PS2 price cut fails to impress [Update 2]
by Conrad Quilty-Harper 
{ Apr 21st 2006 at 6:30AM }
1) Sony could or should have brought the price down to $99.
This comment from Resident Gamer is a typical example of this opinion: "So why is Sony being so picky about moving it to the $99 mark? Not like everyone doesn't have a PS2 already (he's got a point, Sony's sold over 100 million of 'em). But they need to make it so that anyone else who might be a new gamer can easily get into playing at a low cost and enjoy the large body of games PS2 has." Like we mentioned in our earlier post, the reason Sony didn't go for the symbolic "under $100" price point is most likely because of the PS3. With E3 just around the corner Sony will want all the attention to be on their next-gen effort, rather than on their console that was six years old last month (the PS2 was released in March, 2000 in Japan).
2) Sony's price cut excludes Europe, Asia (but not the Middle East, Hong-Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, Malysia and Thailand), Australia, South America and Africa.
Even though the cut is only a modest $20, Sony has told the BBC it isn't planning on reducing the UK price (although certain areas in Asia -- see above -- will be getting the cuts along with North America, the rest of the world won't). Considering the UK price is currently a very strange £104.99 (£5 less and Sony could use the "under £100" marketing line), Sony's decision not to cut the price in other areas around the world seems quite illogical. Also, by not matching the cut in Europe, Sony has made the price gap (see also: Xbox 360 Euro price gap, PS3 Euro price gap) between North American and European prices even more apparent.
Not everyone's unhappy about Sony's handling of the price reduction. After all, no-one's forcing Sony to reduce their prices. Kev50027 over at Engadget had this to say: "Even though I just got a slimline PS2 a few months ago, I'm glad the price was dropped, I know several people who still don't have one, and this might change their decision on whether to get one or not."
[Thanks, Po0py]
[Update: the PS2 was released in Japan in March 2000, not 1999 as previously stated. Thanks, mis]
[Update #2: According to Sony rep Kim Otzman, the Middle East, Hong-Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, Malysia and Thailand will also see North America's $20 cut.]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Don Jose @ Apr 21st 2006 7:06AM
Screwing
Over
Neighborhood
Youths
Seriously, between this and the PS3 likely to cost well over $400, is there any other logical explanation?
striderhayasa @ Apr 21st 2006 7:09AM
If this is the case then why have a price cut at all? Sony is really getting on my nerves. 100million plus sales and they're still worried about a $99 price cut stealing the PS3s thunder? Sounds to me like they don't want the average joe consumer to look at the high price of the PS3 and pass on it for a cheaper PS2. This is going to happen in some respects anyway even with a $129 price tag.
Dt7 @ Apr 21st 2006 7:12AM
I'd buy one if they dropped it to $99 and actually gave people in the UK the true price of £55 :)
mis @ Apr 21st 2006 7:17AM
Guys -
The PS2 made its world debut in Japan in March 2000 NOT 1999.
Alex @ Apr 21st 2006 7:20AM
Sony wants to fund some of the PS3 with profits from the PS2, maybe thats why they didnt lower it more.
Vince -UK @ Apr 21st 2006 7:22AM
Why not 89.99? or even 79.99?
I mean they've knocked the price down and people think they should knock another $30 off. Insane!
If you've got something people still want you're not going to completely slash your profits. It's easily worth $129 and the sales will show it.
spencer @ Apr 21st 2006 7:34AM
"If you've got something people still want you're not going to completely slash your profits. It's easily worth $129 and the sales will show it."
A $20 dollar droip that still leaves the price in triple digits isn't nearly as impressive as a $50 that takes you to doubles.
Great, they lowered the price. If they had lowered it to 99, I would have bought one. But at $129, they can keep their ancient six year old gaming machine.
new*allusion @ Apr 21st 2006 7:54AM
Stateside PS2 now £72.50
Same UK PS2 still £104.99
£30+ difference- some will be down to tax for certain, but where does the rest of it come from?
We have to pay almost the same price for the machine today as America was paying in 2002!
As the article points out, its not just Sony- giving us Europeans a raw deal... everyone's doing it!
A quick glance at Ghost Recon:AW on xbox 360 is RRP at $59.99 (£34) in the US.
In the UK its RRP is £44.99
US San Andreas PS2 $19.99 (£11)
UK San Andreas PS2 £19.99
WHY?!
I hope region free gaming on 360 and PS3 sort these kind of discrepencies out.
Also, anybody know how much it costs to manufacture a PS2 these days? Surely Sony are making profits now from the hardware and can afford to sell it cheaply.
DG @ Apr 21st 2006 7:57AM
This reminds me of missed opportunities to purchase a Jaguar and Virtual Boy at $29 apiece.
Oh wait...this is One HUNDRED and 29 dollars? Give me a break...
duscrom @ Apr 21st 2006 8:11AM
2 Possible reasons for this
1) Like the PSOne before it, the final price-drop to below $100 wasn't made till after the PS2 was released. And hell considering the origonal Price difference, if any company is still selling the origonal PS2, it'd be pretty low priced.
2) PS2 is still selling and Sony want's to milk as much out of it as possible. And heck, they still have new games, new BIG name games comming out for it. Games can still sell the console, not a price drop.
embassy @ Apr 21st 2006 8:12AM
i swear sony will milk ths ps2 for as long as humanly possible..i dont see this price droping again till well after the launch of the ps3...if it EVER does drop again...
Back_Lit @ Apr 21st 2006 8:21AM
Correction, SONY has SHIPPED 100 million PS2's, not sold 100 million.
Regula Oblique @ Apr 21st 2006 8:26AM
1) 1st I think people need to stop complaining, 2nd $20 off is good enough to sell more consoles. This is a classic case of given someone a little bit and them wanting the whole pie, come on at least its a little cheaper than what it was a week ago and chances are if your complaining [A] you still cant afford a 6 year old console or [B] your just cheap. Now dont go hating on me, but this is Sony they're not going to under sale themselves.
2) I really dont think those other countries matter as much as America and Japan, yea to a degree they accumulate good sales, but the cream of the crop is the US and Japan, which by the end of the year I think everywhere else will have this same pricepoint, it has to start somewhere first though right?
Regula Rant
ReyBrujo @ Apr 21st 2006 8:48AM
Sony can't just sell PS2 at USD 99. First, because it is selling extremely well for a five years old console, and second, because PS3 is likely to give losses, and they need to cover themselves as much as possible with PS2 hardware and software sales before PS3 software is able to cancel the hardware loss.
me @ Apr 21st 2006 9:05AM
how could you screw up something so obvious as the shipped vs sold thing? looks like sony's jedi mind tricks worked over you as well as millions of others out there.
Alex @ Apr 21st 2006 9:10AM
Here in UK we get ripped off for all the time.
It is a ridiculous price we pay for games and consoles.
Princess Zelda @ Apr 21st 2006 9:15AM
If there's anyone in Canada looking to get a PS2 Best Buy in Canada has it on sale right now $129.99 with a free copy of Grand Turismo 4.
http://www.bestbuy.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?sku_id=0926INGFS10063566&logon=&langid=EN
Marino R. @ Apr 21st 2006 9:25AM
Whatever the justification for only slashing 20 dollars off the price a 6 YEAR OLD console, I find that sony is getting too big for their pants. Perhaps now the PS2 is selling well, but I know that there must be several people out there that (me included) that have been waiting to buy another PS2 (yes, bought before, returned twice, gave it away once) just to play some japanese RPGs I like, and maybe god of war, but find that 149 dollars for a 6 year old console, is simply too much. Sony makes most of the PS2 money out of game sales (licensing). If you think that them being so greedy is going to help the PS3 any, then I suggest you thank again. The PS3 is going to be the most expensive console ever sold (other, perhaps, than the 3DO, which tanked pretty bad). It's comming out with unproven media technology that is not being backed by most movie studios, and, in most cases, the games are going to come out on the XBOX 360 anyway. I think this is a very bad move by sony. They should have tried to flood the market even further with PS2s and then, with the promise of backwards compatibility, it would be much easier for people to swallow the 700 bucks their going to have to sink into a basic PS3 configuration. And shame on them for shafting the rest of the world. They have been making one bad move after the other. Look at the PSP. Studios are pulling out of the media left and right, and games are down to a trickle. And lets not even start with the 1080p debacle. Anyway, that's my 2 cents.
Saxon @ Apr 21st 2006 9:27AM
"This reminds me of missed opportunities to purchase a Jaguar and Virtual Boy at $29 apiece."
Hah! I bought a Virtual boy for $29. It was the best investment I ever made. You'd swear you were actually playing tennis with Mario between headaches!
Vince -UK @ Apr 21st 2006 9:34AM
"how could you screw up something so obvious as the shipped vs sold thing? looks like sony's jedi mind tricks worked over you as well as millions of others out there."
Why do fanboys resort to this sort of stuff?
Do you think people give a flying fig about sales/shipping figures when they buy a console? No, it's just the fanny boys looking for ammo - for and against - that dwell on such details.
spike @ Apr 21st 2006 10:23AM
Anyone remember Sony saying that they were gonna use the PS2 to compete with the Revolution? Maybe they're waiting untill Nintendo's launch and bundle the PS2 with some duelshock/eyetoy frankenstein controller. It'll RUIN Nintendo, I tell ya!
me @ Apr 21st 2006 10:26AM
vince, well its not like people do directly care about these numbers, but in the end, when publishers decide on which system to put their game, these figures are looked at. saying you shipped 100 mil and xbox and gc sold 30 or 40 mil, well, theres a disparity there. actually i think people do see the results of 100 vs 30 mil in the way of the number of games on the shelves. increase the number of games available, that should increase user base, and on and on.
Marc @ Apr 21st 2006 10:27AM
I don't own a PS2 (or any Sony console) and I never will. Why? Because their consoles break, often. "He's got a point, Sony's sold over 100 million of 'em". They sold that many because their systems kept breaking. And now they're too cheap to lower it to $100 so that even if it breaks it won't hurt my wallet so much.
Marc @ Apr 21st 2006 10:43AM
"the reason Sony didn't go for the symbolic "under $100" price point is most likely because of the PS3". That's NOT true! Nintendo's had the Gamecube for $99 since 2002! That's not gonna effect the Revolution's sales. I know the gamecube wasn't so hot, but they kept it at a reasonable price.
Now Sony doesn't feel like dropping $30 bucks?!?! Like you guys said, they sold 100 mil. already (first paragraph) And Microsoft isn't innocent either. They still sell it for $150 bucks where I live.
Now with the war, gas prices, and inflation in America, People just want a cheap console. If you want cheap, affordable, and reasonable, go buy a gamecube, and if you want next-gen, wait for the revolution.
Jacob @ Apr 21st 2006 10:43AM
Sony's not reducing the PS2 to the price point YOU want? Suck it up. The PS2's still selling well, and there's plenty of good games for it coming out, so why would they want to give it "EOL" pricing?
It's still a great value at $129. I remember paying a bit MORE than that for my NES back in '89. (Add-on inflation, and see what it comes to.)
Why don't you get on Microsoft's case for keeping the Xbox's price at $139? It costs more the the PS2, it's nearly as old, AND its successor is already on the market.
(Oh, wait, this is SONY, so the bashing has to be layed on hard and thick...)
Marc @ Apr 21st 2006 10:56AM
^Jacob, I started bashing Microsoft in my second post.
striderhayasa @ Apr 21st 2006 10:58AM
Look, this is nonsense. Sony is going to make their money this year on the PS2. If Sony wanted to show that they are not the retarded company that they are, then they would show some appreciation by selling the PS2 slim for $99. A press release saying that would help too since the FANS deserve it. Anyone that thinks that Sony isn't going to take big losses on each PS3 sold is delusional. Microsoft blew 11 billion dollars over four years with the original xbox. They're losing over 100 bucks per console sold with the 360. Sony has to sell the PS3 at a high price to try to control loses. Trying to milk the PS3 even further is not going to help that scenario that much.
As far as the PS2 competing with the Revolution...forget it. If the Revolution didn't have that funky controller or the virtual console, then I would say yeah, Sony would have Nintendo by the balls. But Revolution offers too much that the PS2 can't match. Even the huge PS2 library with PS1 backwards compatibilty doesn't help. Sure it has Sony's best games to offer from two generations but Nintendo is coming in with a Virtual Console that spans 3 generations/20 years worth of software and backwards compatibility. PS2 vs Rev....Nintendo wins with an Imperialist headshot.
striderhayasa @ Apr 21st 2006 11:02AM
opps, I meant "milk the PS2..." Sorry for the typo and for the record, Microsoft can kiss a fat one for selling the Xbox for 149 (?). But the reason why Sony gets bashed is because they are in a dominant position to show some class and give back to the fans that put them there. They want to rape us instead with more corporate bullshit. You suck that up Jacob.
Freakhead @ Apr 21st 2006 11:06AM
Hey if anyone is buying a PS2 and feels bad it's $20 cheaper please email me and I'll gladly help you out by taking that $20 off your hands.
The PS2 is outselling the 360 here in the US so it's not like they have to drop the price or anything.
malberto @ Apr 21st 2006 11:23AM
Hasn't Sony already been "giving back to the fans" by releasing content for the PS2 that they - WHO ALREADY OWN THE CONSOLE - want to play? That being the case, why would those "fans" care how much a new one costs now?
If you are a "new fan" and don't own a PS2, you will appreciate the price drop. I bought the Xbox for $299 and did not complain when it dropped in price - because I was already (and still am) a "fan".
Some of you people sound very self-centered.
Jeremy P @ Apr 21st 2006 11:36AM
I've never been a gamer, but over the last few months my interest has greatly increased. I was thinking about getting a PS2, and as soon as I had heard about the potential price drop, I decided I would wait until it happened. So I'm happy that I'm finally getting a PS2, and at a lower price!
Jacob @ Apr 21st 2006 11:42AM
28: "They want to rape us instead with more corporate bullshit. You suck that up Jacob."
So, you define lowering the price by 15% as "raping" and "more corporate bullshit"?
Clever.
Bet you're also pissed-off that you can't afford an iPod on your allowance either.
Marc @ Apr 21st 2006 12:47PM
Hey Jacob, let's not resort to people's financial status or whether or not they can afford an ipod. Some people in this world don't have a lot of money if you didn't notice.
Kim Otzman @ Apr 21st 2006 1:23PM
Just to clarify, the price will also be reduced in the US dollar trading companies (i.e. Middle East) and in South East Asian countries such as Hong-Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, Malysia and Thailand.
MetaHuman @ Apr 21st 2006 1:31PM
@ 20
I dunno, Sony's becoming notorious for their misleading statements. A comparison of shipped vs. sold could be interpreted like how many polygons PS2 can render WITH all available effects vs. how many polygons PS2 can render WITHOUT effects. The latter number was the one they used when touting its power back in 2000. As the Next Gen rolls around all people can talk about is power, so that example with polycount wasn't just minute details. They were in focus as they are now among fanboys and 'normal gamers' alike.
Cynicism against Sony aside, I can try to explain why sales vs. shipped is important. Sony can make all the features they want for it and for them, the amount shipped is great, but where 3rd-Parties are concerned (especially since PSP is PS2 kin, after all) all they want to know is how many people actually OWN it (therefore sold rather than shipped) and how well their games in general can do amongst each other.
Jacob @ Apr 21st 2006 1:52PM
33: Well, this whole "I want it at MY ideal price!!!" thing is starting to bug me.
I want a Vespa, but I can't possibly afford one right now with my job. But I don't go screaming at Piaggio "You've been making these things for 60 YEARS! Why don't you sell me one cheap, you greedy corporate assholes!"
Hardware is hardware. It has to be built.
A PS2's parts (tangible items) have to be purchased, then they have to pay for a complex assembly line and crew to build it, then they have to pay for more elaborate packaging, and shipping (PS2s may be smaller now, but they're still relatively heavy. Shipping costs a bunch.) Then they also have to worry about the overstock factor: making too many, and not selling them all.
It may be much cheaper to make than it used to be, but it still (undeniably) costs money.
Shipping costs have also gone up, due to the soaring price of oil. This effects the cost of EVERYTHING. (Event the price of parts goes up.)
Software's a different beast. Once they've recouped their development costs on initial sales, they can just stamp more discs for pennies each, shove them in cases, and ship them to where they're needed. (Discs are light and compact: cheap to ship.) Few overstock worries there, since the disc and package itself is only worth maybe a buck, and they can be made almost on demand.
The reason Nintendo dropped the price on the Gamecube so low is because they're far behind in third place. The super-low price point is an incentive, hoping to boost sales. (It worked: I bought one for my girlfriend.) Sony doesn't need that incentive, since the PS2 is still selling big-time.
malberto @ Apr 21st 2006 1:56PM
Does "sales verses shipped" really matter when we are talking about 100 million consoles? I mean, for Sony to get to the point of SHIPPING 100 million, they had to have SOLD a frigging lot of PS2's. So maybe they "only" sold 80-85 million - or even something less than that.
Does is matter? That's still a lot of sales.
MetaHuman @ Apr 21st 2006 2:54PM
@ 37
True. PS2 is a massive exception. It would be more important when systems are competing closer to one another, so it doesn't apply to PS2.
Justin Day @ Apr 21st 2006 5:52PM
$ONY PAY-$tation
LIVE IN YOUR WORLD,
PAY IN OUR$.
ResidentGamer.com @ Apr 21st 2006 7:20PM
LOL thanks for the LOVe Joystiq! CAn a bruh get a gold star? Anyway $99 is a magical number. It can sell almost anything. Sony is crazy for not doing a Nintendo move. Esp. with the PS3 being about $399 they would want to still keep their core market happy. Cause dudes
beyond 92st are not going to be rushing to GameStop to pick up that $399 toasteroven/grill/DVR/slice and dice box anytime soon.
Fusion @ Apr 21st 2006 7:35PM
Sales mean nothing if there are no profits dude!
Nintendo made the most money last generation,not sony
and definally not the 4 billion dollars losing microsoft.LOL Wow
Justin Day @ Apr 22nd 2006 1:02AM
Nintendo is going to be back on top, so it doesn't matter how much Sony charges for their systems. People are tired of Sony and their Smoke and Mirror show.
me kizza @ Apr 22nd 2006 4:13AM
Your naughty sony, you lowered your price.... Wheras my beloved MS, after shunning the xflop1 have actually raised the price of this discontinued piece of excrement form out of that gay american bill gay-tes arse crack.
Wake up retards.
me kizza @ Apr 22nd 2006 4:29AM
"As far as the PS2 competing with the Revolution...forget it. If the Revolution didn't have that funky controller or the virtual console, then I would say yeah, Sony would have Nintendo by the balls. But Revolution offers too much that the PS2 can't match. Even the huge PS2 library with PS1 backwards compatibilty doesn't help. Sure it has Sony's best games to offer from two generations but Nintendo is coming in with a Virtual Console that spans 3 generations/20 years worth of software and backwards compatibility. PS2 vs Rev....Nintendo wins with an Imperialist headshot."
And in your mind, you figure most mainstream gamers are going to be impressed by nintendo's (no so) next gen console because they can play 20yr old mario with a powerglove 2. Are you on crack?.... If not, maybe you should seriously consider getting on some to enhance your mental state..... That is just retarded. 90% of next gen buyers will invest in the console to play next gen games & possibly some of their old games that tey still have the hardcopy of. Nintendo's nostalgia collection is going to be charged AGAIN.... And you are the same morons sayings sony is ripping people off for flogging a dead horse..... Simple fact people, PS2 is still strong, alive & kicking & is still getting some of the most cutting edge games available to any console, whereas 20yr old games are practically dead & deserve to be remembered the way they were 20yrs ago.
I can speak from extensive experience as I still have a megadrive/genesis, nes, vectrex & recenlty sold a snes with a mass of games. Fact is 99.9% of these games put on today, are quickly turned off & I think "shit, I don't remember it being or looking that bad". These games are a waste & unless free of charge nintendo is the biggest scammer in the industry for trying to sell this 8& 16bit crud again.
I'm buying my PS3 for PS3 games...... I will more than like load up a PS1 or 2 game at some stage just for curiosities sake, then I'll think, holy crap, this looks cruddy, turn it off & continue playing resistance, unreal 2007 & motorstorm, amongst others.
Gnac @ Apr 22nd 2006 10:03AM
Kizza, you would dump an old game just because the graphics aren't as good as what we get these days? If that is the case, then you're welcome to your PS3.
Also, you appear to have no interest in purchasing these old games again, so why complain about it? The sales of Famicom Mini games for the GBA prove that some people do enjoy them. To say that this is 'retarded' tells us more about you than them.
Marc @ Apr 22nd 2006 1:49PM
Kizza, read your old statement.
"Simple fact people, PS2 is still strong, alive & kicking & is still getting some of the most cutting edge games available to any console, whereas 20yr old games are practically dead & deserve to be remembered the way they were 20yrs ago."
Exactly, those 20 year old games deserve to be remembered the way they were 20 years ago. That is why Nintendo put them as a "optional" choice so that your not forced to download anything.
Dude, isn't it obvious why the PS2 is still going strong? Sony's using the money from PS2 sales to aid the PS3. And since the PS3 is selling for $500 plus, most people won't be able to afford the PS3 (unless your rich, which most people aren't).
That is how Sony rips you off! And besides, most people will not get the PS3 because most people aren't as technologically advanced as some nerds and geeks are. So, people are gonna be drawn to Nintendo's console because they know it is simple and meets their price range.
That is how Sony will fail after PS3. Normal people aren't so computer savy (hence the Geek Squad) and don't feel like dropping $500 plus for a console that'll be shunned from the world in the next 6 years. They'd rather a cheap console that will be missed and remembered. Nintendo knows this and they will use it to their advantage.
So if I were you Kizza, you obvious Sony fanboy, I'd shut my mouth and get my facts from BOTH sides before opening my opinion to anyone more intellectually advanced than me.
Gnac @ Apr 22nd 2006 2:08PM
Marc, just about every hardware manufacturer will have some sort of overlap between product releases to ease transition. If it was common knowledge that a company was going to have a 6-month gap between dropping support for current hardware and rolling out a new iterations, this could turn a lot of people off. If there were no games out for PS2 leading to the PS3's launch, it could hurt more because Sony would appear not to be committed to existing users. Yes, the PS3's price point will put it in the hands of early adopters and hardcore fans at first, but it's unlikely that there will be a flood of essential games until a few months (or maybe years, in the PS1's case) into its release... when PS2 support begins to dry up.
Intruder @ Apr 23rd 2006 11:03AM
Like #17 mentionned above, BestBuy in Canada are selling the PS2 with gran turismo 4 for $129 CANADIAN, which mean around $114 in US dollars. Also FutureShop is selling it at $129 CANADIAN, but without GT4.
http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?sku_id=0665000FS10063566&catid=11167&logon=&langid=EN