Answer
Pro-Gamer Gauntlet
Reviews
Space Janitors
Tales from the Table
The Big Picture
The Escapist Presents
The Retro Show
Trailers
Unskippable
Zero Punctuation
Max Payne 3 Review
Company of Heroes 2
XCOM Enemy Unknown
Black Ops 2
Diablo 3 Review
TERA Review
Firefall Beta Preview
Starhawk Review
Critical Miss
Name Game
Sony Has Cut PS3 Production Costs By 70 Percent
Sony has made huge strides in cutting down on the manufacturing costs for the PlayStation 3, CFO Nobuyuki Oneda revealed during an earnings call yesterday.
Common wisdom has it that the components to manufacture the PS3 are so expensive that Sony has literally been losing money on every console sold. That's not just hearsay or conjecture - Sony CEO Howard Stringer has joked himself that he "loses money on every PlayStation I make - how's that for logic?"
Stringer's finances might be getting a tad more logical if recent remarks from Sony CFO Noboyuki Oneda are to be believed. "The cost reductions since we introduced the PS3 are very substantial and on schedule," Oneda said during an earnings call yesterday. "We don't disclose how much of the PS3 cost reduction was specifically achieved during the past two years. But that is on schedule."
What exactly does that mean? Oneda says that they've cut manufacturing costs by "about 70 percent, roughly speaking."
So does that mean that Sony isn't losing dough every time they pump out a PS3? Oneda doesn't give any exact numbers, but as GameSpot theorizes, if iSuppli's numbers are to be believed, and in 2006 it cost $840.35 to produce a unit, then it costs around $242.10 to produce a PS3 presently. The PS3 base model costs $399 nowadays, which would figure a $146.90 profit per system sold, without factoring other costs (which could very well take a hefty chunk of that).
In any case, if Oneda isn't fibbing, it's good news for Sony's investors and supporters - a 2/3 drop in production cost is a good thing. But what's brought about such a dramatic decrease? Is it just Sony's brilliance when it comes to streamlining hardware production, or could Oneda's words reflect the existence of a PS3 that's much cheaper to make? One that's smaller and thus cheaper? One that's, I don't know, Slim?
Permalink