| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (199)

Posted: Jan 16th 2009 8:04PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Next up: Water is wet, Stoves are hot, etc.
Reply

Posted: Jan 16th 2009 9:43PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Indeed. I don't think anyone has ever doubted the PS3's ability to sell if the price is cut far enough. It isn't painful to touch. It plays games. It doesn't give you AIDS.

The questions are as they have ever been: can Sony afford to cut the price? The answer, thus far, has been no. Sony swore off the money-pissing contest earlier this year, opting to actually make some money rather than bleed themselves dry fighting for market share.
Reply

Posted: Jan 17th 2009 2:09AM Haizeus said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I dare not look below these first few posts.




150 some odd replies can only mean a flame war.
Reply

Posted: Jan 17th 2009 5:39AM Simstim said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
seriously, and these guys get paid for this
Reply

Posted: Jan 17th 2009 9:03AM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
If they just put hw ps2 emulation back in I'd buy one. Didnt have the cash before. Dont want a used one on ebay. Have about 50 ps2 games. Dont want to add to the mess under my tv. I am pretty sure I am far from alone on these statements.
Reply

Posted: Jan 17th 2009 1:47PM Cash9007 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@HitNRun

But they *aren't* making money, and they are losing market share as their product collects dust on the shelf. That's the problem. They need to just bite the bullet and take the financial hit for the sake of expanding their install base before they lose any more relevance.
Reply

Posted: Jan 17th 2009 4:13PM Chrono951 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The real question is, sure it would sell more when the price is lower, but why would it overtake the 360?
Reply

Posted: Jan 17th 2009 8:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Guys, be careful you don't step in the bullshit... to late.

As for Pachter, he's had more wrong predictions then Sylvia Browne!
Reply

Posted: Jan 16th 2009 8:06PM Kamizar said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
And then Microsoft drops the 360's price...
Reply

Posted: Jan 16th 2009 8:07PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
let's hope so
Reply

Posted: Jan 16th 2009 8:13PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ Turd Ferguson

SERIOUSLY? You still can't afford the 360? Perhaps you should find a new hobby.
Reply

Posted: Jan 16th 2009 8:46PM Nick the Hero of Canton said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
However at this point, the PS3 would look real great for consumers looking for a blu ray player.
Reply

Posted: Jan 16th 2009 10:41PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Microsoft wishes to destroy the Playstation and have plans in effect and are ready and waiting to drop all models by at least $50.00 whever Sony announces a price drop. They might even do it before Sony makes their announcement...
Reply

Posted: Jan 16th 2009 10:55PM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
ummmmmm so y'all REALLY think M$ would drop the Price on the Arcade again anytime soon??? its already $200 any lower would put it in PS2 category.......people keep thinking MS has buckets of money and can just drop the price if it wants......they have stock holders to answer to.....do you people know ANYTHING about BUSINESS????
Reply

Posted: Jan 16th 2009 11:50PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@PSN: Aggie_CEO

First off your "M$" reeks of 2005, and already nullifies any comments you make because of your obvious bias. Microsoft makes money each time a game is sold, plus they make money on Xbox Live, microtransactions, and accessories. Maybe you should take the business class. First lesson...you have to spend money to make money... Microsoft spends money by taking a loss on system sales in hopes to make money in the long run.
Reply

Posted: Jan 16th 2009 11:52PM SirUrza said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
PSN: Aggie_CEO, YOU clearly don't know anything about Microsoft's business. Xbox 360 wasn't profitable until recently. The original Xbox was profitable in IT'S LAST YEAR. PS3 isn't profitable.

EVERY CONSOLE SOLD AT LAUNCH IS SOLD AT A HUGE LOSS.

Except PS3 (which sold at a small loss because Sony refusedto take a huge loss.)

The point is, as long as Microsoft keeps raking in money from Halo, Gears, and third party licensing royalties (hello Final Fantasy 13), Microsoft could sell the Arcade at $99 and the shareholders would care that they were losing a $100 every time they sold a console.

Finally, every time a new version of the console comes out, smaller chips, more integrated parts, etc. it means that they're manufacturing the guts at a cheaper more cost effective price. The 360s sold today are cheaper then the launch ones because they cost Micosoft less to make then they did when 360 launched.
Reply

Posted: Jan 17th 2009 12:13AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Urza

I'm pretty sure Sony lost over $300 per PS3 at launch, (not including R&D)

They lost more per system then a Wii costs at launch. I wouldn't say thats small potatoes.
Reply

Posted: Jan 17th 2009 1:25AM PhaseDMA said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Nintendo doesn't and never has took a loss.
Reply

Posted: Jan 17th 2009 2:55AM SeNiLe911 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
All Xbox 360 are bundled with games at the moment. Once the PS3 drops the price, M$ will pull the games and drop the price as well.

I can see them dropping it $50 with no problem. That's how I can see it happening anyway, since they do call them Holiday bundles, the holidays are over!
Reply

Posted: Jan 17th 2009 8:52AM (Unverified) said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
The point is this.......they are making a PROFIT off of the 360 at the moment.....undoubtedly fucking with the price will make them begin to take a LOSS again....NObody in there RIGHT mind would do shit like that JUST to help sells MURDER the competition......what Console was dropped to $150 in its first 3-4 years??? People fail to realize that MS LOST $4 BILLION on the ORIGINAL Xbox....think they have made that back yet??? well considering that the 460 JUST Turned a profit a few months back I SERIOUSLY doubt it......they still trying to recoup that....

and as for me saying 'MS' instead of Microsoft........call me lazy...has nothing to do with Fanboyism or any of that...not like I said 'M$' thats where it shows that MS is GREEDY and full of money.....
Reply

Posted: Jan 17th 2009 12:20PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@PSN: Aggie_CEO MS has been making profit on the 360 hardware since early 2007, the software has always made them profit. Don't let that tiny $ony brain fool you, 360 has an 8 to 1 attach rate even after a strong holiday.
Reply

Posted: Jan 17th 2009 1:08PM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
oh Alien Lord........I could have SWORN that they JUST Turned a Profit last fall.......I'm not looking for the article on here but I'm sure you will......and damn an attach rate.....they make money from Software licensing.....which even with 2+ million copies of Madden 08 cant add up to enough to recoup the $4 Billion lost on the Original Xbox.....in other words.....they still have a ways to go.....and lost more on that than Sony has on PS2 & PS3.......so yea......they NEED to do well....
Reply

Posted: Jan 18th 2009 2:36PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
if FF 13 goes to 360.... PS3 is dead - blue ray is crap with download already here so why bother?

DS and 360 have been the best for gamers the last few years
Reply

Posted: Jan 18th 2009 10:15PM Giroro said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
FFXII IS going to the 360, The announced it at last E3.

PS3 still has exclusiveness for Versus FFXIII and Final Fantasy Agito XIII (PSP)
Reply

Posted: Jan 16th 2009 8:06PM Ubiquitous Oxymoron said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Alien Lord is a cock.
Reply

Posted: Jan 16th 2009 8:16PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
as opposed to being a dick like yourself?
Reply

Posted: Jan 17th 2009 12:29AM Levi said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
LOL Ubiquitious

Pre-emptive strike
Reply

Posted: Jan 16th 2009 8:07PM Jeremy White said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This would be awesome I M O.
Reply

Posted: Jan 16th 2009 8:11PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yeah! And everybody knows that Sony only has the price higher because they're evil!

Oh, no, wait. They're actually already taking a significant loss at the price? The contents of the console are actually a bargain for the price? That kind of shoots holes in that whole argument ... shoot ... I'd better just keep saying Sony needs to drop their price ... yeah!

Meanwhile, it was also reported that they'd sell more Kobe beef if they dropped the price to that of hamburger. Seriously, what ARE they thinking?
Reply

Posted: Jan 16th 2009 8:32PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Urm? Who made any of those arguments?

I won't deny that the PS3 is a better value than the 360 (the more expensive models, anyway) but the fact is that the public doesn't know or care. Sony DOES need to drop to at least $299 to overtake Microsoft. There's just no way around that.

Whether they can hope to afford to do that at this point is another question.
Reply

Posted: Jan 16th 2009 10:00PM Soulcrux42 said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
Exactly
There's a point where taking too much out is just not even worth it. What should they do, take the HD out, take the wireless out, use cheaper parts?

People are just too bitchy sometimes...
I love gaming, I bought my systems without a gripe.
If you really love something, It shouldn't matter how much money it is.
Reply

Posted: Jan 16th 2009 11:34PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Doesn't matter whether or not the overall components make for a bargain; it matters as to whether or not the overall package delivers a feature set and gaming experience that's worth $100 more than the 360; which, of course, the PS3 does not.
Reply

Posted: Jan 17th 2009 12:04AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
What sells more? Kobe Beef or hamburger?

But your analogy is flawed anyways, as it assumes the PS3 is of better quality than the 360.
Reply

Posted: Jan 16th 2009 8:11PM markhill66 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I would buy a $299 PS3 right this moment if it existed.
Reply

Posted: Jan 16th 2009 8:13PM SirFishouse said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I would buy another $600 PS3 if it had the 45nm processor and PS2 compatibility.
Reply

Posted: Jan 16th 2009 8:22PM bxgt said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
LOL atleast we have a reason to have points
Reply

Posted: Jan 16th 2009 8:26PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
how is that kissing Microsofts ass? He said he wanted to buy a PS3, if anything thats kissing Sonys ass
Reply

Posted: Jan 16th 2009 8:34PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
What the... somehow my post ended up here, and above some people who had already replied. That was supposed to be a reply to Douche Biggalo. Now I'm dumb.
Reply

Posted: Jan 16th 2009 8:57PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I get the argument, I just think it's retarded. It's really the same as saying Porsche would sell more cars if they dropped the price to $5K. It's obvious and pointless.

In fact, it borders on retarded: it wouldn't benefit Sony to take a bigger soaking on the hardware, because games sell-through is low. If they lose $300 on each console sold, they have to sell like 12 games (after paying out royalties & dev costs) to recoup that. Yes, those numbers are ass-generated, but they make the point.

I'm just tired of the Sony-bashing. Yes, they're third. But the system is fine, the price is more than fair, and I'd wager most owners (all three of us) are quite happy with it. If you want to offer Sony constructive criticism, tell them not to try to make something so awesome next time, and just iterate on the last machine (like Microsoft) or ship a cheap & crappy gimmick (like Nintendo).

Reply

Posted: Jan 17th 2009 4:40AM Soulcrux42 said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
Ugh, this was supposed to be a reply to douche!
And wtf is up with me being towards the top even though I commented after all those other people...

Joystiq's commenting is seriously effed up
Reply

Posted: Jan 17th 2009 4:41AM Soulcrux42 said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
Also, I love how all you bitter people downvoted me!
Yay! :D
Reply

Posted: Jan 16th 2009 8:11PM FernandoRocker said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
But according to Sony, the 360 is expensier than the PS3.

http://i40.tinypic.com/350kt4l.jpg

And also, what about the software? According to the 2008 Year Report by NPD, PS3 owners are really the ones not buying software... not even first party games.
Reply

Posted: Jan 16th 2009 8:20PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
since PS3 owners have the highest median age of all gamers, I guess they just aren't into these "gaming videos" like us young whippersnappers
Reply

Posted: Jan 16th 2009 8:23PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Yea i only have 25 PS3 games all purchased new...

I think they should strip it down and come out with a non wireless one with a 60 gig hdd...

Then eveyone would bitch about it not having wireless though.
Reply

Posted: Jan 16th 2009 8:34PM Erdie said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
That's understandable, Fernando. Being able to replace several components in the home theater system and eliminating the rats nest of cables for a couple HDMIs is well worth it, even without the gaming capabilities.
Reply

Posted: Jan 16th 2009 8:35PM Jacksons said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Let's face it Greg, people around here would bitch if they changed the color of the box.
Reply

Posted: Jan 16th 2009 8:59PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Every f'in day I trip over the network cable I had to run to my 360, because they didn't pack in wireless and I'll be damned if I pay $99 for it.

Just shows that people will always complain about high prices, no matter what's included, but rarely complain about how little they get for a low price. People are odd.

Reply

Posted: Jan 16th 2009 9:18PM sk8monroe81 said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
douche-
did you printer come with wireless?
(maybe if you spent $ 300+ for yours)
was it necessary to print documents from your computer?

is a ps3 wireless adapter necessary to play games?

can it actually interfere, drop signal, disconnect, my router and network can be breached if wireless is on ??

sometimes things in life come with things we dont really need, and they are merely selling points to justify the $ 600 price tag, which in april 2009 maybe cut in half to $ 300.
if would have much more sense to package the wireless adapter as an accessory, but sony will never admit that.
they have already taken out bc, 2 usb ports, all media hub connections.. whats next the wireless adapter???

it is funny though when a ps3 fanboy enjoys their wireless adapter so much... i dont even use mine on my ps3 because i do not want to.

Reply

Posted: Jan 16th 2009 9:53PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@sk8monroe81: ya know a network can be hacked WITHOUT use of wifi.....I mean thats what Hackers do.....so thats a bad excuse......if you have a good enough hacker it can be done to your cell phone.....
Reply

Posted: Jan 16th 2009 10:06PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I have to come down on Sk8's side of that one. In this Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Nine, (much less in '06) wifi just isn't reliable, necessary, cheap, and non-interfering enough to justify making it mandatory in all models. It's a naked justification for the price tag. People who say they don't mind paying for wifi but already have the appropriate CAT-5/6 network running through their house fall into two categories: "rich" and "lying."

Of course, by this point the PS3 has such a marketing symbol of "with all the fixins" console gaming that they might be justified in staying the way they are.
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

Rhythm Heaven Fever review: Crazy into you

Posted on Feb 9th 2012 12:00PM

Remedy not done with Alan Wake

Posted on Feb 9th 2012 10:30AM

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW