PSM "reveals" PS3 release date, price

£225 dont I wish =P

"No doubt OPM has this information as well and cannot print it."

Hi Jeff. I work at Ziff-Davis, and talk to OPM (and 1up, and EGM, and CGW) guys regularly. Believe me, they don't know the price. And from my conversations with some of my buddies over there, PSM doesn't know the price, either.

It seems like Sony hasn't actually decided on a firm price yet. They're in the process of shrinking down everything to try to fit it in the box, getting together all the manufacturing partners for some of the miscellaneous chips, ordering parts, etc. This is the time when Sony themselves are trying to figure out exactly how much it's going to cost to build and ship, try to get that cost down, and ultimately come up with a price for consumers.

There's little chance that Sony even had a real price internally for PSM to catch wind of (remember, the print mags are produced usually a few weeks before readers get them).

There's potential that Sony would announce a price at E3, but if they do, it'll be debated internally probably up to the last minute.

Don't believe anything you see or hear about the PS3 price until Sony officially announces it. Nothing even remotely reliable is going to leak out in just a single magazine or website.

OMFG Maxim magazine claims to have the low down on the Successor to the PSP!!!

They claim it will have such innovative and never-before-seen features as two screens, one of them touch activated, and the screens will be 46-inch plasma screen and feature 1080p resolution and will launch in a very likely time frame to see a console launch and will cost a competitive price and its entire launch lineup will consist of ports of Resident Evil 4, Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion, Halo 2, Metroid Prime, Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess, all the Revolution launch titles, and GTA:LCS.

No scans though. "Why?", you may ask. I'll tell you why......... nevermind, I can't think of a good reason. Just believe it anyways.

sony is just trying to keep up a hope that they will be able to save their own asses.

That sounds very unlikely to me. Sony is Still selling ps2s by gazillions, and selling the console at that price just means massive losses.

Unless they have this magic plan to sell millions upon millions of software copies They can kiss any profit goodbye. Besides, at 500 they would be offering a pretty good deal. They just have to advertise the BR player and compare the price to stand alone players and every silly consumer on earth will consider it a bargain, regardless of if they really need it.

Since their sources were on the money with HUB, I guess this must be true too.

Doesn't it mean PS3 will offer more for the same price?

Unremovable hard drive a huge mistake? At 60gb I don't think so. Even if I could upgrade my 360 HD I wouldn't shell out for it, it streams media I need and is room enough. Besides, what am I upgrading to? 60gb? PS3 is fine with an unremovable 60gb. $900 were estimates by people who don't know as much as Sony.

We don't know how much it will cost, but the hype thing sounds like the most accurate description for what has gone on so far. People are wetting themselves at PS3 alledgedly being so much when they don't know how much the Cell costs, or how much the barebones 1/2x player costs, etc. I'm not convinced of authenticity, but it does not surprise me at all.

Now all I can do is just plead with the fucktards out here to stop posting dribble that wastes everyone's time.

Sony lover "Wow so now we're getting SO much more than the 360 for the same price!"
Sony hater "Don't be so naive it won't be that cheap/it's made out of macaroni/unremovable HD that's lame!"

Now that what I've said has fallen on deaf ears, carry on ignorantly abusing eachother...

Lee,
Come on, watch your language.
There is no love in this.
At $399, you would get more for the same price. How can you argue with that?
It's quite obvious really. Unless Microsoft decides to give their HD-DVD add-on for free.

Darth Pixel, sorry about that, didn't realise I swore. I do like to keep Joystiq/Engadget/etc clean, just annoys me seeing the same stuff back and forth.

I was trying to emphasise the "SO much more", it's hard to tell how much more extra hard drive space, blu-ray media and processor advantages will give us in terms of games.

It is true, but the Sony fanboys have (mostly) been fairly rational, so I was struggling a bit for idiotic things they've said. =P

MGS4 without taking out another credit card would be very nice though... I was gonna wait, but 360 might be playing second fiddle sooner than I thought if this is true.

(I wasn't actually referring to your post by the way, just another I'd read here somewhere)

Sony can definitley afford to go higher, i was expecting a price tag of 500 US, thats a fair price considering it has cell processor, RSX and lets not forget blue-ray along with all hd peripheral

Baseless speculation confirmed: http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=12524

#49 is absolutely correct. I love it when publications claim to have the inside scoop regarding details when it is pretty certain that the actual company isn't totally sure of the applicable detail. Sony would LOVE to set the price of the PS3 at $399 and have it come out in November. There is probably a strong corporate push for both of these things. However, until Sony finalizes everything the price is just a big guess. (Frankly, sometimes it seems like November is a big guess too, despite the fact that this detail has been formally declared.)

At #42: It's called a loss leader. If they could give away PS3's to make sure that Blu-ray is the standard next gen format, they would. If Blu-ray replaces the DVD, Sony will remake all that lost PS3 money back, and then some. The PS3 is just a vehicle to make sure they defeat HD-DVD, because they won't make any money if HD-DVD is the standard.

If they hack the price AND blu-ray fails to catch on, Sony has made a huge miscalculation.

If $399, then why not announced that? Without any price set, we're all thinking it's going to be so expensive that the price will be kept quiet until introduction. I've actually stopped considering the purchase of a PS3.

csokn:

How much "loss" is acceptable in a loss leader? $10? $100? $500? The whole point with selling a loss leader is to make the money back over time. If you don't make the money back and turn a profit, you've done nothing but lose money (which is bad).

Sony can't just arbitrarily set the price a $400 and pat themselves on the back. They need to consider what kind of revenue they'll be making from that sale. If they expect they'll pull in an addition $50 on liscened "razorblade" sales, then the most they can sell their product at is $50 under cost of production in order to break even.

So, with that in mind, considering that the PS2 sold an average of 11 games per console sold in the US, and that liscense fees per game average about $8, Sony can afford to sell the PS3 at an $88 loss. If they intend to make no money, at all, ever.

It's nice to know that everyone on this site researches their information.

Kotaku confirmed that the price was merely taken from the already mentioned numbers. Not only that, they posted the story AND updated it saying that the price is old and unconfirmed all before you guys even POSTED this.

http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/ps3/playstation-3-secrets-revealed-169828.php

Microbin:

Well, for one, that's only US without add-ons (controllers, HD, etc). I'm sure the PS2 has turned a profit and from a marketing stand point, it is a great platform to attach the rest of their products too.

As to how much is too much? I don't know. Lots of financial groups think that the PS3 could be a huge mistake in terms of initial loss, but with accounting practices you can write these things off over the long term. There's lots more to consider than just the difference between the initial cost and what they sell it for.

Good news nevertheless.

but allow the price to give or take $50-60. And TAKE THAT MERYLL LYNCH I HOPE UR READING THIS!!! A $700+ SYSTEM, DID U BLOW BILL GATES OR SOMETHING?

Sony also need address the controller issue at E3 is the Boomerang going to be the final design? They probably going to go with the Dual shock 3 and try to convince us that it's new because it has no wires. There are lots of questions to be answered at E3 wish i was going mostly for the booth babes and schwag.

since i hear the november delay for ps3 ,i think the price will be 499$. sony will probably lose about 100-200$ per console.

i like that after all arent there million dollar companies.

this is why i dont plan to buy an ipod i know that mini 40gb hard drive that just plays mp3 and now video isnt worth the 300$.but thats just me.

i dont know about the revo though ,nintendo also has millions of dollars and they make alot of their hand helds products.

i will pay dollars for a product thats worth more then what im paying for. if nintendo is selling me a product thats worth less then what not even going to look at it ,screw you.

after all i will buy a gaming console or a ipod and what is next ?????? yeah you know it pal drop some moreeee ca$$$h just to get entertientment, buy songs of itunes ,buy a video game.

this entertaiment is going way to much , remenber the good days when you had fun for hours just running around playing ball.

now all this gotta pay for a system,gotta pay for games,gotta pay for gimmicks, even pay to play online.

screw the big corp.s give me the best system with the best and latest technology and and the best games ,that are fun ,interesting and it will keep me entertaint for many hours then im in.

i will pay for ps3 499$ and more ,until mgs4 is available for pre-order.

csokn, the "US" numbers I quoted were the highest out of all markets. In Japan, the attach rate for the PS2 was ~8.5 games per console.

You are correct that hardware periphals do alter the figure by a small amount. You are also correct in stating that production costs of the hardware aren't the only thing taken into account.

But, as I'm sure you're beginning to imagine, it does not mean that Sony can set an arbitrary price and meet it. They cannot under any circumstances hit a $400 pricepoint if it costs them $600 to manufacture a unit.

No amount of "accounting" or handwaving can make that sort of loss disappear. If I start with $20 and end up with $5, I've only got $5 -- no accountant can change that. Sure, I'm sure I could come up with a bunch of babble to justify it, but at the end of the day I've lost $15.

Microbin, the Xbox 360 is sold at a loss of $126 per console, so I have no idea where you pulled the "$50 is max acceptable" crap.

What most people forget is: there will be MASSIVE shortages anyway, so they may sell it even at $1000, as some elitist idiots would pay that on ebay the day after launch whatever happens... so better in Sony's pockets than in the ones of "speculators"...

In fact, i couldn't care less... as i'm not elitist, i'll buy many Rev' games instead... :)

That Euro price point is just silly. They've just taken the US price point and put it through XE.com. As we all know, game console prices across regions have nothing to do with exchange rates.

Sony will try anything to keep buyers away from the 360! In november they will change the pricetag to $499 or more.

Btw the euro price is definately fake! €322 LOL doubble that number...

Is this the same as when they "revealed" that the PS3 would be getting 512k of system memory?

Yah, thought so....

#73 512K?

Seriously! People are still saying the ps3 will cost sony $900 to make?!?! Sony is a very large "electronics" company first and foremost. Using thier own factories I am going out on a limb and assuming that sony can eat the production cost of "every" part of the ps3 except for the cell, the nvidia video card, and the 256 mb of Xram memory.

Microbin:

They certainly cannot just wave it away, but the point of accounting is to spread out your loss over a broader time frame. If Sony, assuming no hardware shortages, could put 3 million consoles on the shelves at launch, they would have to eat a couple hundred million dollar loss within a week. No company can take that kind of blow and have their stock price survive. Instead, they mobilize their nerd accouting force to chart these losses over the long term. They still lose money, but in the stock market when your companies value is in some ways fictionalized (it's certainly not based on cash on hand, Bill Gates doesn't have a Scrooge McDuck vault with 30 billion he swims around in), you can get away with that. Now, that doesn't mean that the share holders or public will buy into that. Since companies don't have a lifespan, this type of future earnings is a legitimate tactic used all the time.

While you are certainly correct that at the end of the day, they have still lost $15. However, it is not going to instantly tank their company.

Leto, that MS is losing $126 on each 360 is pure speculation. Others have looked at it and guessed that they break even. Still others have suggested that MS does make a profit.

$399 is speculation.
$900 cost to manufacture is definetly speculation (maybe if you add in $70 mil CELL development cost and the other PS3 development costs of every single employee working on the project and simply added that to an arbitary number of PS3s sold)

Just wait for the announcement from Sony. Expect it to be no more than $150 more than the 360. That is to say no more than $549, still high, but a lot less than that $700 number some people are suggesting.

Jeff from comment #40 says:
"I mean let's not forget that 2 years ago, $399 would have been considered completely outrageous for a game console. MS opened the door for Sony to charge that price, and given Sony's past comments, now it seems almost inexpensive."

John Lucas says:
It's STILL completely outrageous for a game console; don't get it twisted. It is STILL too expensive.

No videogame console should EVER *EVER* cost more than $200 to $250 (and i'm being generous with the $250). $300 is the absolute CAP. I've been reading comments in an MMORPG article (just have recently learned about this whole MMORPG culture) & the fact that people are so willing to spend inordinate amount of money on gaming (monthly subscriptions? game bills???) shocks me to no end.

These companies encouraged by the customers put out these beyond-the-pale prices knowing how nutty folks will be to buy a simple videogame system.
You can buy a basic computer for the prices these folks are dishing out!

$499?? $399?? Apocalyptic 1999??? Hahahahaha!
It's crazy to me, man. When did gameplayers change so much? Sure there's that line of "if you want quality then you pay for it" but this is ridiculous.

If Sony goes that high for their prices, then that will be the folly of their arrogance.

Gas prices in America are strangling people's budgets & these prices have just *begun* to get bad. Wait until end of the year. Leisure money will soon be in short supply for those with priorities. Priority-less gamers will be willing to live in a cardboard box just to play games so this won't affect them.
Parents are going to be less & less willing to hand over a small fortune for just a core videogame system I don't care HOW much little (or teenage) Timmy begs.

Sony will learn the hard way if they are willing to go on this route. An aura of invincibility has its demerits.

As for this whole "loss leader" catchphrase. Since when does a leader lose? I suppose this term refers to having a wide market share but comparatively inferior profits.
Sounds to me that Sony will leading in the lose game some more if they find that price-set was too high & try to bring it more down-to-earth. They'll be getting less than before on their return.
You 'lead' in 'loss' too long and before long you'll be just 'losing'.

The truth of the matter is despite what it seems to be Sony doesn't run the game industry. Nintendo does & always has since they showed up on the scene. Sony made a mirage by grabbing hold of the marketshare in the console race but to have so much marketshare & so little profit in comparison mean that this whole thing is a smoke & mirrors illusion.

Nintendo's Gamecube the little system that could seems to be the loser but actually has profitted constantly since its inception. No, they don't have the largest market share but they always make money on their products which is REALLY what counts.

And speaking of Nintendo...they have NEVER released a gamesystem for more than $200. NEVER. NES, SNES, N64, & Gamecube all $200 or 199.99 if you prefer. ALWAYS the same. The Revolution will be no different.
Powerful tech, brand-new gaming experieinces, free online at economic prices. On the price point alone I see Nintendo running away with the next-gen contest.

I mean outside of those techheads who buy all the latest gadgets & people with an excess of spending money most people will not see the improvements of HDTV because they won't be willing to buy an accompanying (and very expensive) HDTV set to see the maximum potential of their PS3.

Concentrating on the economics will serve a game company well as the financial climate in America changes during this Bush era of historic RECORD OF ALL TIME DEBT (do you really understand what 9 Trillion IS? Hint: it take 180 Bill Gates [worth $50 billion] to pay it off).

Still however I see them annihilating X-Box 360 once they drop on the market save for unforgivable technical errors or an underwhelming experience that will make the expensive purchase ring that much more hollow. In other words they will have had to botch the launch with major technical problems or just fail to wow the game audience. That's the only way they can lose out to the 360.
X-Box's best chance is to differentiate themselves from PS3 NOW while they still have time. Make themselves seem more special & unique than Sony & they may have a fighting chance. X-Box Live was a great start but they need more if they want to stop the Sony juggernaut which they do.

From what I've been seeing over the past year Nintendo is guaranteed to dominante the next generation in all aspects & realms once the Revolution is released.
In handheld, in console, in market share, and of course in profits. Also in demographics.

Good luck to Sony & I hope they know what they're doing. Arrogance in price killed the Sega Saturn once upon a time...

John Lucas

You know why this article is fake......because did not at SONY's own PS3 Event last month state...

"The PS3 will be AT LEAST ~$425..."

Not AT MOST....AT LEAST

Keep in mind that it says the PS3 will be launched in early November to take advantage of post-Thanksgiving shopping frenzy. Thanksgiving is at the end of November.

If they don't sell it for $399 no one will buy it. I'm not going to spend $500-700 on a format that might not be around in two years, Blu_ray still has a format war to win on top of beating the 360.

I know this for a fact. Only a limited amount of PS3's will be released in the first two weeks of november in the U.S and they will be priced at 600$

I didnt read every comment on this page, but the Revolution is now called the wii And PS3 has went back to the origional controller and has two styles to sell, the 60GB version and the 30GB version. Just thought you should know...