By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
theprof00 on 07 March 2010
Edit Thread
Wlakiz said:
theprof00 said:
Wlakiz said:
theprof00 said:

Because the 250gb ps3 costs 350$, and if you've been paying attention, which you may or may not have (since you're new), the price drop after E3 last year doubled sales. 350$ plus tax is a considerable burden on the consumer. Cutting the 120GB ps3s would effectively be a price HIKE. This would lower sales, which is bad. Sony wants to sell as many ps3s as they are able to afford. Losing an average of 6 cents on every dollar for ps3 sales is not bad, considering that when the console launched in 2006, they were losing more than 200$ per console sale, which turns out to be about 40 cents per dollar. (cost to produce launch 60Gb ps3 ~847$, cost to produce launch 20GB ps3 ~820$ / Price of each was 600$ and 500$ respectively) So, on a 20GB hardrive they were actually losing about 320$, and a 60GB lost about 247$.

Now, I think you are missing something important. You seem to think that Sony makes all of it's money on selling ps3s. This is completely wrong. Sony makes their money off of game sales. For every game that is sold (as a new copy, not used) Sony gets between 15-20$. Currently, sony loses about 18$ per console, and then makes 20$ on the purchase of ONE game. Also factor in the controllers and peripherals like eyetoy or microphone or keyboard which costs Sony much less than they charge you. In total, for someone who buys a new console (-18$), and one controller (+22$), plus one game (+15 to 20$), Sony makes about 20$.

Now then, instead of calling things inconceivable and arguing how reasonable something sounds and thinking you're right about everything. Ask better questions, because you are obviously misinformed about a great many things. I don't fault you for this at all. You are a new member here and we like to focus on the facts. You might just not be used to people who actually know what they are talking about, or something.

Is there a source to your information? Particularly on PS3 20g loss @ $320 while the loss @ 60g is $247, again I am still not convinced changing the hdd have such large effect on the income margin. I would be entirely 'inform' if i look at the 'facts' myself tho.

 

 

http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2006/11/isupply_ps3_com/

http://www.firingsquad.com/news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=22393

In the second article, it says that as of dec 14th 2009, the 120GB costs Sony about 336$ to make. The 120GB ps3 goes for 299$ retail.

"while Toshiba's 120GB HDD is next at $38"

On the Pricewatch link I gave you, it shows 120GB HDDs as 28$. Those drives are lower quality than the Toshiba ones, however, a retail toshiba 120GB internal costs about 39$ at this point in time. However, in bulk, those hard drives probably cost 30$ or less now compared to 3 months ago. Now the jump to 250GB, as shown on the pricewatch website, is roughly 12$. So, given the costs of then compared to now, and an upgrade, the 250GB ps3 probably only costs 12$ (or less, based on devaluation and lower pricing ratio) more to make than the 120GB. However, the 250GB ps3 costs 350$, so, they are roughly (very roughly) making ~38$ more on the 250GB ps3 than the 120, which is about a 12% increase or more.

 

Also, I wanted to ask you something. You argue like you've done it before...but the fact you haven't heard about what ps3s costs or even understand how negligible the price difference between HD storage is, is very strange. Like, you seem to have the air of someone who is smart, but you're not understanding some very basic concepts (in my opinion). Are you trolling me? If not, what websites are you usually on where you debate these kinds of thigns?

I don't think you understand my position. I know that there is an increase income margin between 120g and 250g but what you and Jarrod is suggesting is that they losing way more than $18/console on the 120gb and they are making a large profit for 250gb (to average that out to 6cent/dollar loss on console in general).. mutiply that by 2 million console (1 million 120gb and 1 million 250gb).. you are suggesting that they lose >18million dollars on 120gb but they get >$17.88 million for 250gb? If this was the case, Sony can just manipulate the console distribution ratio (sell 0.5million 120gb and 1.5million 250gb) to make an overall profit/dollar but instead they decided to stick with 6cent/dollar loss/console?

I understand they get a higher income margin with each skus, but the increase in margin is usually small, it is usually a gradual shift, not a large jump from loss to profit.

Also, you need understand the difference between convincing and understanding. Just because I am not convinced , doesn't mean I don't understand your dispostion. Eg. US understand that global warming is a problem, but they are not convinced that we are experiencing global warming.

Finally, I didn't leave. I just decided to turn in for the night; I don't really sit in front of the forum and refresh every minute.

Haven't you heard of the 120gb ps3 shortage recently? Everybody has been talking about it for weeks. On average, the 250g has more in stock than the 120g. If that isn't exactly what you just said, I don't know what is. That seems to be the final burden of proof you are looking for.

And yes, for the last time, the 250g costs them approx 10$ more to make, but they sell it for 50$ more. That's a 40$ difference, which is close to a 15% increase.

You are also forgetting what I said above about the currency rates. Right now, the yen is worth more than most money, but the price of the consoles don't differ that much across the world. So, on top of making profit on some and loss on other skus, in some regions they make money on both and in other regions they lose money on both. What you're asking is very complicated, and I don't see the reward in convincing you, especially when it has taken me so much effort and fact presentation already, on this subject alone.

And no, you don't have to go on clicking refresh every minute. You can easily post something and then check back half an hour later, an hour later, 2, 3..etc. So far, it's been an average of you checking once every twenty-four hours (for me at least). So I'd say you are nowhere near in danger of hitting refresh every minute.