torok said:
Yes, but the faster price cuts on the PS3 were due to the ridiculous original price. Before hitting 299 with the Slim they were in deep trouble. I also always thought that Ken's excuses were mostly BS. He basically claimed that the machine had to be hard to develop for so devs would take longer to use it at full potential and the generation would be longer. The truth is that they were planning to use 2 Cells and no GPU and when they finally saw that it would be ridiculously underpowered, they slapped a weak Nvidia GPU and ended up suffering against the 360. Ken has a lot of history and was important to the PS brand, but the PS3 was the big mistake on his career,
Most likely they will. I guess they will try to keep the price high in 2018 and see how it works. But next year the price cut will be permanent. I wonder if 2018 Holidays would see a 170 PS4 or if they would just keep it at 200 and add games to a bundle. |
I agree that Ken made mistakes on PS3, but the take time to use the power isn't really an excuse if you consider that PS1 and PS2 also weren't simple to dev for. Only at PS4 Sony concerned with making the HW straight and easy.
Anyway... besides PS3 being faster to drop in price, PS1 and PS2 also dropped faster than PS4 (and keep in mind that the regular price is still 299).

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."







