In a note to investors today, Goldman Sachs analyst Yuji Fujimori predicted that Sony will drop the price of the PS3 by $100 dollars this October. So how will the price cut be justified? Volume! Kidding, Fujimori cites the reduction of good ole fashion parts; the fewer there are, the cheaper it is to manufacture.For example, PSX was originally manufactured with 700 components, later reduced to 200. The PS2: 2,000 parts reduced to 600. A smaller cell processor should help reduce costs as well. So for those still sitting on the fence, would a $100 PS3 price drop sway you into buying; or would it take more than that?











(Page 1) Reader Comments
Reply
Reply
I'd wish a bunch of people making snarky comments about Xbox pricing (which has nothing to do with this post) was not inevitable, but alas. Cue the immaturity.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Microsoft and Sony have ground to gain by dropping the price, Nintendo doesn't really gain much by dropping the price.
Reply
Reply
I mean Wii.
Reply
A 20GB PS3 (HDD is cheaply upgradeable) for $399 makes it the best value system on the market. $499 for the 60GB model is great, too.
Let's hope this is true!
~
Reply
A 20GB PS3 (HDD is cheaply upgradeable) for $399 makes it the best value system on the market. $499 for the 60GB model is great, too.
Let's hope this is true!
People on these boards have been clamoring for a price drop since launch, saying they'd adopt if the price were competitive. Well, here you go.
~
Reply
~
Reply
Granted, my numbers may be off a little, but I think I may be close, and if so there is no way that they reduce the cost of this thing yet.
Reply
Even at 500 it's not going to give me anything I can't get on the 360. By the time it's around 250 THEN it will have the games I need to play like Shadow of the Colossus team's project and so on.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Still too much money for my cheap pockets.
Reply
Granted, my numbers may be off a little, but I think I may be close, and if so there is no way that they reduce the cost of this thing yet."
Actually, I think you may be way off. They'll probably be removing the PS2 board in there like the Euro PS3s, go for Software Emulation for PS2/PS1 games. That'll reduce a pretty penny too. Not to mention blu-ray's success rate now will probably drop production costs of that... And I don't remember if it was the Blu-Ray or the CPU, but they mentioned about a month back that something was getting manufactured out of house, that Sony wouldn't be making them anymore... Which in turn reduced the price of that.
I'm not saying Sony isn't taking a loss. They'll always be taking a loss, but thinking that no other costs have been cut is absurd.
And on topic, no, $500 price point won't sway me. $500 price point, two Final Fantasy games, a better Hack & Slash (plthhht to Dark Kingdom), and a Dynasty Warriors game and I'm on board though.
Reply
I won't get 360 until it is 249 (I *might* give in on this one).
I won't get PS3 until it is 299 (was going to say 249, but I can't wait that long)
Reply
I'd rather spend my money on an updated HDMI XBox 360 or an iPhone.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
You're right in that they are reducing costs by removal of the EE chip (soon to be Worldwide), reducing the size of the Cell chip (90nm to 65nm), and reducing the price of blu-ray drives. But I would definitely like to know what the cost benefits of these are. Best guesses are that they lose about 240 per console produced. Would this reduce it to maybe losing only 100 bucks? Maybe even only 50 bucks?
In either case, they need to get out of the hole (close to 2 billion worth) before they can offer a substantial price cut (and yes, 100 cut is still not enough, yet). I wouldn't be surprised if they never released the 20gb in Europe, simply because that SKU is more costly.
Reply
Reply
And even then, $100 isn't going to make a difference. The PS3 isn't going to truly start moving until they can get it down to at least $300.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Scuba Owl,
ScubaOwl.com
Reply
Reply
Reply
A) drop the price of the console in order to sell more units and gain more market, but lose more per console. More sold * more loss per console = a much greater loss on hardware sales. Sony will hope to counter this with game sales, accessories sales, etc.
B) refuse to drop the price when costs decline and take less of a loss per console.
The 360 is in the same boat when it comes to loss-per-console since they also take a hit, but at least Microsoft has a healthy, established market. Sony is going to have to chose between a horrible gamble(A) and a stupid mistake(B). A's the only real choice when it comes to the livelihood of the PS3, since its sales need jump-started if Sony hopes to maintain anything regarding exclusive titles.
Reply
There are absolutely no games out for the PS3 that I want to play right now. Until then, I'm staying on the sidelines.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I disagree. It definitely won't hurt the Wii (one assumes that Nintendo would make a similar margin thanks to the same cost-cutting as Microsoft and Sony can do), and any time prices are cut demand will increase. While most people can afford a $250 system, not all can by any means. For that matter, the lower the price the greater the chance of an "impulse buy." Even if demand does not increase incredibly, it will certainly increase enough that Nintendo will benefit from the market share gain without worrying about loss opportunities for direct profit off the machine (which would be compensated by licensing and peripheral sales).
Not satisfied? Look at the PS2, which is still outselling the PS3 in many places. Why? Because people love to play games, but they don't like to spend a lot of money.
"12. Hmmm, lets see, the PS3 currently loses Sony around $280 per console sold. 80nm to 65nm reduction = 20% cost reduction (maybe). So the new loss is $224 per console (after process reduction). Now lets drop the price another $100 and we're at a new loss per console of $324???"
You're applying the 20% reduction to the loss, not the actual cost. If your numbers are right (and I don't know that they are) and the 60g PS3 costs 599+280 = 879, a 20% reduction would bring the cost down to $703. If they then take $100 off the 599 price point, they're selling a $703 machine for $499 - a loss of $204. So yes, your numbers are pretty far off. =)
I fully expect the PS3 to be the Cadillac of this generation. I don't think Sony is going to cut costs until they can significantly decrease their losses on the console. Meanwhile, $600 is not a mass-market product. People who have the system will love it, but this will most likely not be a 100 million unit seller likes its previous incarnation.
Reply
Nintendo has the most to gain. The Wii's price is still a little too expensive to be an "impulse buy" for many casual gamers and a "toy" for many parents. A price drop would tap into those markets, including the hordes of parents still buying PS2s!
Sony has the least to gain. Even after a price drop, the PS3 would still be priced in hardcore-gamer territory. It might make it more affordable for the people already saving up to buy one, but the PS3 has a long way to drop its price before it will appeal to more mainstream consumers.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
If the PSP is any indication, they'll choose B)
Reply
Reply
Reply
"Well with Blu-ray being a success due to PS3... I am wondering if losing PS3 this gen would be "lost the battle but won the war (on Bluray)" or the other way around?"
That's an interesting point. I personally don't know if BluRay is really going to be that viable, though. It seems like, even if HD-DVD goes by the way side, the adoption rate for BluRay will be much slower than that of DVD, and it still took around 5 years for DVD to get kicked off.
If the PS3 bombs completely, Sony could very well be gripping at straws for their games division, which, if I understand it correctly, makes up a large fraction of Sony's total profits. If PS3 bombs, PS4 is likely out of the question.
So, if Sony IS using the PS3 only as a trojanhorse for BluRay, they better see some ridiculous adoption rates for BluRay or they'll be out a ton of profits. After all, most agree that a BluRay-less PS3 would easily have overtaken the 360.
Reply
You forgot to factor in the savings from "the reduction of good ole fashion parts; the fewer there are, the cheaper it is to manufacture."
Thus, there is more here than just the die shrink cost savings. That's quoted directly from this blog entry. You should read first before posting, less speculation.
Any price reduction is great news!
Reply
The PS3 on the other hand, is in a direct competition with the 360, which there's no clear winner at the moment. With rumors of a souped up 360 being released this year, the PS3 will have to do something to get the public's eye other than getting people shot for their system this year. A price drop would probably do it.
Reply
"Hmm...it's been 2 years now and they've still not dropped the price of PSP....what makes anyone think they'll be any quicker with PS3?"
Wasn't the price just reduced from $250 to $200 a year ago?
Anyways, on-topic: Price reduction or no, I'm holding off on PS3 until the games I want are available (MGS4, FF13). If it's still $600 then, that's acceptable. If the price is reduced, that's fine too.
I'm what's known as a "gamer". I play the games I want to play, instead of bashing them because they're on a system I'm biased against.
Reply
That would all but force a drop on MS's part as well, wooden tit?
Reply
Reply